Or what? What happens if they say ‘go fuck yourself, we’re staying’? Send in the Marines and watch a few billion people die when the clearly unstable Putin starts lobbing nukes all over North America? Originally Posted by JacuzzmeYou are a special level of dumb. Or you can't actually read. Why partial quote my post, out of context, and then provide an even more out of context response. Oh, yeah, I know why, because you are a real dummy.
- 1blackman1
- 03-02-2022, 09:10 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 03-02-2022, 09:15 PM
- 1blackman1
- 03-02-2022, 09:21 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 03-02-2022, 09:26 PM
I am NiorMan because i say so Originally Posted by NiorMan
BAAAAAHHHHHAAAA
- Jon969
- 03-02-2022, 09:41 PM
- HedonistForever
- 03-02-2022, 09:49 PM
Yes, the Mueller investigation took awhile and cost some bucks, it did have conclusions.
Putin did order interference in 2016 U.S. election.
We didn't need to spend millions of dollars to know that. The point of the investigation was to find evidence of "collusion" between Trump and Putin and did Mueller find that evidence? He did not.
Manafort actively interacted with Russian intelligence for political gain.
With no evidence of Trump's involvement or did I miss that part in Mueller's report? If I did, would you please supply it? Let's look at what Manafort was found guilty of because surely they found him guilty of conspiring to interfere in the election, right? Because that is what this was all about, right?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/21/17648760/manafort-trial-guilty-verdict-mueller-trump-russia
A Virginia jury concluded after four days of deliberation that Manafort was guilty of five counts of subscribing to false income tax returns, one count of failing to report his foreign accounts, and two counts of bank fraud.See any fucking mention of conspiracy to interfere in the election?
Manafort, however, is the only one of these whose case actually went to trial rather than ending in a guilty plea. So the verdict marks a major milestone in the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election — even though the trial itself wasn’t actually about Russian interference.
The trial instead focused on Manafort’s money. The prosecution alleged that Manafort laundered $30 million he made working for Ukrainian politicians into the US from undeclared offshore accounts without paying taxes. Later, they alleged, Manafort defrauded several US banks to get more than $20 million in loans (after the Ukrainian regime was deposed and he was looking for cash elsewhere).
In the end, the jury convicted Manafort on all five of the tax charges, one failure to report foreign accounts charge, and two of the bank fraud charges.
Had Stone use Wikileaks for same.
First, there was no evidence presented that Trump had any connection to what Stone did and once again, no conviction on "conspiracy to interfere in the election". All of Mueller's efforts was to arrest these people in the hope of getting them to flip on Trump. He didn't so they got what convictions they could.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roger-stone-found-guilty-counts/story?id=67015102
Jurors have returned a guilty verdict on all of seven counts including five counts of lying to Congress, one count of witness tampering and one count of obstruction of a proceeding.
Steele dossier having undue influence on FBI (I love bring up that document since it was started by the repubs.)
I'll bet you do. And another mis-characterazation of what actually happened. And once again, I have to ask, are you ignorant as to how all this played out or do you just leave stuff out that doesn't fit the story you want to tell. Let me and the NY Times explain it to you "IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html
The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.IT was Hillary and the DNC, not Republicans that hired Steele to produce Russian dis-information.
The Free Beacon, funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee had begun paying Fusion GPS in April for research that eventually became the basis for the dossier.
So, berate it as you will, it did shine the light on some things. Originally Posted by Precious_b
Yes, it shined a light on the false allegations made. It shined a light on a corrupt FBI, CIA, DOJ and State Dept. Multiple people fired at FBI and DOJ and landed an FBI lawyer in jail for falsifying an official document. all with the intention of making sure this bogus investigation could continue which didn't please the FISA Court.
- HedonistForever
- 03-02-2022, 09:52 PM
Yes, the Mueller investigation took awhile and cost some bucks, it did have conclusions.Yes, it shined a light on the false allegations made. It shined a light on a corrupt FBI, CIA, DOJ and State Dept. Multiple people fired at FBI and DOJ and landed an FBI lawyer in jail for falsifying an official document. all with the intention of making sure this bogus investigation could continue which didn't please the FISA Court.
Putin did order interference in 2016 U.S. election.
We didn't need to spend millions of dollars to know that. The point of the investigation was to find evidence of "collusion" between Trump and Putin and did Mueller find that evidence? He did not.
Manafort actively interacted with Russian intelligence for political gain.
With no evidence of Trump's involvement or did I miss that part in Mueller's report? If I did, would you please supply it? Let's look at what Manafort was found guilty of because surely they found him guilty of conspiring to interfere in the election, right? Because that is what this was all about, right?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/21/17648760/manafort-trial-guilty-verdict-mueller-trump-russia
A Virginia jury concluded after four days of deliberation that Manafort was guilty of five counts of subscribing to false income tax returns, one count of failing to report his foreign accounts, and two counts of bank fraud.
Manafort, however, is the only one of these whose case actually went to trial rather than ending in a guilty plea. So the verdict marks a major milestone in the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election — even though the trial itself wasn’t actually about Russian interference.
The trial instead focused on Manafort’s money. The prosecution alleged that Manafort laundered $30 million he made working for Ukrainian politicians into the US from undeclared offshore accounts without paying taxes. Later, they alleged, Manafort defrauded several US banks to get more than $20 million in loans (after the Ukrainian regime was deposed and he was looking for cash elsewhere).
In the end, the jury convicted Manafort on all five of the tax charges, one failure to report foreign accounts charge, and two of the bank fraud charges.
See any mention of conspiracy to interfere in the election?
Had Stone use Wikileaks for same.
