Vladimir Putin
Comments
-
Yes, although Putin's ploy is childishly transparent. As if the children of US Diplomats need someplace to go or someplace for school. It's all games.JC29856 said:
My take: Putin used the "you go low, we go high" on Obama, gern-bernish!mrussel1 said:
Quite the benevolent dictator. I'm sure the Kremlin assisted in the writing of this message.JC29856 said:Russia’s Department for Presidential Affairs is preparing invitations for children of US diplomats in Russia to New Year celebrations in the Kremlin, a spokeswoman said Friday.
President Vladimir Putin invited the children to a series of parties to ring in the New Year that are traditionally held at the walled government compound in the heart of Moscow.
“The Department for Presidential Affairs and the Foreign Ministry are going through required procedures for the children’s participation in celebrations to make sure they will have a good time if they decide to go,” the Department’s spokeswoman Yelena Krylova told RIA Novosti.
This came in response to US media reports that a school attended by children of US diplomats faced a shutdown in retaliation for the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States in the row over Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s win. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the school would be closed.
Obama is really going hard on Russia during his final days for some reason, the allegations of election hacking based on a phishing scheme, the executive order, tossing the Russian diplomats which some say violate Vienna Conventions (I have no idea if true or not).
Notice also that the foreign ministry contradicts what many in the media have been reporting, diplomat shutdown.0 -
I dont follow?? Ploy and children someplace to go??mrussel1 said:
Yes, although Putin's ploy is childishly transparent. As if the children of US Diplomats need someplace to go or someplace for school. It's all games.JC29856 said:
My take: Putin used the "you go low, we go high" on Obama, gern-bernish!mrussel1 said:
Quite the benevolent dictator. I'm sure the Kremlin assisted in the writing of this message.JC29856 said:Russia’s Department for Presidential Affairs is preparing invitations for children of US diplomats in Russia to New Year celebrations in the Kremlin, a spokeswoman said Friday.
President Vladimir Putin invited the children to a series of parties to ring in the New Year that are traditionally held at the walled government compound in the heart of Moscow.
“The Department for Presidential Affairs and the Foreign Ministry are going through required procedures for the children’s participation in celebrations to make sure they will have a good time if they decide to go,” the Department’s spokeswoman Yelena Krylova told RIA Novosti.
This came in response to US media reports that a school attended by children of US diplomats faced a shutdown in retaliation for the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States in the row over Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s win. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the school would be closed.
Obama is really going hard on Russia during his final days for some reason, the allegations of election hacking based on a phishing scheme, the executive order, tossing the Russian diplomats which some say violate Vienna Conventions (I have no idea if true or not).
Notice also that the foreign ministry contradicts what many in the media have been reporting, diplomat shutdown.
I admit, Im alittle foggy this morning. Not sure if it is do to GMO overload for the dirty draft beer lines. Roast pork sandwich with pepperoni and provolone cheese plus and assortment of beers, I think one was a pomegranate beer. Sorry for the digression.0 -
Putin owns Obama one last time on the world stage. One prefers chess while the other prefers checkers.Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0
-
Yeah I'm not sure about that... But Putin will always have the advantage. He can be as ruthless as he wants because he has no political opponents and no press. Who is going to stop him from going into Crimea, for example? He knows we aren't going to take up arms for that reason. So sanctions and the like are the only weapons... minor economic weapons at best.Jason P said:Putin owns Obama one last time on the world stage. One prefers chess while the other prefers checkers.
0 -
I"m saying the response to the sanctions is a little silly. It's fine, but I wouldn't exactly classify it as Obama went low, Putin went high. At the end of the day, I won't comment whether I think it was strong or weak enough because I hadn't really thought it through yet. But a response is warranted considering the situation. So I don't think Obama was going 'low'.JC29856 said:
I dont follow?? Ploy and children someplace to go??mrussel1 said:
Yes, although Putin's ploy is childishly transparent. As if the children of US Diplomats need someplace to go or someplace for school. It's all games.JC29856 said:
My take: Putin used the "you go low, we go high" on Obama, gern-bernish!mrussel1 said:
Quite the benevolent dictator. I'm sure the Kremlin assisted in the writing of this message.JC29856 said:Russia’s Department for Presidential Affairs is preparing invitations for children of US diplomats in Russia to New Year celebrations in the Kremlin, a spokeswoman said Friday.
President Vladimir Putin invited the children to a series of parties to ring in the New Year that are traditionally held at the walled government compound in the heart of Moscow.
