Russia ready to restore relations with US, says Vladimir Putin

[Morch]

@Merzik

 

I have addressed your post. Bottom line, there were no no-fly zones, and no war. You can keep harping no that more, but it wouldn't change the facts. Here is the relevant bit from our previous exchange on the same:

 

In essence, everyone, and that includes HRC, are and were aware this is not going to happen without Russian cooperation. There was never any real danger of direct military confrontation over this.

 

HRC made her comments while on the campaign trail. Even if she had won the elections, this would have gone nowhere for months. In the mean time, the Russians are carrying on their military intervention without hindrance. By the time a new US president would be able to start addressing the issue, a major part of the Russian operation (read Allepo) could be over anyway. Then, the new president could deal with the Russians, and the Russians could agree to cooperate. Doesn't work that well for Syrian civilians on the ground, but doubt most politicians on either side care.

 

 

Seems like were moving in circles here, so unless you got anything else, might as well drop the issue.

 

 

 

 

[Publicus]

3 minutes ago, Merzik said:

There are still some honest liberals in the world...though not many are American it seems. The "Assange is Putin's whore" charge is as absurd as your charge that "Trump is Putin's puppet." Hyperbole. Counterpunch gets it right:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/09/libeling-leakers-julian-assange-wikileaks-and-the-russian-connection/

 

The post mentions "honest liberals in the world" and so on.

 

Assange is an old America hater from down under where there are a bunch of 'em.

 

Wikileaks got Snowden from his hideout in Hong Kong to Putin's arms while volumes of U.S. national security data got deposited with CCP in HKG and then in Moscow. We're not talking about embassy cables.

 

 So let me alter the diction to say Assange is Putin's bitch.

[Merzik]

Morch:

The Russians are in Syria with the permission of the Syrian government. They are killing IS, AQ , Al Nursra and sundry Wahhabist jihadists from all over the world. As in any war innocents are caught in the crossfire and there have been war crimes. Neither side are angels but the West has been backing the worst side by far.

This might change very soon.

In a new interview with the Wall Street Journal, President-elect Donald Trump said that he is likely to end the US support of “moderate” Syrian rebel groups, saying that “we have no idea who these people are” and that the US needs to focus on defeating IS. Russia and the US together aganist islamic nutballs is terrific news.

Apart from the Kurds most of the "moderates" were anything but moderate. A few years ago John Mc Cain met with a "moderate" who ripped out a dead Syrian's heart and ate it on a video. Many of the "moderates" were also the corrupt mafioso that Assad purged before war began. The Syrian economy improved after this reform. These crooks then allied with the jihadists from all over the ME...and were put on the Saudi payroll. These are the people we are backing. Assad is ruthless but the lesser of two evils in this conflict.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Publicus]

 

Trump does not have the slightest notion of what he is talking about in virtually every instance of foreign policy, international relations, international bodies and organisations, international institutions, international law, or of the diversity of the peoples of the world.

 

GW Bush's UN Ambassador John "Nukes" Bolton is reported to be up high on Trump's list which Trump hasn't any idea of, to be Secretary of State. John Bolton is a Wilford Brimley looking and acting guy who gives ulcers -- John Bolton does not get ulcers. 

 

Bolton on Putin: 'Cause him pain'

 

•  

•  

“If you asked the question of Vladimir Putin, ‘who would you rather see president of the United States?’ the answer would be Hillary Clinton,” Bolton said

“I think in order to focus Putin’s thinking, we need to do things that cause him pain as well,” Bolton said to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News. 

 

And Russia’s not the only one who should be punished, Bolton said. China should feel some pain too for its part.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/vladimir-putin-russia-john-bolton-095327

 

 

Bolton had been Under Secretary of State for -- of all things -- Arms Control. People say the main reason Bolton has not been allowed to meet Vlad is that Putin would get a swift kick.

 

Bolton believes the only common interest between Putin and America is fighting terrorism.

 

On CCP China Bolton is a military hawk. Bolton's focus at DepState was on strategic {nuclear} weapons and their delivery systems, as it continues to be. Maybe Trump does in fact want a guy who loves playing around with nukes and handing 'em out.

 

Your guy hasn't any clue of where he is or where he's going. Period.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Publicus
Cleanup of linked materials.

