Jump to content

Russia ready to restore relations with US, says Vladimir Putin


webfact

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

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...

:wai2:

 

Agreed, except Putin wants the pipeline for himself. That's his whole interest there. He doesn't want his stranglehold removed. He doesn't care about Assad.

 

The US often gets blamed by those who don't know for going to war in the ME 'for oil'. The US doesn't need the oil but rather is a net exporter of oil. The US has more oil reserves than all the rest of the world combined.

 

BUT if you get greedy individuals with power, they will go after oil. The last thing we need to be doing is fighting Putin in Syria over oil.

 

If Trump can sort this out to where the US goes hands off over the oil and regime change, and concentrates only on ISIS, we'll be so much better off. It's a fact. We are fighting in Syria for regime change. AGAIN.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, NeverSure said:

The US doesn't need the oil but rather is a net exporter of oil

 

This claim has been countered a number of times within this forum. Indeed even the EIA refutes the claim.

 

"The United States continues to be a net importer of crude oil and liquid fuels in most cases, despite increases in exports of petroleum products ".

 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20812

Edited by simple1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

This claim has been countered a number of times within this forum. Indeed even the EIA refutes the claim.

 

"The United States continues to be a net importer of crude oil and liquid fuels in most cases, despite increases in exports of petroleum products ".

 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20812

What many fail to realize is the US has an economy that is dependent on the Global economy.  If oil is interrupted, the global economy falls and so does the US economy.  Sadly, that puts all of us in the clutches of a few countries with vast reserves of oil...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

What many fail to realize is the US has an economy that is dependent on the Global economy.  If oil is interrupted, the global economy falls and so does the US economy.  Sadly, that puts all of us in the clutches of a few countries with vast reserves of oil...

 

Agree. Some US citizens seem to be of the opinion that the US can disassociate it's economy from the global supply chain, I find this POV extraordinary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Agree. Some US citizens seem to be of the opinion that the US can disassociate it's economy from the global supply chain, I find this POV extraordinary.

Or non-US citizens believe they can disassociate their country from the US.  We live in a global economy, global society.  For better or worse.  Trade is good for everybody if done properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NeverSure said:

 

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.

 

I guess you do not like rumors because they cannot be verified. If so, perhaps best to stop implying that Putin will respect Trump (until this is put the test), the claim that Trump will get more done before his inauguration than Obama did in 8 years, or presenting Trump as an experienced negotiator on this level.

 

Trump chose not to divulge the full extent of his past and current business connections and ties abroad (including Russia), nor did he state (to date) that his business affairs will be handled through a blind trust arrangement. Trump did give conflicting accounts of his acquaintance with Putin, and did call on a foreign power (Russia) to involve itself (possibly illegally) with the US elections.

 

There is some evidence indicating a connection between Trump's campaign (or at least certain figures in Trump's campaign) with Russia. There are conflicting reports from Russia regarding its involvement in the elections. And there are pretty good grounds to assume a connection between Wikileaks and Russia. Granted, nothing conclusive at this point.

 

I do have to wonder if the above doesn't give Trump supporter reason for doubt? Forget HRC, she lost. Trump's the next US president, and I'm talking about the next US president now - does seem kinda odd the above doesn't bother people more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had forgotten about this topic.  Bottom line: Were the Russians to invade Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, the first people to start tearing out their hair and demanding that the United States do nothing and let it go would be the French, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Nordic countries, Netherlands, Belgium, and maybe the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I guess you do not like rumors because they cannot be verified. If so, perhaps best to stop implying that Putin will respect Trump (until this is put the test), the claim that Trump will get more done before his inauguration than Obama did in 8 years, or presenting Trump as an experienced negotiator on this level.

 

Trump chose not to divulge the full extent of his past and current business connections and ties abroad (including Russia), nor did he state (to date) that his business affairs will be handled through a blind trust arrangement. Trump did give conflicting accounts of his acquaintance with Putin, and did call on a foreign power (Russia) to involve itself (possibly illegally) with the US elections.

 

There is some evidence indicating a connection between Trump's campaign (or at least certain figures in Trump's campaign) with Russia. There are conflicting reports from Russia regarding its involvement in the elections. And there are pretty good grounds to assume a connection between Wikileaks and Russia. Granted, nothing conclusive at this point.

