Actually, I think The donald was thrilled to meet the Man. They should go horse riding.Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Actually, I think The donald was thrilled to meet the Man. They should go horse riding.Originally Posted by AntRobertson
Originally Posted by sabang
I believe Putin is seen as a strong leader by fellow Ruskies. Comrades have a certain respect for strength in leadership.
He certainly isn't any more dangerous than Stalin was.
Do you mean that he started the Majdan revolution? What cost the Obama's woman Nuland $5B and much more later?
Why don't you read other sources that the ones who speak out under oath, nothing but truth ()? Then you can use your brain to consider what is the truth?
Or you can ask like the old fool John Simpson 2 years ago:
JOHN SIMPSON, BBC: Western countries almost universally now believe that there’s a new Cold War and that you, frankly, have decided to create that. We see, almost daily, Russian aircraft taking sometimes quite dangerous manoeuvres towards western airspace. That must be done on your orders; you’re the Commander-in-Chief. It must have been your orders that sent Russian troops into the territory of a sovereign country – Crimea first, and then whatever it is that’s going on in Eastern Ukraine. Now you’ve got a big problem with the currency of Russia, and you’re going to need help and support and understanding from outside countries, particularly from the West. So can I say to you, can I ask you now, would you care to take this opportunity to say to people from the West that you have no desire to carry on with the new Cold War, and that you will do whatever you can to sort out the problems in Ukraine? Thank you!
Why is there a big edit at 1:28, at which point Putin responds to a US journalist and not Simpson?
Why you are so fucking gullible? "We are not attacking anyone in the political sense. We are not invading anyone"? How the fuck is that bullshit supposed to be "crushing" anyone?
And what on earth are your first two sentences supposed to mean?
Are you trying to use Putin's diversion from the actual question to try and avoid the truth yourself?
Come on now, Yutub Fake, the next thing you'll say is Price Phillip is dead.Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Very exceptional in the world history:
Soviet Army withdrawals from Eastern Europe after the Fall of Berlin Wall, withdrawal also from Afghanistan, granting independence to many former Soviet republics, withdraw its army from there.
Cannot recall any similar withdrawal (or grant) actions by US Army (exception the "withdrawal" from Vietnam).
Now, the non-withdrawn armies from Europe - supported by friendly (formerly unfriendly) mini-armies from the "independent" Eastern countries move to the Russian gates and flexes their invincibility.
So, how dangerous is Mr. Putin, anyway?
Dont forget the expansionist policies of the EU taking in the countries given independence from the Soviet Union by Russia, from the start in 1952
To the new members it is looking to gobble up.
Then there are the nukes lined up along Russia's border.
Yeah but Russia invaded Crimea eh harry...
huh?...Originally Posted by birding
Who has Russia invaded against their will Harry ?
You will probably say Crimea but thats not true there was a referendum and well Russia won.
And the Ukraine, well thats not true either for a non bias look at what went on there:
Ukraine: Lies, propaganda and the West's agenda - Al Jazeera English
Once you have answered that tell us who has the US with the assistance of EU countries invaded against their will since WW2.
You see Harry the EU is tied in to NATO and a promise was made back 1990 that NATO and therefor the EU would not expand east, that promise was broken.
This from the LA Times :
Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise - LA TimesIn early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.
The US lied Harry they broke their promise and they are still expanding NATO and even threatening Russia with nukes in Europe, warplane flights and warships close to Russian territory.
You have probably heard of a thing called the "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" could you tell us how the US putting nukes in Europe complies with their obligations under that treaty.
You could also tell us which other countries Russia has put nukes into.
Actually, all this is clearly explained by Putin in his Interviews with Oliver Stone. Who does not want to believe it, cannot be helped.Originally Posted by birding
All the documents, references of these events can be found on Internet or in any other trustful sources.
Please give that tedious delusional bullshit a rest already.Originally Posted by birding
If they wanted to take Crimea back from Ukraine then it should have been done by negotiation and Ukraine should have had some serious compensation coming their way for ceding strategic sovereign territory.
Crimea referendum: Voters 'back Russia union'
16 March 2014
Some 95.5% of voters in Crimea have supported joining Russia, officials say, after half the votes have been counted in a disputed referendum.
Crimea's leader says he will apply to join Russia on Monday. Russia's Vladimir Putin has said he will respect the Crimean people's wishes.
Some 58% of people in Crimea are ethnic Russian, with the rest made up of Ukrainians and Tatars.
Crimea referendum: Voters 'back Russia union' - BBC News
Actually the "annexation", was not so smart, as:
-Annexation of Hawaii, 1898 https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17661.htm
or any other annexation, sorry "acquisition"
-United States territorial acquisitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...l_acquisitions
(the last "acquisition" in Panama was quite smart, wasn't it?)
Agreements without a formal deal....in other words no deal.Originally Posted by birding
Sounds like Moscow underplayed what a 'new inclusive Europe' and 'cooperate' meant to Washington. Not seeing how this justifies Putin's actions in the Crimea.. Baker pledged in Moscow on May 18, 1990, that the United States would cooperate with the Soviet Union in the “development of a new Europe.” And in June, per talking points prepared by the NSC, Bush was telling Soviet leaders that the United States sought “a new, inclusive Europe.
Irrelevant cobblers as has already been pointed out about 113 times..Originally Posted by Klondyke
Do you need me to type slowly for you?
You cannot go abroad and hold an illegal unofficial referendum in a territory belonging to another nation and then claim that you are legally relieving them of their land.
This is obvious to even a cretin.
The history of ownership and the ethnicity of residents do not make one wit of difference.
If Russia wanted to get Crimea back it should have been done by negotiation and with a view to offering Ukraine sizeable compensation.
Do you think Ukraine should accept having land commandeered by a neighbour without any kind of compensation?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)