[Xircal]

18 hours ago, Gene1960 said:

From my layman's perspective, the Baltic countries are a strategic cul-de-sac, their territory does not add anything to Russia's military capability. To keep them under an occupation is impossible for any lengthy period. The population hates Russia and Russians too much. No way those countries will be absorbed again.

And Russia cannot afford any serious conflict with the west regardless of the opinion of the western Media. The military on both sides know that. In my view MSM are playing games with the public.

 

As soft targets the Baltic states represent an ideal target for Putin's ambitions since they would act as a test of NATO's resolve. I think that's the point you're missing here with your statement.

 

I don't think it'll happen until 2017 since Trump is still president-elect and US foreign policy will remain in Obama's safe hands until January.

 

But delve a little deeper into Trump's history and you'll find enough evidence to support the fact that his foreign policy will be largely orientated towards the Kremlin's goals once he takes office. If Putin can persuade Trump to quit NATO, an organisation Trump thinks is wasteful - he thinks like a businessman on that score - and which he has threatened to back out of, the organisation would all but collapse giving Putin free rein to carry out his expansionist ideals without fear of retribution. 

 

By the way, the Vox article I linked to above was written before Trump won the election.

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Xircal

[Xircal]

21 hours ago, oilinki said:

First nuclear detonation against people means that all betts are off. It's simple as that.

If Russia tries to invade my country, I'll do my best to make sure that all the bets are off.

 

  

 

Invading the US isn't Putin's objective. What he does want though is for the US to quit NATO. The US funds around 70% of that organisation and if it were to pull out, NATO would very likely cease to exist. With no deterent in place anymore, Russia would be able to carry out its expansionist ideals without hindrance.

 

There is talk in the European press now of the EU and other NATO allies of building a formidable force to deter aggression by any state, but it doesn't exist at the moment. Britain, Germany and other NATO allies might offer token resistance to save face, but I doubt if anyone would want to engage Russia in nuclear terms.

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Xircal

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Merzik said:

Morch:

The Russians are in Syria with the permission of the Syrian government. They are killing IS, AQ , Al Nursra and sundry Wahhabist jihadists from all over the world. As in any war innocents are caught in the crossfire and there have been war crimes. Neither side are angels but the West has been backing the worst side by far.

This might change very soon.

In a new interview with the Wall Street Journal, President-elect Donald Trump said that he is likely to end the US support of “moderate” Syrian rebel groups, saying that “we have no idea who these people are” and that the US needs to focus on defeating IS. Russia and the US together aganist islamic nutballs is terrific news.

Apart from the Kurds most of the "moderates" were anything but moderate. A few years ago John Mc Cain met with a "moderate" who ripped out a dead Syrian's heart and ate it on a video. Many of the "moderates" were also the corrupt mafioso that Assad purged before war began. The Syrian economy improved after this reform. These crooks then allied with the jihadists from all over the ME...and were put on the Saudi payroll. These are the people we are backing. Assad is ruthless but the lesser of two evils in this conflict.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

 

 

 

All of this got nothing to do with the claim that HRC or Obama were up for war with Russia.

 

Alright, so you are among those who see all those opposing to Assad as being of the same stock. Guess that's understandable given the lack of proper coverage, and the faith with which some seem to treat reports from RT etc. I'd say things are way more complicated then those convenient divisions dished present. Not about to get into a lengthy detailed off-topic discussion about this, simply this: to paint sides in black and white is just cop out, nothing more.

 

I haven't claimed that US foreign policy (especially with regard to the ME) was brilliant. Far from it. Barking up the wrong tree. It still does not make your argument, and still got nothing to do with climaing that either HRC or Obama were up for war with Russia over Syria.

[Publicus]

Nato excluding its only off-continent partners USA and Canada is militarily superior to the Russian armed forces. It's the command structure, the Europeans' unitary military operations and their effectiveness that would be in question.

 

During WW2 the Supreme Allied Commander Europe was the American, General Eisenhower (later Potus). After Nato was founded in 1949, the SACEUR has been an U.S. four-star general or, most recently, an admiral. There's no question who's in command, how the command is organised, structured, and how it operates on land, sea, air (and undersea).

 

In Kosovo, Nato SACEUR U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark was boss and he ran the show. The early history in fact shows Gen. Clark generated the whole Kosovo and Belgrade show on the civilian leaders of member governments, to include Potus Clinton. They were always bringing up the rear so they could let Gen. Clark take the heat. And Clark did take the heat, getting aced out of his command ahead of the fixed expiration of the SACEUR term.

