# Putin orders Trump to move US troops out of Germany. Trump again does as he is told by his master.



## ChibiMofo (Jul 29, 2020)

Again he does exactly as Putin would want. Exactly how a traitor who reports to the Russian leader would behave. And the world gets even more unsafe. You can google all the times Trump has praised our enemy, and how many times Trump has worked against US and Western interests (such as exiting arms treaties that Russia did not want to be a party to anymore but also did not want to leave unilaterally). Putin recently passed a law that makes his undisputed leader (and not subject to elections) until 2036. And Trump has made it clear he won't leave the Oval Office after losing to Biden. 

When are the rest of you going to wake up to what a serious threat to world security these two thugs are?


----------



## notimp (Jul 30, 2020)

Shouldnt be as simple.. 

Having US troops in the region is a security, economic and prestige factor. US currently quarrels with Germany over trade and security payment issues (basically the Mafia thing of "you've gotta pay up - if yous like your security..  ). The trade part of the issue mostly is related to germany importing most of its fossile energy needs from russia in the future (new pipeline..  ) instead of in large parts through liquified gas shipped in from the US (russia option is more economical), and germany f.e. also not going with the US doctrine of keeping out chinese 5G vendor Huawaii in constructing their future grids. (== relying on US vendors for that stuff which are more expensive, and less technologically advanced..  )

So US 'mad at germany'. 

As a result they move troops out of country (again - economic factor for the region), but they should mostly move them to poland instead (closer to russia..  ), which currently plays 'we also have great autocrat in power, like Trump, and we likes to do everything the US wants to if they come with their moneys'.

As a result this is an additional political strain on the EU (poland is currently becoming more and more autocratic, which doesnt fit well with the EU model - but which f.e. the US likes (more 'realiable' partner)  ).


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 30, 2020)

ChibiMofo said:


> Putin recently passed a law that makes his undisputed leader (and not subject to elections) until 2036.


To be fair, he held a referendum, asking the population whether they'd agree.

...but he also sabotaged any opposition or alternative, meaning that voting no was pretty much a moot point.



ChibiMofo said:


> When are the rest of you going to wake up to what a serious threat to world security these two thugs are?


Okay, I've gotta take offense, here. Russia (or rather: Putin) is on my radar since the annexation of the Ukranian Krim...six years ago, now. The EU proved ineffective to thwart that action, as did other superpowers.
The creepy part is more in what Putin really wants. Unlike Trump, he won't shout it from the rooftops and go at it in the most ineffective way possible. The country is more an oligarchy than anything else (screw those communist stereotypes: it's businessmen with close ties to the government that now effectively rule the place)...but what does he want from the world? I honestly don't know.

Trump wishes he's on the same level as Putin. As you said: he's just a dumb hand puppet. And that 'dumb' is actually a good thing or we'd have a world war on our asses. As it is, it's "just" a second civil war that'll rip the USA to pieces. Not good news in any way, but better than the alternative.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 30, 2020)

No surprise here, Trump won't even broach the topic of Russian bounties on US troops, which I'd argue is a much more serious offense.  Either he owes a fuckton of money to Putin, Putin has some very damaging kompromat on him, or both.  He looks like a whipped puppy every time they're in a room together.


----------



## notimp (Jul 31, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> To be fair, he held a referendum, asking the population whether they'd agree.
> 
> ...but he also sabotaged any opposition or alternative, meaning that voting no was pretty much a moot point.


And there were strange statistical anomalies in the voting count..

https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...-unprecedented-ballot-fraud/story?id=71609348

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> The EU proved ineffective to thwart that action, as did other superpowers.


Well over night thousands of paratroopers appear in unmarked uniforms in ukraine cities, while russia denies official involvement. ("Must be rogue activist military units.")

Your move. 

Also - on the other side of the argument the treaty documents proposed at the time would have cut off russia from access to part of their black sea fleet (at one of the only icefree (throughout the year) habors they have). So... Yeah, lets say 'some reaction' was to be expected.

People in the diplomatic field didnt expect an action as harsh (and as openly undemocratic).


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 31, 2020)

They should all leave Germany. Ramstein Airbase executes people without a trial and causes great collateral damage in human life.


----------



## notimp (Jul 31, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> They should all leave Germany. Ramstein Airbase executes people without a trial and causes great collateral damage in human life.


Ramstein acts as a relay for US drone signals into the middle east. People in the US hit the switch that kills, signal then is relayed over Ramstein (US base) into wherever the US is fighting a drone war (or doing reconnaissance).

