Is there any merit to the claim that Trump could unite the US

>>32069527
Russia would become another dirt fucking poor welfare military taking every training exercise to "accidently" lose more joint operation equipment and demanding we pay for more and more of their shit if we wanna stay on their good side

In the Middle East, it will be business as usual. The Russian Federation will continue its indiscriminate bombing throughout Syria in attempts to prop up a failing regime while unenthusiastically continuing to root out the true insurgent forces when it pleases their agenda or when it makes them look good. Russia will likely be able to ramp up its bombing campaign even further, as Trump seems to have already favored capitulating to Russia and letting the former Soviet Union do "whatever it takes" to destroy ISIS, an entity which according to him, "was created by Obama".

The European theatre is a much larger question mark. Trump has certainly voiced his opinion in regards to the United States participating in NATO -- his remarks have often been less than warm in regards to our allies not "paying their fair share", proof that a man of his temprament with a lack of international relationary knowledge should not be in office in the first place. Those not interested in politics or international relations often claim that the Obama administration has dealt with Russia by simply cowering in fear. Those whom are interested often note a flailing nation acting out due to extremely constricting sanctions and a massive buildup of NATO troops throughout Eastern Europe. I firmly believe that if the legislation allowed for Obama to run for a third term, we would see a cornered Russia lash out in ways that would lead to war, and perhaps even its own collapse.
American foreign policy in a future with Trump is dismal regardless, because no one knows whether he will stay true to his word as a wild card and throttle back American involvement in both theatres, or whether he will simply serve as a puppet to a Congress who would gleefully welcome a second Cold War.
Regardless, there will not likely be any military alliance between the United States and the Russian Federation. If Trump remains defiant against pressuring Russia, then we will likely see the United States capitulating to Russia in several ways (think armed interventions, forced annexations, human rights violations en masse with no sanctions). Regardless, Trump alone will not be able to draw down the buildup of NATO forces, especially as he works with an all Republican congress that is already set on increasing the defense budget by a minimum of $500 billion.

The prospect of further NATO expansion and agression will make Russia continue to act a fucking fool. No matter what happens in the next four years, Russia will harbor a deep hatred for America, and this will likely prevent any cooperation between the two nations. Trump believes that once he is in office that the two nations will suddenly see a thaw and we'll be fucking butt-buddies. The truth is that Putin doesn't want to be friends -- he wants us to remain stagnant while his country takes its own turn in raping the world. We'll see what Trump thinks after his dumbass lifts the sanctions and gives Putin a free pass to run amok.

>>32069527
Damn that Bear is T H I C C

>>32069527
I want to fuck that bear

>>32069527
I wanna tittyfuck the shit out of that bear.

>>32069693
>>32069697
>>32069703
Well, here's to thicc bears, importing REXs and praying to all that is mighty that you're wrong for everyone's sake.

>>32069693
>>32069697
>>32069703
Seriously, what did you expect when post-truth politics dictates policy-making?

>>32069527
i would like to have sexual relations with that bear if you know what i mean

>>32069527
I wanna fug that bear

>OP wants discussion about effect of geopolitics on military cooperation
>Anons just want to fuck the T H I C C ruskiebear

Never change

File: K goes deer hunting.png (156KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1280x1024px

>>32070094

>>32069693
What kind of world are we living in baka

>>32069527
Russia is the pimp of Syria and friend of Iran. Both enemies of Israel. America is a Dominion of Israel. ISIS is highly beneficial to Israel. You get my drift, OP.

>Is there any merit to the claim that Trump could unite the US with Russia militarily
No.

>>32070094

it's mama-bear Russia, of course it's up everyone's alley

File: IMG_2432.jpg (42KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 228x221px

>>32069703
>mfw the dream of a great Russo-American alliance will never be real

T H I C C

Trump doesn't understand Putin's motivations or the history of Russia that drives such motivations. He'll either get duped by Putin or end up angry at the lack of actual reciprocity by Putin.

>>32069527
>that pic
tfw no bear waifu

>>32071735
Or he does and wont give russia shit.

>>32071775
But it's more than obvious that he has no idea how deeply steeped Russian culture is in the concept of having enemies at its borders. The only thing Russians hate more than the concept of democracy is perceived expansion against their motherland, particularly in the form of NATO collecting former satellite states like chess pieces in a game that Russia has been losing for the better half of this decade.

Anyone notice that Russia announced it'a deploying S-400s and Iskanders in Kaliningrad? For those of you who don't know, Kaliningrad is an enclave literally behind the NATO curtain. Ain't no alliance happen anytime soon lol

>>32069693
>letting the former Soviet Union do "whatever it takes" to destroy ISIS, an entity which according to him, "was created by Obama".

>implying it wasn't

>>32069697
>is remarks have often been less than warm in regards to our allies not "paying their fair share"

>implying he's not right

>>32074195

>implying it wasn't

Are you a fucking mouth-breathing idiot? ISIS would have never formed without the Invasion of Iraq in 2003. You can thank Bush for that.

>implying he's not right

How about he's not? They pay more than their fair share considering how they serve as a bastion and front line in the fight against a particularly poisonous brand of Russian nationalism.

>>32074429
>ISIS would have never formed without the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Nice b8 m8.

lel ISIS was formed in 2013 by a combination of Sunni/Shia religious tensions and The Arab Spring. If the Iraq war had never happened, it is quite possible that ISIS still would have formed, considering that all ISIS is, is pissed off Sunnis led by (ex)al Qaeda core members.

Bush had been out of office for 5 years and the Shia led government had marginalized the Sunnis(by gaining a Shia majority in their newly democratically elected govt).