 

In the leadup to Kosovo, the Nato chief of staff was a German general. He had to step down due to memories of WW2 in the Balkans for the Nato operation to initiate there -- and against Belgrade.

 

So the tribal Europeans with their miserable history of ethnic wars need Nato. They need a Nato SACEUR commanding four-star from USA who can win a continental conventional war. An effective military machine. They got that in General Clark and Kosovo-Belgrade. Even though it cost Gen. Clark his successful Nato command as SACEUR, he drove the whole thing from start to finish, which closed out by putting the bad guys in The Hague.  

 

No U.S. in Nato, then no SACEUR. Which means the wolf from Moscow will be at the door. And they'll have to let him in. This is the one single and significant consequence of Trump's massive ignorance and of Trump's blistering idiocy. 

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, Merzik said:

 

The highest ranking military officer in America General Dunford said before Congress recently that Clinton's proposed no-fly-zone over Syria would mean war with Russia. Obama tried the same policy back in 2013 but backed down when there was hard push-back from General Dempsey. ( per former NYT reporter Syemour Hearch ) Fortunately the military is more cautious than the civilians in power today.


Sent from my SM-A510F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

You are aware the main reason for the suggested no fly zone was to stop SYRIA from indiscriminately using barrel bombs on the civilian population.  With support by Russia.  Sadly, a no fly zone was not supported by Russia.  But would they ignore it and go to war over it?  Doubtful. 

 

It's still an option and is being looked at. Good news for the innocent civilians still being killed in Syria.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-no-fly-zone_us_57f29ecee4b082aad9bc832b

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

Invading the US isn't Putin's objective. What he does want though is for the US to quit NATO. The US funds around 70% of that organisation and if it were to pull out, NATO would very likely cease to exist. With no deterent in place anymore, Russia would be able to carry out its expansionist ideals without hindrance.

 

There is talk in the European press now of the EU and other NATO allies of building a formidable force to deter aggression by any state, but it doesn't exist at the moment. Britain, Germany and other NATO allies might offer token resistance to save face, but I doubt if anyone would want to engage Russia in nuclear terms.

 

Oilinki is from Finland.  Just to clarify.  Nice how Russia treats Finnish reporters who try to expose the truth:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/world/europe/russia-finland-nato-trolls.html

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, Merzik said:

Morch:

The Russians are in Syria with the permission of the Syrian government. They are killing IS, AQ , Al Nursra and sundry Wahhabist jihadists from all over the world. As in any war innocents are caught in the crossfire and there have been war crimes. Neither side are angels but the West has been backing the worst side by far.

This might change very soon.

In a new interview with the Wall Street Journal, President-elect Donald Trump said that he is likely to end the US support of “moderate” Syrian rebel groups, saying that “we have no idea who these people are” and that the US needs to focus on defeating IS. Russia and the US together aganist islamic nutballs is terrific news.

Apart from the Kurds most of the "moderates" were anything but moderate. A few years ago John Mc Cain met with a "moderate" who ripped out a dead Syrian's heart and ate it on a video. Many of the "moderates" were also the corrupt mafioso that Assad purged before war began. The Syrian economy improved after this reform. These crooks then allied with the jihadists from all over the ME...and were put on the Saudi payroll. These are the people we are backing. Assad is ruthless but the lesser of two evils in this conflict.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

 

 

Sorry, but are there still people around that believe the Syrian government, with Russian help, are only bombing IS terrorists?  Wow.

 

I'd say more than a few innocents have been caught in the crossfile.  Without Russia's help, this war would have been over years ago.  Sadly, Russia blocked every UN Security council ruling on the Syrian civil war.  Every one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

Quote

 

Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 301,781^[1] and 470,000.^[2] On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.^[3]

 

UNICEF reported that over 500 children had been killed by early February 2012.^[4][5]Another 400 children were reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons.^[6][7] Both claims have been contested by the Syrian government.^[8] Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners died under torture.^[9] The United Nations stated that by the end of April 2014, 8,803 children had been killed,^[10] while the Oxford Research Group said that a total of 11,420 children died in the conflict by late November 2013.^[11] By mid-September 2016, the opposition activist group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported the number of children killed in the conflict had risen to 15,099, while at the same time 10,018 women were also killed.^[1]

 

 

 

Tough to restore relations with the rest of the world while you are bombing innocent civilians and occupying parts of other countries, Georgia and Ukraine especially.