In Germany the discussion on a political level about that issue - informally - goes as follows.

"If we arent doing it, the US will move the relay to Poland (or some other willing state), and we lose "being on good speaking terms" with US personal in our country."

So in their minds it is a 'lose - lose' to push for that practice to be outlawed. The argument always goes along 'it wouldnt stop' lines of debate.

And if you are more into a geostrategic argument, you'd have to make a case for what would happen if "air dominance via drone" would stop (in a certain region). Usually people dont have to, because "US exceptionalism" (US = world police = good) basically still is active as a political principle in most countries on the governmental (foreign policy) level.

It is the political opposition that usually is against it, for exactly as long as they arent in government.

edit: See: https://www.dw.com/en/ramstein-air-...-germans-taking-on-the-us-military/a-40432117


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 1, 2020)

It participates in the killings. Move the base to Poland. Let the us see how the Catholics will justify atrocities.


----------



## notimp (Aug 1, 2020)

They literally need any place in the other part of the hemisphere to send a satellite signal from. They'll find it.

Also, one of the first things you learn if you dabble in international politics is that there is the public moral argument, and that it is considered 'domestic politics' almost exclusively.

I dont deny, that those killings are illegal under international law ('extralegal' is the newspeak term), I dont deny, that the amount of civilians killed as 'collateral' is staggering. And I dont deny, that living under a 'drone sky' is a form of psychological torture  for entire populations.

I just state, that the argument that is made to prolong it comes from an 'its inevitable' perspective ('lesser evil' to some extent) That argument might be wrong btw, but then its still hard to rectify establishing 'power vacumes'. (Ressource flow must not be interrupted logic.)


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 2, 2020)

ChibiMofo said:


> And Trump has made it clear he won't leave the Oval Office after losing to Biden.



Horseshit.

Maybe I should start a thread called "Joe Biden on video twiddling little girl's breast." 

At least that would have more factual backup, and many corroborating examples.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 2, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Horseshit.


Trump's already stated that he won't commit to accepting the election results if he loses (same thing he said before the 2016 election).  Not to mention he's suggested delaying the election because of how far down in the polls he is currently.



Hanafuda said:


> Maybe I should start a thread called "Joe Biden on video twiddling little girl's breast."
> 
> At least that would have more factual backup, and many corroborating examples.


I'm not gonna defend Biden, but you should probably avoid cherry-picking negative personality traits that he shares in common with Donald "BFFs with Epstein, best wishes to Ghislane Maxwell" Trump.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 2, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Trump's already stated that he won't commit to accepting the election results if he loses (same thing he said before the 2016 election).  Not to mention he's suggested delaying the election because of how far down in the polls he is currently.



"He won't accept the election results!" scream people who, 4 years later, still haven't accepted the election results.

You've got to beat him first.




> I'm not gonna defend Biden



Yes you are.




> but you should probably avoid cherry-picking negative personality traits that he shares in common with Donald "BFFs with Epstein, best wishes to Ghislane Maxwell" Trump.



Trump has his picture taken with Epstein a few times, but there's no evidence of him ever visiting 'the island', or flying on Epstein's jet, and he barred Epstein from the Mar-A-Lago resort because of a sexual assault allegation against Epstein there. So you can assume all you want about Trump, but you can't back it up. Just like Chibi up there with his B.S. .... bold claims, no evidence.

Biden on the other hand, lots of videos of him touching young girls.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> "He won't accept the election results!" scream people who, 4 years later, still haven't accepted the election results.


_Slightly_ more important that the candidates themselves commit to accepting the election results than it is for some randos.  As power-hungry as Hillary was, even she committed to that well before the election.



Hanafuda said:


> Yes you are.


No, I'm not.  He's slightly right of center and subtly racist.  But apparently that's what it takes to achieve "electability" in this dumpster fire of a country.



Hanafuda said:


> there's no evidence of him ever ... flying on Epstein's jet


Wrong.



Hanafuda said:


> he barred Epstein from the Mar-A-Lago resort because of a sexual assault allegation against Epstein there.


Perhaps once the resort started attracting too much attention.  Prior to that, it was used frequently to host Epstein parties, as well as recruit underage girls.

There's plenty more recently-exposed evidence connecting both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to Epstein too.  I say both of them need to be brought to justice, but I'm sure you'd prefer if only one of them was.  If not for double-standards, Republicans would have no standards at all.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 3, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Wrong.