“The Department for Presidential Affairs and the Foreign Ministry are going through required procedures for the children’s participation in celebrations to make sure they will have a good time if they decide to go,” the Department’s spokeswoman Yelena Krylova told RIA Novosti.
This came in response to US media reports that a school attended by children of US diplomats faced a shutdown in retaliation for the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States in the row over Russia’s alleged role in Donald Trump’s win. A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman denied the school would be closed.
Obama is really going hard on Russia during his final days for some reason, the allegations of election hacking based on a phishing scheme, the executive order, tossing the Russian diplomats which some say violate Vienna Conventions (I have no idea if true or not).
Notice also that the foreign ministry contradicts what many in the media have been reporting, diplomat shutdown.
I admit, Im alittle foggy this morning. Not sure if it is do to GMO overload for the dirty draft beer lines. Roast pork sandwich with pepperoni and provolone cheese plus and assortment of beers, I think one was a pomegranate beer. Sorry for the digression.0 -
One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it, “Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”
Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations? According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented. However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.
Facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms.
The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations—“weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.
The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.
Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident. The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.
In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.
As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface. However, in the event that something dangerous is below the surface, the Russian government might want to consider putting its military forces on alert.
0 -
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/30/what-is-the-obama-regime-up-to-paul-craig-roberts/JC29856 said:
One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it, “Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”
Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations? According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented. However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.
Facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms.
The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations—“weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.
The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.
Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident. The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.
In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.
As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface. However, in the event that something dangerous is below the surface, the Russian government might want to consider putting its military forces on alert.
At least give credit.
But at the end of the day, you are arguing that the US Gov't lies about everything and therefore must by lying about Russian hacking. It never happened, but you have no evidence other than saying the US lies. You (or Paul Roberts actually) don't have access to the raw intelligence. You don't know that the conclusions are false, but they must be because the US lies. Ergo, Russia is the good guy here, and US is the bad.
Okay, There's no way to counter this line of arguing. I don't have access to prove you wrong. I can only say that while I believe the US gov't has lied and may lie in the future, I think Putin is a lying piece of shit ex-KGB colonel. Therefore I choose to believe, in this case, the country that provides me a blanket of freedom and prosperity vs the one that has 120 years of genocidal and murderous actions of the belt. What confuses me is why you don't renounce your citizenship and move east to the better country.0 -
Don't you just love how the party that calls liberals commies are in a bromance with one?
White republican male privilege y'all!0 -
PCR answered my question above...what's Obama up to? Makes some sense.mrussel1 said:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/30/what-is-the-obama-regime-up-to-paul-craig-roberts/JC29856 said:
One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it, “Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”
Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations? According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented. However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.
Facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms.
The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations—“weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.
The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.
Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident. The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.
In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.
As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface. However, in the event that something dangerous is below the surface, the Russian government might want to consider putting its military forces on alert.
At least give credit.
But at the end of the day, you are arguing that the US Gov't lies about everything and therefore must by lying about Russian hacking. It never happened, but you have no evidence other than saying the US lies. You (or Paul Roberts actually) don't have access to the raw intelligence. You don't know that the conclusions are false, but they must be because the US lies. Ergo, Russia is the good guy here, and US is the bad.
Okay, There's no way to counter this line of arguing. I don't have access to prove you wrong. I can only say that while I believe the US gov't has lied and may lie in the future, I think Putin is a lying piece of shit ex-KGB colonel. Therefore I choose to believe, in this case, the country that provides me a blanket of freedom and prosperity vs the one that has 120 years of genocidal and murderous actions of the belt. What confuses me is why you don't renounce your citizenship and move east to the better country.
You also believed your freedom and prosperity government when it said Iraq had WMDs?0 -
Negative. I was vehemently anti-war. I believed Scott Ritter and everything he said during his time as inspector. You can also read the PNAC open letter to Clinton and compare the signers of the document to who was in the Bush administration. The PNAC made the argument that we had to take out Iraq to make the region safe for Israel. This was always the real purpose in my mind.JC29856 said:
PCR answered my question above...what's Obama up to? Makes some sense.mrussel1 said:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/30/what-is-the-obama-regime-up-to-paul-craig-roberts/JC29856 said:
One obvious answer is that the neoconized Obama regime is desperate to ruin US-Russian relations past the point that Trump can repair them. As the New York Times puts it, “Mr. Obama’s actions clearly create a problem for Mr. Trump.” The question the New York Times says, is whether Trump “stands with his democratic allies on Capitol Hill or his authoritarian friend in the Kremlin.”