[Jingthing]

trump's coming in POV is radical isolationism and caving to Russia. More like licking Putin's grabables (sic). Events will likely adjust things. He's totally unprepared and unfit for the office. God help us.

[CharlieK]

18 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

Invading the US isn't Putin's objective. What he does want though is for the US to quit NATO. The US funds around 70% of that organisation and if it were to pull out, NATO would very likely cease to exist. With no deterent in place anymore, Russia would be able to carry out its expansionist ideals without hindrance.

 

There is talk in the European press now of the EU and other NATO allies of building a formidable force to deter aggression by any state, but it doesn't exist at the moment. Britain, Germany and other NATO allies might offer token resistance to save face, but I doubt if anyone would want to engage Russia in nuclear terms.

 

 

There has been talk of an EU army for a couple of years if not longer, in fact it was the EU who threw a big question mark over continuing in Nato. Now they are worried what will happen. What should happen is the EU pay more into Nato instead of the near free ride they get. 

 

I'll go so far and say all this talk of Russia is a big smoke screen. Creating another cold war is a continuation of the fear factor by politicians in the west to carry out more federalism and control the masses.  

 

It's OK for the west to go into countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and kill women and children but when the Russians do it in Syria it is a war crime. Then there is what ISIS are doing to the population under their control in the name of Islam.  

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, CharlieK said:

 

There has been talk of an EU army for a couple of years if not longer, in fact it was the EU who threw a big question mark over continuing in Nato. Now they are worried what will happen. What should happen is the EU pay more into Nato instead of the near free ride they get. 

 

I'll go so far and say all this talk of Russia is a big smoke screen. Creating another cold war is a continuation of the fear factor by politicians in the west to carry out more federalism and control the masses.  

 

It's OK for the west to go into countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and kill women and children but when the Russians do it in Syria it is a war crime. Then there is what ISIS are doing to the population under their control in the name of Islam.  

NATO is more worried about the occupation of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova than Syria.  No occupation, no sanctions on Russia by the West.

 

But comparing what Russia is doing in Syria to what the West has done in Iraq and Afghanistan is improper.  Totally different.  But yes, Iraq was an absolute disaster.  Same with Afghanistan, for the many countries who've fought there, Russia included.

 

And no it's not OK for the west to go into countries and kill women and children.  Many protest this and many countries refuse to participate.

[Xircal]

12 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Oilinki is from Finland.  Just to clarify.  Nice how Russia treats Finnish reporters who try to expose the truth:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/world/europe/russia-finland-nato-trolls.html

 

I don't have an a/c with nytimes unfortunately and I don't do social networking so facebook and google are out too.

 

Is there another site you can link to with the same content?

[Morch]

12 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You are aware the main reason for the suggested no fly zone was to stop SYRIA from indiscriminately using barrel bombs on the civilian population.  With support by Russia.  Sadly, a no fly zone was not supported by Russia.  But would they ignore it and go to war over it?  Doubtful. 

 

It's still an option and is being looked at. Good news for the innocent civilians still being killed in Syria.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-no-fly-zone_us_57f29ecee4b082aad9bc832b

 

I'd suggest reading the whole thing, with an emphasis on the cons and risks detailed in the latter half. In practical terms, unilateral action by the US (with coalition participation) is a no go. There may either be ineffectual no fly zones, or no fly zones agreed upon with the Russians - which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

 

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

I don't have an a/c with nytimes unfortunately and I don't do social networking so facebook and google are out too.

 

Is there another site you can link to with the same content?

I'm on my phone. Just Google the above. Lots of info out there about this. I feel sorry for this lady.

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

I don't have an a/c with nytimes unfortunately and I don't do social networking so facebook and google are out too.

 

Is there another site you can link to with the same content?

This is eye opening.  I find it crazy that many here say Russia isn't responsible for this.  Proof positive:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11656043/My-life-as-a-pro-Putin-propagandist-in-Russias-secret-troll-factory.html

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160531/08021734580/putins-internet-trolls-mercilessly-smear-finnish-reporter-simply-pointing-them-out.shtml

 

[Xircal]

13 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

This is eye opening.  I find it crazy that many here say Russia isn't responsible for this.  Proof positive:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11656043/My-life-as-a-pro-Putin-propagandist-in-Russias-secret-troll-factory.html

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160531/08021734580/putins-internet-trolls-mercilessly-smear-finnish-reporter-simply-pointing-them-out.shtml

 

 

It's just amazing that in spite of all the evidence that Trump is a lunatic, he still managed to get elected.