I didn't know about this. So I read about it. One flight, from Miami to New Jersey, with lots of people on board. A party shuttle back to the city. Shouldn't come as much surprise, as they were on good terms in the 90's. But it's not a flight to Epstein's island.

But yeah, technically, turns out I was wrong about that.




> Perhaps once the resort started attracting too much attention.  Prior to that, it was used frequently to host Epstein parties, as well as recruit underage girls.
> 
> There's plenty more recently-exposed evidence connecting both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump to Epstein too.  I say both of them need to be brought to justice, but I'm sure you'd prefer if only one of them was.  If not for double-standards, Republicans would have no standards at all.



Oh, if Ms. Maxwell has convincing evidence of inappropriate contact between President Trump and underage girls, I certainly will support his impeachment and subsequent prosecution. Otherwise, he's due a presumption of innocence. You're welcome to your opinion of course, but if we're talking about when I would support the President being "brought to justice", well when there's evidence by which he can be convicted of course.  But I've already seen lots of convincing evidence for Biden's proclivities for little girls.


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> But it's not a flight to Epstein's island.


You are obsessed with that island arent you? There are stories of Epstein victims being recruited out of Mar a Largo, while having a traineeship there. Enough of a connection? :/

And yes The Donald has attended Epstein parties commenting publicly on him 'liking his women young - ha ha' and what a swell guy he was.

On the 'excusing Maxwell comment' I actually give him a little of the benefit of the doubt of not having meant it, because 'i wish her well' also is a polite way of cutting someone off of your support list. He definitely reminisced on old stories, when both of them did meet at happenings.

Trump refusing to back down - maybe - if he is not elected, you can read up on here:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-with-president-trump

Search for I don't like to lose.

But then saying how you would handle a loss during a campaign is a no go, so maybe he just wasnt too familiar with the nuances...


----------



## Xzi (Aug 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> You're welcome to your opinion of course, but if we're talking about when I would support the President being "brought to justice", well when there's evidence by which he can be convicted of course.  But I've already seen lots of convincing evidence for Biden's proclivities for little girls.


The videos of Biden with little girls make me gag, just like this picture of Donald and Ivanka does, but clearly that type of thing no longer disqualifies a person from running for president.  Neither apparently does having multiple close associates convicted of pedophilia and/or child sex trafficking.  The Republicans lost all moral authority the second they chose Trump as their candidate, and the Democrats lowered their standards in response to Trump's amoral presidency.  So again that brings me back around to the point I was making in the first place: people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Obviously if I had my way, both men would be pariahs, and the incumbent Mitt Romney would be running against Bernie Sanders right now.  Instead I'm put in the awkward position of having to root for Biden though I won't be voting for him, for the sake of returning to some semblance of sanity and stability, even if there is no return to "normalcy" or morality at this point.  Both American capitalism and the two-party system are fundamentally broken, the sooner the majority realizes this, the better.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> "He won't accept the election results!" scream people who, 4 years later, still haven't accepted the election results.


Every poll (even by fox) have him trailing Biden by a significant margin. Trump, however, brings up imaginary polls in which he's winning and adds that he shouldn't accept any other outcome. I can provide links to both of these claims if you don't believe me, but I think you do. Unless I'm mistaken, you see these two facts as unrelated, and the latter as (perhaps badly communicated) optimism. Because after all, he's got to be optimistic about his chances to stay in the race for the next four years in office... Right? 

... But then there's that third fact : his suggestion to delay the election. Can I take your "You've got to beat him first." as a sign that you disagree with this suggestion?


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 3, 2020)

Deleted... Accidental double post (lost/lousy internet connection)


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 3, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Every poll (even by fox) have him trailing Biden by a significant margin. Trump, however, brings up imaginary polls in which he's winning and adds that he shouldn't accept any other outcome. I can provide links to both of these claims if you don't believe me, but I think you do. Unless I'm mistaken, you see these two facts as unrelated, and the latter as (perhaps badly communicated) optimism. Because after all, he's got to be optimistic about his chances to stay in the race for the next four years in office... Right?
> 
> ... But then there's that third fact : his suggestion to delay the election. Can I take your "You've got to beat him first." as a sign that you disagree with this suggestion?




I don't see Trump behaving much differently than he did in 2016. By that I mean, exactly the type things you mention above, mainly that he dismissed the popular polls as unreliable. On the night before the election, the major news networks were all still talking about a 90%+ chance that Hillary Clinton was going to win. She didn't win. And I know her people just love to talk about how she won the popular vote, but the popular vote doesn't really count for anything. Well, unless a State passes a law that binds their electors to voting for the result of their States' popular vote tally. We do now at least have some clarification from SCOTUS on that, i.e. that electors can be required by their State legislatures to vote for the candidate who won in their state. But it is the electors that choose the next President.