Can Trump’s foreign policy be controlled by false allegations? According to the New York Times, Trump has relented and agreed to being briefed by the CIA about the Russian hacking now that Republicans such as Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham have lined up with Obama and the CIA in accepting charges for which no evidence has been presented. However, a briefing without evidence would seem simply to further discredit the CIA in Trump’s eyes.
Facts no longer have a role in the United States and its empire. Allegations alone suffice, whether in court cases, interrogation centers, foreign and domestic policies, or classrooms.
The US even bases its military invasions on false allegations—“weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, the entirely of US foreign policy since the Clinton regime has been based on nothing but false allegations.
The Russian government should have learned by now, but perhaps Moscow still thinks that facts matter in Washington’s decisions.
Possibly we should consider that more is going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the propaganda about the Russian cyber threat to democracy is being used to prepare American and/or European populations for an incident. The CIA has morphed into a “deep state” that uses disinformation and propaganda to align decisions of Congress, the executive branch, and foreign governments with secret behind-the-scenes agendas. Many books, such as Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers and Douglas Valentine’s CIA As Organized Crime have described some of these secret agendas.
In order to deter Trump from restoring normal relations with Russia, an incident would have to be severe and irreversible. Rather than accept defeat for their agenda of US world hegemony, the neoconservatives are prepared to take high risks. The willingness to take risks is demonstrated by the public effort of the CIA Director to discredit the president-elect.
As expected, Putin’s response to the latest provocation is low key as the “sanctions” appear to be meaningless on the surface. However, in the event that something dangerous is below the surface, the Russian government might want to consider putting its military forces on alert.
At least give credit.
But at the end of the day, you are arguing that the US Gov't lies about everything and therefore must by lying about Russian hacking. It never happened, but you have no evidence other than saying the US lies. You (or Paul Roberts actually) don't have access to the raw intelligence. You don't know that the conclusions are false, but they must be because the US lies. Ergo, Russia is the good guy here, and US is the bad.
Okay, There's no way to counter this line of arguing. I don't have access to prove you wrong. I can only say that while I believe the US gov't has lied and may lie in the future, I think Putin is a lying piece of shit ex-KGB colonel. Therefore I choose to believe, in this case, the country that provides me a blanket of freedom and prosperity vs the one that has 120 years of genocidal and murderous actions of the belt. What confuses me is why you don't renounce your citizenship and move east to the better country.
You also believed your freedom and prosperity government when it said Iraq had WMDs?0 -
not so fast!mrussel1 said:JC29856 said:
This is obviously sourced from somewhere and not your words, so please cite it. I'd like to read it. And regardless of all this, this was a cabinet level decision that was ultimately Obama's decision. So if you want to say it was a bad call, fine. But that doesn't make it nefarious.
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm. The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe. The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.” In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”
Post edited by Kat on0 -
So you're arguing that the sec'y of state was the final call on the uranium deal?JC29856 said:
not so fast!mrussel1 said:JC29856 said:
This is obviously sourced from somewhere and not your words, so please cite it. I'd like to read it. And regardless of all this, this was a cabinet level decision that was ultimately Obama's decision. So if you want to say it was a bad call, fine. But that doesn't make it nefarious.
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm. The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe. The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.” In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”0 -
Its all Hillary's fault. Despite this having been explained back in the day.mrussel1 said:
So you're arguing that the sec'y of state was the final call on the uranium deal?JC29856 said:
not so fast!mrussel1 said:JC29856 said:
This is obviously sourced from somewhere and not your words, so please cite it. I'd like to read it. And regardless of all this, this was a cabinet level decision that was ultimately Obama's decision. So if you want to say it was a bad call, fine. But that doesn't make it nefarious.
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm. The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe. The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.” In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
um noHalifax2TheMax said:
Its all Hillary's fault. Despite this having been explained back in the day.mrussel1 said:
So you're arguing that the sec'y of state was the final call on the uranium deal?JC29856 said:
not so fast!mrussel1 said:JC29856 said:
This is obviously sourced from somewhere and not your words, so please cite it. I'd like to read it. And regardless of all this, this was a cabinet level decision that was ultimately Obama's decision. So if you want to say it was a bad call, fine. But that doesn't make it nefarious.