 

I do have to wonder if the above doesn't give Trump supporter reason for doubt? Forget HRC, she lost. Trump's the next US president, and I'm talking about the next US president now - does seem kinda odd the above doesn't bother people more.

 

The post is like receiving a Swiss Army Knife to realpolitik because it has everything anyone would need in order to make their way through the Putin-Trump seemingly odd couple relationship.  

 

It is obvious it's more than a Reagan-Gorbechev visionary recalibration between long time adversaries.   

 

Last time a Russian leader hoodwinked and manipulated a Potus to cause the Potus to take the world to the nuclear brink, each of 'em ended up gone afterwards in no time at all. It was too much then for each side's elites and it will always be too much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NeverSure said:

 

Agreed, except Putin wants the pipeline for himself. That's his whole interest there. He doesn't want his stranglehold removed. He doesn't care about Assad.

 

The US often gets blamed by those who don't know for going to war in the ME 'for oil'. The US doesn't need the oil but rather is a net exporter of oil. The US has more oil reserves than all the rest of the world combined.

 

BUT if you get greedy individuals with power, they will go after oil. The last thing we need to be doing is fighting Putin in Syria over oil.

 

If Trump can sort this out to where the US goes hands off over the oil and regime change, and concentrates only on ISIS, we'll be so much better off. It's a fact. We are fighting in Syria for regime change. AGAIN.

 

Cheers.

 

Ignore at your peril that EU in 2015 shut down Putin's South Stream Pipeline through Romania with the enthusiastic cooperation of the Romanian government.

 

It put Putin's then existing $2 billion of incomplete infrastructure and Putin's strategic designs into the weeds of southeast Europe. 

 

Everyone is for the pipeline through Syria except Putin so short of nuking 'em Putin hadn't any choice but to accept it. Now Putin wants to own or control it. Assad is nothing more than Putin's ticket to it.

 

Trump may or may not have any direct or indirect personal financial interest in the pipeline going through Syria. However, if Trump and Putin have decided to prevail in Putin controlling the pipeline-lifeline to Europe, the odd couple will be making enemies of everyone. Start with SA and the Gulf States and follow the road up the map to Brussels -- and across the Atlantic to USA where Putin controlling the pipeline is both unacceptable and intolerable.  No Potus can ignore or contradict the fact.

 

 

Putin warns Poland and Romania could be caught in the 'crosshairs' of Russian rockets for hosting a US defence shield that he considers a threat to national security

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3614027/Vladimir-Putin-warns-Poland-Romania-caught-crosshairs-Russian-rockets-hosting-defence-shield-considers-threat-national-security.html#ixzz4Q52p4PdQ 
 

Trump is a radical ignoramous who knows nothing but who owes a lot to a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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

Nope, they've been in there causing the loss of a lot of lives, along with 'moderate' factions who only kill 'moderately'. There for pipeline, toppling Assad to set up a puppet government that toes the line with western powers, control the petrol dollar and install a central bank. Haven't you noticed the same pattern over and over again yet? Putin put a damper on those plans. At least there is a counterbalance of power here. And good to have him as an ally than make an ongoing cold war with all the boogeyman Russia nonsense the public isn't buying anymore.

Edited by gemini81
wording
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I didn't support Trump during the election campaign, but Trump is saying good stuff now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-hold-first-conversation-and-vow/amp/

From the above article in the Daily Telegraph, Trump is certainly going to have a better policy regarding Syria.


From the article, a quote " Mr Trump used his first interviews since winning the US election to indicate that he will withdraw support for rebels in Syria and will instead join forces with Russia and focus on defeating Isil in a move that could trigger a diplomatic crisis between Britain and the US."
Donald Trump has made a massive comment. Defeating ISIL (ISIS) is important, and stopping aid for the rebels in Syria, and joining forces with Russia to remove ISIS is the way forward.  Yes, Assad is fighting AGAINST the rebels, Russia is helping Assad, it would be great if Washington can simply help Assad and Russia.
And IF this causes a diplomatic crisis between Britain and the US, in that case, please, Washington, tell the British government to SHUT UP.  Go and remind the British government that Britain is only playing a minor role in Syria.