So when I said, "You've got to beat him first," I only meant "don't count chickens before they hatch." Trump may be defeated in this election, but it hasn't happened yet. 

As for Trump's mention of the date of the election, I think that was an intentional troll, something that twitter account is prone to. (I have my doubts that Trump himself is the author of those messages ... he has the best people working on it, fabulous people, classy people) He didn't actually propose that the date be changed, he "aired" the idea to get the left wigged out about it. He doesn't have the authority to change anything, which is why I'm sure of that. It is extremely, and I do mean _extremely_, unlikely that the date of the election will be affected in any way. I only leave open the slight possibility because the reopening of schools nationwide in the next few weeks could lock us all down again, and then what? That would be a terrible mistake, but one thing I've learned in 2020 is that local State government leadership in the US is capable of even bigger mistakes than the Fed.

But if you want to get technical about it for the sake of argument, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates when the election is held, it is a matter of State law. The real election that matters is the elector's in December, and even that doesn't have a set (by the Constitution) date. The only Constitutionally mandated date is the end/beginning of the next term, i.e. January 20. We have a lot of traditions and _local_ laws in the US that people are just very, very used to, but they're not actually 'set in stone' (or the Constitution).


----------



## MMX (Aug 3, 2020)

notimp said:


> Having US troops in the region is a security, economic and prestige factor.



I'm German and live in Germany. We don't want foreign military in our country. I'm sure your people would be against an US military base too.



Taleweaver said:


> ...but he also sabotaged any opposition or alternative, meaning that voting no was pretty much a moot point.



what about opposition in EU countries that get constantly painted as neonazi, conspiracist, morons etc. because they're anti-establishment. Merkel is chancellor of germany since 2005 and nobody questions that and she basically fills the same role as Putin.



Hanafuda said:


> I don't see Trump behaving much differently than he did in 2016.



yep, Zionist in 2016, Zionist in 2020. He serves a flag but it only has one Star on it


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2020)

notimp said:


> Having US troops in the region is a security, economic and prestige factor.





MMX said:


> I'm German and live in Germany. We don't want foreign military in our country. I'm sure your people would be against an US military base too.


It is an economic factor, it is a factor for security cooperation. It has stopped to be a prestige factor in germany (but it would be in other countries.). Now fair? 

Also, you will have 'foreign military' in your country for as long as their nukes are stationed there.


MMX said:


> what about opposition in EU countries that get constantly painted as neonazi, conspiracist, morons etc. because they're anti-establishment. Merkel is chancellor of germany since 2005 and nobody questions that and she basically fills the same role as Putin.


If you are constantly painted 'a nazi' chances are that it isnt because you are opposition. And if you are referencing the AFD (german far right party), it really, really isnt.
see: ( https://www.derstandard.at/story/20...der-afd-bieten-sich-den-behoerden-als?ref=rec (german) )


MMX said:


> yep, Zionist in 2016, Zionist in 2020. He serves a flag but it only has one Star on it


Jebus, world is simple much?

So its not that Israel is a standing military and security partner for the US in the middle east? So it is not that they have ongoing security and intelligence cooperation, and that this relationship hasnt been challenged for more than 70 years?

No it is that -one- president hat serves the symbol of that flag, that... because - parareligious symbolism.

You know what, In your case I'll not even ask for 'sources'


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 3, 2020)

MMX said:


> what about opposition in EU countries that get constantly painted as neonazi, conspiracist, morons etc. because they're anti-establishment. Merkel is chancellor of germany since 2005 and nobody questions that and she basically fills the same role as Putin.


You're right: I don't question that. If Putin didn't spy on other countries, didn't poison his opponents, didn't actively block opposition and probably some other practices I'm missing...then I wouldn't question Putin's actions either.

Happy?


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2020)

MMX said:


> I'm German and live in Germany. We don't want foreign military in our country. I'm sure your people would be against an US military base too.





> Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined.



https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321

There are 195 countries in the world, the US have bases in more than a third of them.

What action apart for "I'm sure you all in this forum would agree" "that you should get rid of them", would that take do you think..


----------



## Captain_N (Aug 3, 2020)

if trump is Putin little bitch, then Biden must be the democrats little bitch. He does every little ting they say to do. He is also black lives matter's bitch also. That man cant even remember where he is during a speech or an interview.