 

You have to ask yourself why Comey pulled that stunt about Clinton's private email server a second time just a week or so before the election. Without that I'm sure Trump wouldn't be sitting where he is right now.

[gemini81]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 8:24 PM, craigt3365 said:

You are aware the main reason for the suggested no fly zone was to stop SYRIA from indiscriminately using barrel bombs on the civilian population.  With support by Russia.  Sadly, a no fly zone was not supported by Russia.  But would they ignore it and go to war over it?  Doubtful. 

 

It's still an option and is being looked at. Good news for the innocent civilians still being killed in Syria.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-no-fly-zone_us_57f29ecee4b082aad9bc832b

Same reason as in Lybia and Iraq- disable opposition's flying forces in order to mobilize western backed hired mercenaries to move forward under no threat to destabilize the regime. The rebel forces are the ones found with pressure cookers, chemicals and outlawed arms, as well as the ones with evidence of access/possession Sarin gas.

I got sick of our corporate oil wars funded by us, the taxpayers- aren't you? Hope Trump helps put an end to our own US gov't meddling in foreign wars within sovereign nations.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by gemini81
spell

[Morch]

14 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

This is eye opening.  I find it crazy that many here say Russia isn't responsible for this.  Proof positive:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11656043/My-life-as-a-pro-Putin-propagandist-in-Russias-secret-troll-factory.html

 

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160531/08021734580/putins-internet-trolls-mercilessly-smear-finnish-reporter-simply-pointing-them-out.shtml

 

 

And here's a bit more:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolls_from_Olgino

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

[craigt3365]

9 hours ago, gemini81 said:

Same reason as in Lybia and Iraq- disable opposition's flying forces in order to mobilize western backed hired mercenaries to move forward under no threat to destabilize the regime. The rebel forces are the ones found with pressure cookers, chemicals and outlawed arms, as well as the ones with evidence of access/possession Sarin gas.

I got sick of our corporate oil wars funded by us, the taxpayers- aren't you? Hope Trump helps put an end to our own US gov't meddling in foreign wars within sovereign nations.

 

Ummm....could it also be to try and save civilian lives? LOL

[NeverSure]

On 11/12/2016 at 9:01 AM, Publicus said:

Nato excluding its only off-continent partners USA and Canada is militarily superior to the Russian armed forces. It's the command structure, the Europeans' unitary military operations and their effectiveness that would be in question.

 

During WW2 the Supreme Allied Commander Europe was the American, General Eisenhower (later Potus). After Nato was founded in 1949, the SACEUR has been an U.S. four-star general or, most recently, an admiral. There's no question who's in command, how the command is organised, structured, and how it operates on land, sea, air (and undersea).

 

In Kosovo, Nato SACEUR U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark was boss and he ran the show. The early history in fact shows Gen. Clark generated the whole Kosovo and Belgrade show on the civilian leaders of member governments, to include Potus Clinton. They were always bringing up the rear so they could let Gen. Clark take the heat. And Clark did take the heat, getting aced out of his command ahead of the fixed expiration of the SACEUR term.

 

In the leadup to Kosovo, the Nato chief of staff was a German general. He had to step down due to memories of WW2 in the Balkans for the Nato operation to initiate there -- and against Belgrade.

 

So the tribal Europeans with their miserable history of ethnic wars need Nato. They need a Nato SACEUR commanding four-star from USA who can win a continental conventional war. An effective military machine. They got that in General Clark and Kosovo-Belgrade. Even though it cost Gen. Clark his successful Nato command as SACEUR, he drove the whole thing from start to finish, which closed out by putting the bad guys in The Hague.  

 

No U.S. in Nato, then no SACEUR. Which means the wolf from Moscow will be at the door. And they'll have to let him in. This is the one single and significant consequence of Trump's massive ignorance and of Trump's blistering idiocy. 

 

Say "idiocy" all you want but Trump will get more done before his inauguration that Obama did in 8 years.

 

It's called "respect". Putin knows a real man when he sees one.

 

Cheers.