With regards to Washington previously backing rebels in Syria, Donald Trump says " Now we're backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are."  Donald Trump, Sir, some of those rebels backed by the Obama/H. Clinton  government were actually Al Qaeda's branch in Syria.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, I didn't support Trump during the election campaign, but Trump is saying good stuff now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-hold-first-conversation-and-vow/amp/

From the above article in the Daily Telegraph, Trump is certainly going to have a better policy regarding Syria.


From the article, a quote " Mr Trump used his first interviews since winning the US election to indicate that he will withdraw support for rebels in Syria and will instead join forces with Russia and focus on defeating Isil in a move that could trigger a diplomatic crisis between Britain and the US."
Donald Trump has made a massive comment. Defeating ISIL (ISIS) is important, and stopping aid for the rebels in Syria, and joining forces with Russia to remove ISIS is the way forward.  Yes, Assad is fighting AGAINST the rebels, Russia is helping Assad, it would be great if Washington can simply help Assad and Russia.
And IF this causes a diplomatic crisis between Britain and the US, in that case, please, Washington, tell the British government to SHUT UP.  Go and remind the British government that Britain is only playing a minor role in Syria.





With regards to Washington previously backing rebels in Syria, Donald Trump says " Now we're backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are."  Donald Trump, Sir, some of those rebels backed by the Obama/H. Clinton  government were actually Al Qaeda's branch in Syria.

 

 

Yeah, great foreign policy in action. Get into a dubious partnership with your country's top security threat, disregarding how similar efforts ended in the recent past, alienate one of your closest allies in the process for good measure. That how you do it. Definitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sounds like pure Putin propaganda. Assad is all Russia cares about there.


Okay, it's all about this, who do you think is the greater enemy ?  Is it Putin, or is it ISIS (or whatever other group of Islamic fundamentalists) ?
To me, Washington's previous policy was to back and support whatever rebels to fight AGAINST Assad. It didn't matter that some of these rebels were Al Qaeda's branch in Syria. It didn't matter that these rebels were AGAINST Assad, bearing in mind that Assad and the Russians were fighting against ISIS. The intent was to support whatever rebels, and after Assad has gone, then go and bomb whatever previously backed rebels if they are a problem for Washington.

Trump is going to carry out a new policy. I'm glad he's doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, great foreign policy in action. Get into a dubious partnership with your country's top security threat, disregarding how similar efforts ended in the recent past, alienate one of your closest allies in the process for good measure. That how you do it. Definitely.


"alienate one of your closest allies in the process for good measure". 
What on earth can Britain do IF Britain actually wants to see a continuation of the previous policy ?  Britain's role has always been to either join in with Washington's policy, or not join in with Washington's policy.  Britain will do nothing in Syria IF America pulls out and simply leaves Syria alone (and this will allow Assad and Russia to sort out the rebels).

Does America need Britain more than Britain needs America ?  Off-course not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Supporting Putin equals supporting Assad.


Yes, we know that. Do you reckon it's a good idea to back rebels fighting against Assad and Russia, and IF Assad does go, well, then go and try and bomb the same rebels if they don't like America ?

I reckon Trump's new policy towards Syria and Russia makes more sense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:


"alienate one of your closest allies in the process for good measure". 
What on earth can Britain do IF Britain actually wants to see a continuation of the previous policy ?  Britain's role has always been to either join in with Washington's policy, or not join in with Washington's policy.  Britain will do nothing in Syria IF America pulls out and simply leaves Syria alone (and this will allow Assad and Russia to sort out the rebels).

Does America need Britain more than Britain needs America ?  Off-course not.

 

 

The point with allies is that you do not unnecessarily antagonize them for nothing. Neither do allies challenge each other or humiliate each other without a very good cause. There's more to foreign policy and international relations then a simple who's bigger attitude.

 

Trump's victory, Putin saying some nice things about him, still doesn't amount to changing Russia's status as the being the top threat to US security.

 

Your post is in line with Russia's standing long term strategy of causing divisions between the US and its allies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Obama first ran for office he promised to get the US out of the wars in the ME. At that time they were primarily Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

Instead, he has kept those wars going and has started more. At the least it can be said that he has bombed seven countries during his time in office. In addition to the two above, he has bombed Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. Obama and Clinton turned Libya into a mess for reasons I'll never understand. What did we gain other than a playground for ISIS?

 

Trump has spoken strongly against the US habit of trying for regime change or nation building. It hasn't worked well. At all. He doesn't want to be the world's police. In order to change course he needs a deal with Putin about Syria because the US is effectively at war with Russia in Syria. Because he's opposed to regime change and nation building he's opposed to knocking off Assad.