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2020)

If political relationships were like romances/interactions between heads of state primarily, the white house would be a pink and white princess castle.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 3, 2020)

Captain_N said:


> if trump is Putin little bitch, then Biden must be the democrats little bitch. He does every little ting they say to do. He is also black lives matter's bitch also. That man cant even remember where he is during a speech or an interview.



Biden is China's little bitch.


----------



## Captain_N (Aug 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Biden is China's little bitch.


lol thats true


----------



## notimp (Aug 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Biden is China's little bitch.





Captain_N said:


> lol thats true


They  (US and China)are in an economic and trade war currently, remember? That is pledged to increase in propensity in the near future. That currently only is on ice because of Covid? Remember?

Once more - China has investments in the US, but those are mostly to buy goodwill (structurally important investments arent as easy to come by), and get onto stable terms (in non economic war times..  ) US controls USD credit lines, that China needs in most of their industrial production lines (apart from maybe steel..  ) to buy certain resources. Both are embracing each other just the same as they are biting each other ferociously. 


And on the theoretical level - what level of 'dirt' do you think a country would have to hold over a POTUS to mold his/her actions? A pipi tape? That they'd do what with? Leak on the Internet?

Those are levels of actions that russia reserves for party politicians that have fallen out of grace -  but not for international relations..  (Never in history, ...) Getting on speaking terms with a standing head of state is far too valuable to blackmail them... Lets think about this for an extended minute.. 

Isnt part of a blackmail scheme, that you have to pose a legitimate threat that you would make public, whatever the other side doesnt want to have made public? But if you do that POTUS gets kicked out of power? Wait a minute..


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 4, 2020)

Captain_N said:


> if trump is Putin little bitch, then Biden must be the democrats little bitch.




Ahem...seriou...

Okay, ahem... @Captain_N: you've just made my day. You're now owner of the dubious title of "the dumbest political post Taleweaver has ever read".

But hey...I can't help myself with replying:

YES, I AGREE TO THAT! Biden DOES certainly follow the political stance of the political party he's an active member of.

Usually Trump's fanclub wringles in all sorts of excuses to avoid admitting that Trump just follows the political stance of the USA's nemesis wherever Putin wants it. It's pretty refreshing to just "own" those shortcomings like that. I mean "yeah, Trump IS Putin's little bitch. HA! What are YOU going to do about it, eh?  "

...I've got no response, man. You can just drop the mike and go home because you just won the internet.


----------



## MMX (Aug 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> So its not that Israel is a standing military and security partner for the US in the middle east? So it is not that they have ongoing security and intelligence cooperation, and that this relationship hasnt been challenged for more than 70 years?



USA shouldn't have any business in the middle east, Calling the destabilization of countries and wars for Israel "security and intelligence cooperations" is peak chutzpah. 

I bet you also still believe in Saddams weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## notimp (Aug 5, 2020)

MMX said:


> USA shouldn't have any business in the middle east, Calling the destabilization of countries and wars for Israel "security and intelligence cooperations" is peak chutzpah.
> 
> I bet you also still believe in Saddams weapons of mass destruction.


Why should I believe in a false war premise Colin Powell gave? 
Because this sounds so convincing?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/colin-powell-u-n-speech-was-a-great-intelligence-failure/


The premises under which the US fights wars (nowadays) are either the stabilization of trade routes, or securing resources.

(Naive John Kerry calling for 'ending wars because of moral standards' a few years back:  its a standard  )

The pr reasons given are 'fighting to bring democracy', 'war against communism (not so easy after the end of the soviet union), 'war against terrorism', or 'defense of our partners'.

If the US entirely moves out of the middle east, Israel is gone (Egypt and Iran called dibs). Russia would have extended their military zone of influence (they are trying to control a parallel (north/south)), and saudi arabia would have a hard time not getting invaded.

As soon as a (somewhat chaotic) war breaks out in the region oil prices take a hike. The idea is, that the natural state of some countries with high amounts of young people, and desserts near by and others who build ski resorts in said desserts isnt friendly cooperation.

You cant even prop up development projects that easy, so how do you deal with the very concentrated distribution of wealth?

(And as a kicker, the US actually try to get out of the middle east currently (reduce numbers), because its a cost sink for them (they want their partners to invest more), now that they have energy independance in their own country for 20+ years (fossile fuels).)