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm. The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe. The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.” In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”
it's President Obama's fault
Everything is President Obamas fault
Back to and including the crucifixion of you know who0 -
Putin at the Intnl Discussion Club
The Middle East is ground zero for what happens when nations try imposing their will on others forcibly. Instead of pursuing world peace and stability, some countries “do everything they can to make the chaos in this region permanent” – an agenda Russia firmly opposes.Crisis on the Korean peninsula can “only be resolved through dialogue. We should not drive North Korea into a corner, threaten force, stoop to unabashed rudeness or invective.”
“Whether someone likes or dislikes the North Korean regime, we must not forget that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a sovereign state.”
“All disputes must be resolved in a civilized manner” – through diplomacy and compromise, avoiding confrontation.
“(B)ig brother in Washington” behind Kosovo’s independence encouraged other separatist movements, Catalonia and Iraqi Kurdistan the latest ones.
Globalization apologists falsely claimed economic interdependence assured freedom from conflicts and geopolitical rivalries.
Reality proved otherwise, things more complicated and dangerous today than earlier. Western politics “crudely interfere(s) with economic, market relations.”
Illegal unilateral US sanctions on Russia aim to oust the country “from European energy markets…compelling Europe to buy more expensive US-produced LNG although the scale of its production is still too small.”
Washington wants Russia prevented from developing new energy routes, notably its South Stream and Nord Stream projects.
While it’s natural for countries to have their own interests, “(t)he question is the means” they choose to pursue them.
Russia rejects efforts by nations to achieve their aims at the expense of others, stoking tensions, creating instability, leading to conflicts.
“A harmonious future is impossible without social responsibility, without freedom and justice, without respect for traditional ethical values and human dignity.”
“Otherwise, instead of becoming a world of prosperity and new opportunities, this ‘brave new world’ will turn into a world of totalitarianism, castes, conflicts and greater divisions.”
Declaring itself the Cold War victor, US-led Western countries “started openly interfering in the affairs of sovereign states,” waging wars in numerous theaters to assert their dominance.
NATO’s expansion close to Russia’s border created “a heavy burden of mutual distrust,” the global imbalance intensifying.
Instead of resolving global issues, there’s increasing “examples of selfishness,” international treaties and bilateral agreements “devalued” in the process.
Russia ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. America refused. It abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Moscow eliminated its chemical weapons. Putin called the achievement a “historic event.” America failed to meet its commitment. It remains the world’s largest holder of these destructive weapons.
It pushed back its deadline for eliminating them from 2007 to 2023, virtually certain to continue extending it.
CWs Russia eliminated were enough “to destroy life on the planet multiple times over.”
It’s “time to abandon” today’s failed agenda…Never before has humankind possessed such power as it does now.”
The question is will it be used constructively or destructively. Humanity’s future depends on what happens. Either we learn to coexist peacefully or we’ll perish.
We have ongoing hysteria. Washington “rip(s) down our flags, shut(s) down our diplomatic missions. What’s so good about that.”
Post-Soviet Russia’s biggest mistake was trusting the West, a lesson learned, its foreign policy strategy changed appropriately.
The problem in Washington is its system, hamstringing presidents like Trump, preventing him from “implement(ing) any of his election platforms and plans…”
Combating terrorists in Syria will succeed “in the near future.” It won’t mean they’re entirely defeated. They can emerge anywhere at any time.
If further US pressure is exerted on Russian media, “we will (respond) quite quickly” and appropriately. Putin praised RT and Sputnik News.
The world community must choose between peace and stability or “chaos and barbarism” – the latter options clearly ahead of the former ones.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55882
0 -
Trump returns the favor for info on the Tsarnaevs by providing terror suspect/plot info to Russia Russia Russia, difference, Putin acted on it.
0 -
Pravda, komrade!0
-
So he's going to tell us next time before he attacks us?JC29856 said:Trump returns the favor for info on the Tsarnaevs by providing terror suspect/plot info to Russia Russia Russia, difference, Putin acted on it.hippiemom = goodness0 -
Who? Trump or Putin, Putin, Putin?cincybearcat said:
So he's going to tell us next time before he attacks us?JC29856 said:Trump returns the favor for info on the Tsarnaevs by providing terror suspect/plot info to Russia Russia Russia, difference, Putin acted on it.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Ahh yes Putin pulling the orange puppets strings again & again , it makes you wonder what could Putin have on the orange bafoon..jesus greets me looks just like me ....0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help