Wasn't quite expecting that development.

first of all, Russia needs to be careful, with the US having a leadership change this year the question becomes how will the new leader respond to aggressive military expansion. Obama would respond by condemning Russia economically and politically but in the end assisting Russia with the containment of the Nuclear arsenal. I think some of the candidates right now would view Russian action in NK as a threat and respond with military force. We could see a sudden global conflict on a large scale as US forces are simultaneously dragged into conflict in Syria, Iraq, the Korean Peninsula, South / East China Seas, and possibly even europe if Russia goes all out. Economically the world is due for a third world conflict, POlitically the world is due for a third world conflict, the world is that much closer to world war 3.

"We could see a sudden global conflict on a large scale as US forces are simultaneously dragged into conflict in Syria, Iraq, the Korean Peninsula, South / East China Seas, and possibly even europe."

"And THAT", said the Professor pointing with a smile at CommanderByron, "is called getting carried away with oneself."

Speaking of global conflicts whats the theme for M18?

Maybe trump can build a wall? That solves a lot.

This is what happens when your puppet doesn't obey your orders. Although North Korea is more of China's puppet these days.

It's not much of a threat when the invading force you're talking about isn't you. I could make the same threat just as effectively.

Wjessop plus 1.

A question for American guys here, and others: who would start a (nuclear) war easier, Hilary or Donald? I would like to hear the arguments. Thanks.

Neither of them strike me as warmongers, but if I had to pick one it would be Clinton. Trump doesn't seem to be particularly hands on as far as foreigners are concerned. If they have something worth trading, he'll trade. If not they can do whatever the hell they like. Clinton may end up doing something unwise out of a sense of international moralistic duty, but if she carries on the Obama school of softly softly I doubt it.

Rubio, now, is another matter entirely.

Thanks Oct!
Bump

Oct what about Cruz? Since he may be the only legitimate shot at beating Trump for the nomination if things pan out.

Wait, why are you guys talking about an american president doing anything in Korea?

Putin has shown he is willing to use force, in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria. Obama is on the verge of working with him to help sort syria out; it seems more than likely that Obama would praise Putin for invading N. Korea (russia has a land border with NK, and probably has a functionong rail system to transport troops... I'd guess they can project power across the border...)

How China responds is the more interesting question. (especially since they seem to be antagonising all their neighbours of late, and an informal alliance of India, Japan, and Vietnam is growing; if China frustrates Putin, and South Korea sides with the new alliance, we could have a series of small border conflicts and a lot more instability in east Asia)

I just asked who is more hawkish in foreign policy, Clinton or Trump, its interesting to watch the election race from the other side of the globe. And I thought its Clinton, but I would rather want someone from US to explain me. Thats all.

Clinton is definitely more hawkish than Trump. Clinton has never met a war she didn't approve of, she was instrumental in overthrowing the governments of Honduras, Ukraine, and Libya. She was instrumental in pushing her husband to bomb Yugoslavia in the 90s. She is a sociopath. She gloated when she heard of the brutal way in which her jihadist friends in Libya murdered Gaddafi.

"Putin has shown he is willing to use force, in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria."

Jesus it amazes me how brainwashed Europeans are.

Americans are bombing the entire fucking planet. We just bombed 150 Somalis and called them "combatants". We bomb MSF hospitals every other week. We're helping the Saudis blow up Yemen. But yeah, it's definitely the Russians who are using force because they accepted the democratic will of the people of Crimea, and send humanitarian aid to the people's republics who are being cluster bombed by their own fucking government.

There are no reports anywhere of Russia threatening to invade North Korea. This report is horseshit. Russia went of its way to make sure that the North Korean sanctions weren't completely barbaric, like the Americans wanted them to be. The sanctions are already the most brutal ever suffered by any state anywhere.

Oh and please pay no attention while the Turks openly invade Syria with their Daesh friends and the Italians are plotting an invasion of Libya, with European support. You guys are such humanitarians and care about stuff like that.

