Russia wants to protect their navy base in Latakia, otherwise they wouldn't give a rats ass about Syria. Therefore, they are already in the Med and have been there for decades.
Europe is disunited already, they are just a business for big businesses. Wouldn't count on them for some defense, unless it is in the interest off some big business. China is already surrounding Europe and the US. They built up those islands in South China sea and that is theirs, whether the world recognizes/accepts it or not. They also control Panama canal as Panama broke relationship with Taiwan and accepted one China policy. By building navy bases in Sri Lanka, they will have presence in Indian ocean from where they can control the Suez. They are also massively investing into East African countries, not because they love them but to have access to their natural resources (better approach then military intervention) and to gain Navy bases there. For if you control the maritime routs, you control the world trade, just like Britain did. And as long as big businesses control the politicians, jackshit will be done.

if trump not owned by Russia, maybe he thinks by joining with them, china will be counterbalanced. Or trump wants to be a czar. Or is china closer to Russia?

Who likely will control s America?

china and Russia seem to have governmental continuity relative to us and Europe.

What accounts for trump's bromance with putin.

At least we outspend the others and have enough wealth to stay strategic for decades to come. Guess trump worried about that too on trade.....

Like I said, over my pay grade

I’m only commenting on the complete 180 that has been done by people who have been clamoring for us to get out of Afghanistan (and Syria) who are now saying we shouldn’t....


That is a good point but it also doesn't apply to all those opposed to the wars.


In my case, and a lot of Canadians, we supported the invasion of Afghanistan and even though we pulled out, I think the ongoing mission is vital to prevent the Taliban from taking over. We owe a lot to the U.S for staying there and a pull out now will make the deaths from all those people meaningless. Think of all the people who helped fight against the Taliban within Afghanistan and the risk they now face?


In terms of Syria, a lot of people want less U.S involvement in the Middle East and opposed the initial incursion into Iraq but once there, you have to ensure you don't leave a mess, particularly for those who stood by and assisted the U.S (ie. allies, Kurds and others who fought ISIS). Trump's entire Middle East policy (let's pretend that he does have a policy) was to curb the power of Iran but this does the opposite. It also helps the one person he should be distancing himself from and that is Putin. There just doesn't seem to be an overall strategy and that makes it smell like a political decision to help him (it's no co-incidence that it happens at the exact same time as Trump shutting down the government).


There's also the blatant lies about the defeat of ISIS which makes it even look more political. He's simply ignoring the fact that ISIS is not defeated and now runs the risk of having them gain strength, which will be the direct result of his decision, and his decision alone. I think it's awful risky for a President to do that without having someone to share the blame (he will blame someone of course).