----------



## nero99 (Aug 5, 2020)

Xzi said:


> No surprise here, Trump won't even broach the topic of Russian bounties on US troops, which I'd argue is a much more serious offense.  Either he owes a fuckton of money to Putin, Putin has some very damaging kompromat on him, or both.  He looks like a whipped puppy every time they're in a room together.


putin is a trigger happy bald man with a fuck ton of nukes pointed right at us. Would you rather have trump piss him off and get us all blown off the planet?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 5, 2020)

nero99 said:


> putin is a trigger happy bald man with a fuck ton of nukes pointed right at us. Would you rather have trump piss him off and get us all blown off the planet?


And the US doesn't also have a fuck ton of nukes?  Yes, I'd rather the president stood up for himself and our country rather than acting like a bitchboy for a failed state.



Hanafuda said:


> Biden is China's little bitch.


I've seen nothing to indicate that.  Xi is a de facto dictator just like Putin, so Trump seems to admire him.  He did absolutely nothing to help Hong Kong when he had the opportunity.


----------



## notimp (Aug 5, 2020)

nero99 said:


> putin is a trigger happy bald man with a fuck ton of nukes pointed right at us. Would you rather have trump piss him off and get us all blown off the planet?


Why have you always have to start at -1 with you folks around here?

With nuclear attacks, depending on the size and, not necessarily, but also - retaliation, you are dealing with 'mutual ensured destruction' many times over. The dust of a couple of those explosions alone would gather in the atmosphere, producing something referred to as nuclear winter. Temperatures fall, crops die, more people die where you dont want them to, trade systems break down.

The 'crazy ivan' story for all intents and purposes always was a lie. Missile shields were a lie (thats generally offensive capability with shield printed on), and the only partner currently actively playing the nuclear armsrace are the US (moving out of disarmament treaties, increasing capability).

None of this has to do mostly or exclusively with what honcho is in office.

But if your only idea of politics is love given to a leader person, and then trying to interpret, what that person and another person would do with 'most powerful  toy' when fired, because thats really all you are capable of thinking about... Thats more 'you' than the real world.

The only nation currently wanting to work on smaller, mobile, nukes, to use for strategic warfare are the US (they have the better technology they want to make that an actionable advantage). Allegedly.

Crazy Ivan nuking the world didnt feature in anyones current deliberations for about sixty years. Gbatempers to the rescue.


----------



## notimp (Aug 7, 2020)

Now this is, when you refer to russian PR/media outlets: 



> US Senator Ted Cruz together with Senators Tom Cotton and Ron Johnson have threatened the management of Mukran Port in Germany, involved in the Nord Stream 2 project with “financial destruction”, if they continue their work on the venture.
> 
> In a three-page letter, obtained by Handelsblatt newspaper, the lawmakers called on Sassnitz GmbH, which operates the port, to discontinue logistical support for the project.
> 
> "If you continue to provide goods, services, and support for the Nord Stream 2 project, you will destroy the future financial survival of your company", the letter read.


src: https://sputniknews.com/world/20200...ith-financial-destruction-over-nord-stream-2/

Entire Letter:
https://www.handelsblatt.com/downloads/25350402/5/brief-ted-cruz-ron-johnson-allseas-group.pdf

How refreshingly open and direct..


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 8, 2020)

There is a reason why Trump is doing what Putin wants: he's preventing WWIII.
We have enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over. Nobody wants that to happen.
No, nuclear disarmament isn't an option. Russia also has enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over.


This is an educated guess.


----------



## notimp (Aug 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> There is a reason why Trump is doing what Putin wants: he's preventing WWIII.
> We have enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over. Nobody wants that to happen.
> No, nuclear disarmament isn't an option. Russia also has enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over.
> 
> ...


Maybe (lets not get bogged down by the fact, that Trump is not doing what Putin wants  ), but.

Why are the US moving upwards in nuclear capability then (they are currently renewing their stock, and looking at fancy new toys - russia, currently doesnt have the financial means).

The only logical path of action for a 'stable' world would be for both to move down in capability, at roughly equal pace. (If you acknowledge mutual ensured destruction.)


----------



## Xzi (Aug 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> There is a reason why Trump is doing what Putin wants: he's preventing WWIII.
> We have enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over. Nobody wants that to happen.
> No, nuclear disarmament isn't an option. Russia also has enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over.


If anybody launches one nuke, every other country launches all their nukes.  Mutually assured destruction has been a thing for well over 60 years now, and yet so many previous presidents still had enough backbone to stand up to Putin.  Trump is weak, that's all there is to it.


----------