The Sunnis protested and PM Maliki overreacted, sent in the troops and 900 Sunnis were massacred.

ISIS is just another morphed branch of al Qaeda, and when they are gone, there will be another group to take their place; al Nusra would be my first guess.

>>32074623
>ISIS would have happened under a fascist Sunni state

>>32074633
Caliphate Revanchism, lad. It's not like there isn't always a harder line to take with foreign policy, and ISIS is just the most extreme branch of fascist Sunnism.

>>32074623

Your post proves him right. There was no Shia-dominated government in Iraq until after the invasion (roar)

>>32074687
>ISIS would have formed in a country governed by secret police
>ISIS would have formed when the Sunnis were still in charge of the country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BE95qqkTc0

File: ISIS Pepe.jpg (36KB, 429x343px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 429x343px

>>32074623
The origins of ISIS go as far back as the tail-end of the 90's, as an off-shoot branch of Al-Qaeda that set up shop in Iraq after the invasion, and participated heavily in the insurgency movement. It's had it's own branches and evolution since then, but neither Bush nor the Obama administration is directly responsible for it's formation.

It can be argued that Obama could have intervened more firmly when the Iraqi government went to shit so shortly after the departure of US forces, or when the civil unrest in Syria took an ugly turn. Except one of the main public expectations of his administration was to taking US troops out of hot zones in the Middle East, not throwing even more of them into the grinder. In the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, the US public had lost it's appetite for losing anymore soldiers in those shitholes.

I wonder if that's on the verge of changing, with Trump and his cabinet of hardliners about to take the helm. Otherwise, I really do wonder how exactly Donald's planning to tackle this.

File: 1432357552792.png (1MB, 1062x653px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1062x653px

>>32074718
>(roar)

File: 1462012489877.png (58KB, 277x247px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 277x247px

>>32069527
>tfw I think I found my new fetish
t-thanks OP

Also to answer your question, I doubt the US and Russia will be full-blown allies anytime soon, but there will be a coalition in the Middle East for a brief time. Considering Russia and NATO are both moving massive amounts of troops on their borders it's safe to say that everything won't just magically be fine-and-dandy.

>>32077087
This. On both accounts.

I want to hug that bear and call her mama.

Live out my days on the country side fishing in a stream coming home to fresh pies and dead villagers because my mother is a wild animal.

>>32071718
Don't give up anon, Mosins on Mars can still happen.

>>32069527
Dat bear would get it.

>>32069697
>>32069697
>his remarks have often been less than warm in regards to our allies not "paying their fair share"
Most of them aren't paying their measly obligation of 2%. You are a complete joke.

Idiots like you keep repeating the "Trump wants to disband NATO" and "Trump is a Russian shill" conspiracy theories.

>>32077087
Once you start down the furry road, there is no turning back, anon.

>>32077532
He is a Russian shill. Shut the fuck up

>>32078237
Cool evidence, anon

>>32069527
That's one sexy bear.

File: 1463029040925.png (254KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 400x600px

>>32078086
but I'm not a furry

>>32069527
>US-Russia Alliance
Every cunt on /pol/ dreams of it, because muh Putin.

But the reality is that the US has nothing to gain from allowing Russia to become anything like an equal partner on the international stage.

>>32074623
>Doesn't know ISIS went through many renames since 1997. Tawhid al-Jihad, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, and now the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
>Doesn't know it only aligned with AQ for convenience sake and broke off from them when they outlived their usefulness.
>Doesn't know that the de-Ba'athification process under the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 was the primary reason many Sunnis flocked to insurgency groups and Tawhid al-Jihad in the first place.

Hope you're not one of those post-truth faggots, because you clearly didn't read your history and are talking out of your ass.

>>32080285
Why does everyone conflate repealing import bans and killing ISIS together with rolling over and letting Russia bomb Europe? It is all concern trolling and conspiracy theory. We were importing weapons from Russia just a few years ago. How exactly does this mean we let them do whatever they want to suddenly? If anything, it's the opposite. Cornering them by placing sanctions and giving them nothing to lose is stupid.

>>32080588
I agree with you, sanctions and diplomatic isolation don't generally help reduce tensions, but a lot of fantasists who reside on /pol/ have this idea of the US and Russia teaming up and saving the white race etc.

As I said, the US isn't going start cooperating with Russia in the ME, it doesn't need to partner up with Russia, and it's relationship with house of Saud is too important to fuck up.

>>32080285
It's not just a matter of US interests, which completely diverge.
We also have a network of relationships forming a security architecture across the planet which would prohibit such a move. Not to mention the image of the US which would result. Taken together, it would throw the global community off-tilt. (Which is why Congress would never allow it.)
In the decision of either aligning ourselves with much of the planet or Russia, a decrepit, corrupt banana republic with GDP the size of Italy, the US will always choose the rest of the world. There's very little to gain, and everything to lose. And that's assuming they don't take us for a ride, which leaves us with not just net loss, but gross loss.

The Infowars crowd on 4chan don't seem to realize that the US aligning itself with Russia is one of the least doable things Trump has suggested.

>>32080606
Oh yeah, Trump also promised cutting ties with the Saudis during campaigning.

His support base is going to be very disappointed if he doesn't follow through with that.

>>32080654
I wouldn't really define repealing import bans as 'aligning with Russia'.

>>32082847
>Who ever said this was about an "alliance"? It's all about import AKs!
The OP, and the comment I responded to, were in reference to the belief that the US might "align with Russia". Put the gaslighting back in your pocket, and try it on the next guy.