 

The US has spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of precious lives for almost nothing gained in the ME. The people voted to stop it. The most damaging video out there against Clinton is the one about Libya where she said "We came, we saw, he died." Then she laughs.

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

When Obama first ran for office he promised to get the US out of the wars in the ME. At that time they were primarily Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

Instead, he has kept those wars going and has started more. At the least it can be said that he has bombed seven countries during his time in office. In addition to the two above, he has bombed Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. Obama and Clinton turned Libya into a mess for reasons I'll never understand. What did we gain other than a playground for ISIS?

 

Trump has spoken strongly against the US habit of trying for regime change or nation building. It hasn't worked well. At all. He doesn't want to be the world's police. In order to change course he needs a deal with Putin about Syria because the US is effectively at war with Russia in Syria. Because he's opposed to regime change and nation building he's opposed to knocking off Assad.

 

The US has spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of precious lives for almost nothing gained in the ME. The people voted to stop it. The most damaging video out there against Clinton is the one about Libya where she said "We came, we saw, he died." Then she laughs.

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

Trump expressed support for toppling Gaddafi, though. Granted, this was back in 2011...oh, wait.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

When Obama first ran for office he promised to get the US out of the wars in the ME. At that time they were primarily Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

Instead, he has kept those wars going and has started more. At the least it can be said that he has bombed seven countries during his time in office. In addition to the two above, he has bombed Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. Obama and Clinton turned Libya into a mess for reasons I'll never understand. What did we gain other than a playground for ISIS?

 

Trump has spoken strongly against the US habit of trying for regime change or nation building. It hasn't worked well. At all. He doesn't want to be the world's police. In order to change course he needs a deal with Putin about Syria because the US is effectively at war with Russia in Syria. Because he's opposed to regime change and nation building he's opposed to knocking off Assad.

 

The US has spent trillions of dollars and lost thousands of precious lives for almost nothing gained in the ME. The people voted to stop it. The most damaging video out there against Clinton is the one about Libya where she said "We came, we saw, he died." Then she laughs.

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

Putin is negotiating from a position of strength.

 

Trump is negotiating from a position of ignoramus. Trump is Putin's 'useful idiot'.

 

The economic and financial sanctions against Putin are designed to get rid of Putin in Moscow. Everybody knows Putin has malicious intents and purposes well beyond yelping about Nato at his door.

 

No good will come of this. It is on a course to be costly. Because it is of mice and...rats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Putin is negotiating from a position of strength.

 

Trump is negotiating from a position of ignoramus. Trump is Putin's 'useful idiot'.

 

 

What?!?

Once again you are overestimating Russia's might. Trump will not make such a mistake.

He's no neoconservative to be blind. He's sober enough not to dream of a regime change in nuclear Russia without any idea what's going to happen with the nuclear arsenal as a result.

And useful idiot, a bit harsh, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, I didn't support Trump during the election campaign, but Trump is saying good stuff now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/14/donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-hold-first-conversation-and-vow/amp/

From the above article in the Daily Telegraph, Trump is certainly going to have a better policy regarding Syria.


From the article, a quote " Mr Trump used his first interviews since winning the US election to indicate that he will withdraw support for rebels in Syria and will instead join forces with Russia and focus on defeating Isil in a move that could trigger a diplomatic crisis between Britain and the US."
Donald Trump has made a massive comment. Defeating ISIL (ISIS) is important, and stopping aid for the rebels in Syria, and joining forces with Russia to remove ISIS is the way forward.  Yes, Assad is fighting AGAINST the rebels, Russia is helping Assad, it would be great if Washington can simply help Assad and Russia.
And IF this causes a diplomatic crisis between Britain and the US, in that case, please, Washington, tell the British government to SHUT UP.  Go and remind the British government that Britain is only playing a minor role in Syria.





With regards to Washington previously backing rebels in Syria, Donald Trump says " Now we're backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are."  Donald Trump, Sir, some of those rebels backed by the Obama/H. Clinton  government were actually Al Qaeda's branch in Syria.

 

 

Okay, I didn't support Trump during the election campaign, but Trump is saying good stuff now.