 

Mirror

 

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by NeverSure

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

Say "idiocy" all you want but Trump will get more done before his inauguration that Obama did in 8 years.

 

It's called "respect". Putin knows a real man when he sees one.

 

Cheers.

 

Mirror

 

Putin's said this before.  Impossible to trust this man.  Remember, the Russian soldiers in Ukraine are only there on their personal holidays. LOL

[NeverSure]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Putin's said this before.  Impossible to trust this man.  Remember, the Russian soldiers in Ukraine are only there on their personal holidays. LOL

 

That's because Putin's had no respect for any POTUS we've had since he's been in control of Russia.

 

The US hasn't won a war since WWII. Not 'Nam, not S. Korea, nothing in the ME - nothing. Weak, weak, weak. Putin has been humiliating Hillary and Obama the whole time, playing brinksmanship. He won't do that with Trump. Just watch.

 

Cheers.

[craigt3365]

Just now, NeverSure said:

 

That's because Putin's had no respect for any POTUS we've had since he's been in control of Russia.

 

The US hasn't won a war since WWII. Not 'Nam, not S. Korea, nothing in the ME - nothing. Weak, weak, weak. Putin has been humiliating Hillary and Obama the whole time, playing brinksmanship. He won't do that with Trump. Just watch.

 

Cheers.

So he's lied about invading Ukraine, only bombing IS in Syria, etc, just because Obama was president?  Really? LOL

 

You are aware Russia has the #1 propaganda machine in the world.  Owned and run by Putin.

[NeverSure]

19 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

So he's lied about invading Ukraine, only bombing IS in Syria, etc, just because Obama was president?  Really? LOL

 

You are aware Russia has the #1 propaganda machine in the world.  Owned and run by Putin.

 

Obama is weak and worries no one, especially someone like Putin.

 

Give Trump a chance. He's used to dealing with powerful people and on a worldwide scale. Putin won't intimidate him. They may get along just fine. Seriously.

 

Cheers.

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

Obama is weak and worries no one, especially someone like Putin.

 

Give Trump a chance. He's used to dealing with powerful people and on a worldwide scale. Putin won't intimidate him. They may get along just fine. Seriously.

 

Cheers.

Now these are just rumors, but the great conspiracy theory now is that Putin has dirt on Trump because of his business dealings in Russia.  One reason being put forward as to why Russia would hack the democrats emails and not the republicans.  Just a theory...but being discussed widely.   Gives Putin leverage over POTUS.

[NeverSure]

13 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Now these are just rumors, but the great conspiracy theory now is that Putin has dirt on Trump because of his business dealings in Russia.  One reason being put forward as to why Russia would hack the democrats emails and not the republicans.  Just a theory...but being discussed widely.   Gives Putin leverage over POTUS.

 

I don't deal well with rumors.

 

Right now we are effectively at war with Russia in Syria. Putin is backing the government and we are backing the rebels. Trump has made it clear he isn't into foreign wars that look for regime change. Right now we are playing brinksmanship with Russia there.

 

Time will tell but I think it would be much better if we put our efforts into blasting ISIS and if Russia will help, so much the better.

 

I'm sure you know about the desire by both Hillary and Obama for an oil pipeline through Syria. Putin wants it for himself. This is what the war is really about. Putin doesn't care a thing about Assad and Hillary and Obama don't care a thing about the Kurds. It's about oil. It's about the pipeline which could carry oil from Iraq and Saudi into S. Europe. 

 

Right now everything needs to calm down. We share a hatred of ISIS with Putin. If anything good could come from that, so much the better.

 

Cheers.

 

PS.  Speaking of blackmail, there's this little thing of Hillary selling 20% of America's uranium supply to Russia in exchange for kickbacks to the Clinton foundation. That's not a rumor but rather part of the filthy Clinton machine corruption.

 

Cheers.

[craigt3365]

Agreed!  I thought that pipeline was for gas?  To Europe from Qatar.  That would help take Putin's stranglehold off Ukraine and Europe.  Putin is also trying to keep the pipeline from happening in Georgia.  When I was there, it was front page news.  Gas pipeline.

 

Putin will only coordinate with us if we agree to keep Assad.  Or somebody he approves in power.  Otherwise, he'll lose control and that pipeline will be built and they'll potentially make him close his base.  Syria is Russia's 7th largest arms buyer.

 

All about money...