Seriously though. Putin is no Gorbie. He is a very wealthy man with some serious power and some serious business interests. A little bit scary.
More than a little. It's always concerning when we laugh at Putin, 'look, he's topless on a horse' because he is extremely powerful and ruthless. Look what happens to anyone that crosses him.
Post reported.
Vladimir Putin most strongest wise humanitarian leader in known universe.
After Kim Jong Un
Seriously though. Putin is no Gorbie. He is a very wealthy man with some serious power and some serious business interests. A little bit scary.
More than a little. It's always concerning when we laugh at Putin, 'look, he's topless on a horse' because he is extremely powerful and ruthless. Look what happens to anyone that crosses him.
Post reported.
Vladimir Putin most strongest wise humanitarian leader in known universe.
After Kim Jong Un
Sif they have interwebz.
Seriously though. Putin is no Gorbie. He is a very wealthy man with some serious power and some serious business interests. A little bit scary.
More than a little. It's always concerning when we laugh at Putin, 'look, he's topless on a horse' because he is extremely powerful and ruthless. Look what happens to anyone that crosses him.
Post reported.
Vladimir Putin most strongest wise humanitarian leader in known universe.
After Kim Jong Un
I reckon old Vlad would have about 8000 times the power of Jong Un.
And 8000 times the amount of balls to use it.
Will Putin win by taking full control of Crimea? It will be interesting to see how it actually plays out because, if my memory is any good, he did this in Georgia and took a slice of that and placed it back under Mother Russia and no one even cares anymore. Obviously Ukraine is a different kettle of fish as it borders Eastern Europe and will have lasting impact. Putin is not going to give up Sebastopol without a big fight though.
Seriously though. Putin is no Gorbie. He is a very wealthy man with some serious power and some serious business interests. A little bit scary.
More than a little. It's always concerning when we laugh at Putin, 'look, he's topless on a horse' because he is extremely powerful and ruthless. Look what happens to anyone that crosses him.
Post reported.
Vladimir Putin most strongest wise humanitarian leader in known universe.
Cool your jets, Putin lover.
Putin’s puttin the bootin’
Sarah Palin has a pretty good grip on the situation-
"Sarah Palin has offered unsolicited advice to US President Barack Obama on containing Russian aggression, saying "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke".
But she hit home by attacking what she called a feckless Obama foreign policy that she said has helped embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Failing to show peace through strength has allowed some "very, very, very bad dudes (to) gain ground", said Palin, who remains a darling of the far-right.
Obama "would gut our arsenal while he allows others - enemies - to enrich theirs", she said.
"Mr President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke."
The comments follow Russia's invasion of neighbouring Ukraine last month, action which sent tensions soaring and US-Russia relations to perhaps their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.
The remark may have sounded flippant, but it was red meat to conservatives mindful of similar language used by the head of the National Rifle Association, America's largest gun lobby.
In the aftermath of a December 2012 mass shooting in Connecticut, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre poured fuel on the gun control debate by saying that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/03/09/14/05/sarah-palin-stop-putin-with-nukes
A strange article. Obama has been aggressive in acting militarily when needed, though some would argue it wasn't needed.
LOL at yaco thinking certain US politicians/media speak rationally.
Russia paper to be taking the US very seriously.
Interesting interpretation of all this I read today was that a large part of putin’s motivation is an attempt to shore up his support among the Russian nationalists by flexing military muscle & ■■■■■■■ off the USA. Apparently there’d been lots of discontent with his govt allowing Tadjiks etc in to the country (they took our jerbskis!) among the various Rusdian nationalists, racists, & religious (Orthodox) conservatives, but after this Crimea stuff they’re all lining up to tongue his nuts again…
I reckon Putin will rescue annex Eastern Ukraine soon.
I reckon Putin will rescue annex Eastern Ukraine soon.
in order to make the Crimean "merger" work from a strategic viewpoint, i think its almost inevitable. Whether the Crimean annexation is reasonable or not, there's no way it can exist totally reliant on a hostile Kiev / mainland. Putin will want to keep a land corridor open to his reclaimed toy.
What Nato then do is the interesting thing. The Americans and others are talking about the Sudentenland, and whilst i think the end game is decidedly different from 1938 there are certainly some striking similarities in the "justifications" and i think its fair to draw some lessons from history.
From the Western side though, i'm not sure how they criticise (rightly) a referendum held "under threat of military occupation" with a straight face given the not so distant past, lol.
Yeah, rather obvious and sadly no one at my work got the comparison when I mentioned it.The Americans and others are talking about the Sudentenland, and whilst i think the end game is decidedly different from 1938 there are certainly some striking similarities in the "justifications"
reading about this on fb, and I guess the trending of it, this beauty of a word was introduced and fitted well with our media. Apparently all themedia in the western world are Presstitutes.
I got a chuckle out of it anyway
I reckon Putin will rescue annex Eastern Ukraine soon.
in order to make the Crimean "merger" work from a strategic viewpoint, i think its almost inevitable. Whether the Crimean annexation is reasonable or not, there's no way it can exist totally reliant on a hostile Kiev / mainland. Putin will want to keep a land corridor open to his reclaimed toy.
What Nato then do is the interesting thing. The Americans and others are talking about the Sudentenland, and whilst i think the end game is decidedly different from 1938 there are certainly some striking similarities in the "justifications" and i think its fair to draw some lessons from history.
From the Western side though, i'm not sure how they criticise (rightly) a referendum held "under threat of military occupation" with a straight face given the not so distant past, lol.
Japanese did the same thing in Manchuria. In fact it has been used by many nations in past history and has generally always been initially successful. It's long term success is debatable though.
Bye Bye Eastern Ukraine
Russia is about to invade