 

:ninja:

 

Another 'independent' who didn't support either side in the election but now that Donald Trump is Potus-Elect they suddenly see the light that Trump is 100% their guy. And they are like wow, isn't Donald Trump a genius -- after all, Trump has the sure-fired answers in this and in everything.  :cheesy:

 

We just have to be open minded too and to give Trump a chance. What have we got to lose. If Trump gave Alaska back to the Russians for $1 he'd be hailed as a statesman. He'd be making America great again.  :clap2:

 

It would be a relief if getting Alaska back for a buck were all Putin were about. But it ain't all Putin is about. Putin wants all 50 states, not only one of 'em.

 

Donald Trump makes Jimmy Carter look competent, safe, secure to have in the Oval Office. I'd never said that nor did I think I ever could say it. But here we are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gene1960 said:

What?!?

Once again you are overestimating Russia's might. Trump will not make such a mistake.

He's no neoconservative to be blind. He's sober enough not to dream of a regime change in nuclear Russia without any idea what's going to happen with the nuclear arsenal as a result.

And useful idiot, a bit harsh, isn't it?

A useful idiot is exactly how Putin sees him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Trump expressed support for toppling Gaddafi, though. Granted, this was back in 2011...oh, wait.

 

 

 

 

 

A non war monger who won't start more huge wars unlike Clinton and the establishment is how he sees him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gene1960 said:

What?!?

Once again you are overestimating Russia's might. Trump will not make such a mistake.

He's no neoconservative to be blind. He's sober enough not to dream of a regime change in nuclear Russia without any idea what's going to happen with the nuclear arsenal as a result.

And useful idiot, a bit harsh, isn't it?

 

In the one post you put me "overestimating Russia's might" yet you refer without mentioning the EU-Nato countries sanctions against Putin and with your hair raised to a "regime change in nuclear Russia".

 

Your post states that "Trump will not make such a mistake" when he in fact is making the mistake and dozens of others in full public view.

 

Putin is a vile Czarist-Chekist who wants to neuter the United States and to rule over Europe and its wealth. Few realise or recognise how much Putin has a historical Russian passion to dominate China too. Talk to the Russians and read the literature so you can discover the deep distrust and rivalry between Russia and China. When Russian military and civilian strategic policy makers talk military conflict, they talk about China, not the USA. And they do it every day.

 

The triangulation since 2000 is Russia-China against the USA. After that it's between Russia and China to be king of the hill. Which is why the powers that be in the USA will never allow any of this to come to pass.

Edited by Publicus
Typos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
In the one post you put me "overestimating Russia's might" yet you refer without mentioning the EU-Nato countries sanctions against Putin and with your hair raised to a "regime change in nuclear Russia".
 
Your post states that "Trump will not make such a mistake" when he in fact is making the mistake and dozens of others in full public view.
 
Putin is a vile Czarist-Chekist who wants to neuter the United States and to rule over Europe and its wealth. Few realise or recognise how much Putin has a historical Russian passion to dominate China too. Talk to the Russians and read the literature so you can discover the deep distrust and rivalry between Russia and China. When Russian military and civilian strategic policy makers talk military conflict, they talk about China, not the USA. And they do it every day.
 
The triangulation since 2000 is Russia-China against the USA. After that it's between Russia and China to be king of the hill. Which is why the powers that be in the USA will never allow any of this to come to pass.

I take your point. You maybe right and only time will tell.

Right now I don't see any actions by Mr. Trump. He is only talking. We will see what he and his team will be doing in the future.

Of course I am not very well read and not versed enough in history. As an ex-sailor I'd say that the USA overextended itself military during the recent years with a number of unnecessary wars. Europe has reduced its military spendings and lays in the mess. That's why Russia looks more powerful that it is and Putin occupied too much space in the media's narrative.

Maybe you are right about the impact of USA - EU sanctions against Russia and its economy. I even can imagine that the sanctions had some negative impact on Russia's military. Who knows. Their actions in Syria are efficient if brutal and impressed those who understand. But anyway, their military capabilities are limited and Russia's economy is in a bad shape and it cannot sustain a high intensity conflict for longer than two-three months without use of nukes. And no one wants a nuclear war, particularly in Europe.

That's why I am expecting that Putin will seek a compromise and you were wrong saying that he would deal with the USA from the position of strength.

And I won't be surprised if President Trump and Checkist Putin will begin the new round of negotiations on the nuclear disarmament in 2017.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...