And the Israelis are preparing to attack Lebanon.

"(especially since they seem to be antagonising all their neighbours of late"

No, the Americans are doing everything they can to ratchet up the tension in the South China Sea, which was perfectly fine before the US poked their nose in it. South Koreans view China a hell of a lot more favorably than they view the United States. China also gets along well with all the Central Asian countries, particularly Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have very friendly relations with Cambodia and Laos. So you don't know what you're talking about.

Putin33, i have never been one to defend the use of force by the US. My point here being that Russia is one of the only other super powers to be willng to use her military.

But no, make it all about us vs them.

Ok, re-reading some articles about it, What the media is reporting as 'threats' sound more like a friendly warning - Russia will not veto military action against NK if they continue to provide the legal basis for UN action - which threatening to nuke your enemies pre-emptively does.

I'll ignore the rest of your blather, because everyone already knows the US engages is drone strikes to execute brown people. Everyone knows this is a war crime... And many people on the forum may recall I criticised Obama from summarily executing Osama Bin Laden.

Your rant is rather boring, at off-topic. Only Russia has sent troops to Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. You don't see Turkish or Egyptian troops in Syria, nor do you see Iranian forces (though Hezbollah have fought there, and we can presume are backed by Iran.)

" You guys are such humanitarians and care about stuff like that." - blah blah blah; talk to someone who hasn't consistently criticised all use of state violence.

Turkish troops have repeatedly entered Syria and they've been shelling Kurdish territory there continuously. They use Daesh proxies as their shock troops, this is well documented. I notice you forgot to mention anything about Arab troops in Yemen.

Russia did not send troops to Ukraine and were already stationed in Crimea as part of a treaty with Kiev prior to the referendum. They didn't send more troops. They sent troops to Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government.

Your propaganda is very irritating.

"talk to someone who hasn't consistently criticised all use of state violence."

You deny Turkish aggression and invent Russian aggression. I'm not impressed with your supposed above the fray posturing.

Indeed, they *say* Russia sent troops, but I don't remember any single proof (not counting the 'humanitarian help') *might* have sent weapons or money, but no proof of troops, and of course NATO has sent money (and probably weopons too) to the other side...

There's no direct involvement of Turkey on Syria, but there's more than one thing pointing some responsabilities to Turkey.

"Turkish troops have repeatedly entered Syria and they've been shelling Kurdish territory there continuously" - turkey has been at war with the Kurds for decades, and yes, they have continued and expanded this war because they don't want Syrian Kurdistan become a supporter of Turkish Kurdistan.

But for the most part Turkey is not getting involved in the Syrian conflict. They have the second largest military force in NATO and they are sending weapons to enemies of the Kurds... Whoever is willing to do their bidding.

And i'm not inventing Russian aggression. The Russians have gotten involved despite not having a border with Syria. It is more notable

Turkey might be doing bussiness with daesh oil too

"And i'm not inventing Russian aggression."

You just can't call that an 'aggression'

I have every confidence that Russia did send additional troops to back up those already stationed in the Ukraine. The idea that Russia wouldn't send reinforcements to the region when the legitimate Ukrainian government had been overthrown by a anti-Russian mob strikes me as somewhat odd.

The idea of Russia getting more enthusiastic about using military force in foreign lands isn't particularly far fetched, as I dare say being cheered on by a grateful public in Crimea, and being cheered on by a grateful public in Syria, is quite addictive. But yeah, there is not a shred of evidence that Russia sees North Korea as anything other than a place to avoid.

@Octavious
"I have every confidence that Russia did send additional troops to back up those already stationed in the Ukraine."

1. As fas as I know the only stationed troops in Ukraine were in Crimea, and Crimea decided in a way much more democratic than US primaries, to be part of Russia.

2. I won't deny the temptation to send troops to rebeld area, but I'd lie you to point me to proofs.