First, there was no evidence presented that Trump had any connection to what Stone did and once again, no conviction on "conspiracy to interfere in the election". All of Mueller's efforts were to arrest these people in the hope of getting them to flip on Trump. He didn't so they got what convictions they could.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roger-stone-found-guilty-counts/story?id=67015102
Jurors have returned a guilty verdict on all of seven counts including five counts of lying to Congress, one count of witness tampering and one count of obstruction of a proceeding.
Steele dossier having undue influence on FBI (I love bring up that document since it was started by the repubs.)
I'll bet you do. And another mis-characterazation of what actually happened. And once again, I have to ask, do you really not know this? How all this played out or do you just leave stuff out that doesn't fit the story you want to tell? Let me and the NY Times explain it to you "IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html
The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.
The Free Beacon, funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee had begun paying Fusion GPS in April for research that eventually became the basis for the dossier.
IT was Hillary and the DNC, not Republicans that hired Steele to produce Russian dis-information.
So, berate it as you will, it did shine the light on some things. Originally Posted by Precious_b
- Jacuzzme
- 03-02-2022, 10:07 PM
- Levianon17
- 03-02-2022, 10:12 PM
NATO leaders have recently praised Trump for taking them to task about being slackers about contributing to their own defense and simply relying on the US.That sounded like a classic Quid pro joe, lol.
'Trump is having an impact': NATO head credits president's tough talk for $100B boost
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/2695799002/
now about that Ukraine thing ..
is Ashley Oates smart enough to know Obama and Biden threatened to withhold 1 Billion dollars from Ukraine unless they fired their top prosecutor?
do you? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
- LexusLover
- 03-03-2022, 05:36 AM
Translation: I have no answer. Originally Posted by JacuzzmeLook around the board and particularly this forum. But what is extraordinarily obvious is he is provided the forum to trash people and ridicule them personally with IMPUNITY!
I'll provide the standard definition of "impunity" for him:
"exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action."
- Why_Yes_I_Do
- 03-03-2022, 06:20 AM
I wasn't even going to post this, partly because even saying the same of the author would cause the Libtards to go into cardiac arrest or to jump out of windows of tall buildings or to hurl themselves in front of an on coming train and partly because history just ain't their bag baby and partly because I'm merciful..
In today edition of Remember When:
Ann Coulter
...OBAMA ERA 2009: Throughout President Obama’s “reset” of the relationship with Russia — which had “deteriorated alarmingly” under President Bush, according to the New York Times — foreign policy experts were thrilled to have an American leader finally acknowledging the end of the Cold War.
A Times article cheerfully reported that “Mr. Obama has resolved not to let the ghosts of the 20th century get in the way of his goals in the 21st.” The paper editorialized, “We are relieved that Washington and Moscow are talking about cooperation.”
In a May 20, 2009, column titled “Cold War Leftovers,” Stephen Sestanovich expressed delight that “the cold war really is over.” More than two years later, on Oct. 28, 2011, British historian Geoffrey Wheatcroft informed Times readers: “Putin’s Russia, though obnoxious enough, scarcely represents a strategic threat.”
Evincing our shared humanity, the Russkies loved Obama. “After relations with the United States curdled in the final years of President George W. Bush’s tenure,” the Times cooed, “many people [in Russia] were relieved by Mr. Obama’s election.” Indeed, “Russia’s leaders … could not say enough good things about President Obama.” Sting was right: The Russians DO love their children, too!
Obama didn’t sanction Russia for placing spies on U.S. soil, and barely did for annexing Crimea. Peace reigned.
Evincing our shared humanity, the Russkies loved Obama. “After relations with the United States curdled in the final years of President George W. Bush’s tenure,” the Times cooed, “many people [in Russia] were relieved by Mr. Obama’s election.” Indeed, “Russia’s leaders … could not say enough good things about President Obama.” Sting was right: The Russians DO love their children, too!
Obama didn’t sanction Russia for placing spies on U.S. soil, and barely did for annexing Crimea. Peace reigned
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
ROMNEY ERA 2012: When Mitt Romney came along and described Russia as our “No. 1 geopolitical foe” in 2012, the world laughed itself silly.
Ridiculing Romney in an editorial titled “The Never-Ending Cold War,” the Times said his remark revealed “either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.”
The BBC cited “experts” who said Romney’s statements on Russia reflected “his lack of experience in foreign policy.”
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell proved Romney was wrong with a video clip of Andrea Mitchell stating: “Russia is not the greatest foreign policy challenge.” Enough said!
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow couldn’t contain her hilarity over the Republican National Convention’s offering “an extra bonus of threatening Russia.”
In a debate, Obama responded to Romney, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” To hoots of laughter at the Democratic National Convention, he accused Romney of being “stuck in a Cold War mind warp.” Then-Sen. John Kerry joked, “Folks, Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching ‘Rocky IV.’”
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
TRUMP ERA, 2016: Trump ran on having better relations with Russia, and he questioned the wisdom of letting every country in Europe into NATO — whereupon Russia became the most psychotically evil country in the world.
Nearly all the other Republican candidates jumped on Trump, sneering, “that’s not how the real world works” (Jeb!), calling Putin a “gangster” (Sen. Marco Rubio) and vowing to “start rebuilding the Sixth Fleet right under [Putin’s] nose, rebuilding the … missile defense program in Poland right under his nose … conduct very aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states … and I might also put in a few more thousand troops into Germany” (Carly Fiorina).
Clearly, Republican primary voters thus had a choice of two very divergent views of Russia. They picked the guy who wanted to have a better relationship with Russia.
Then Trump beat Hillary, and Democrats announced that he’d stolen the election by colluding with Russia, the most evil country on Earth. (This was absolutely NOT an insane conspiracy theory supported by zero evidence.)
To our great misfortune, instead of doing what he’d run on, Trump decided the sole focus of his administration would be proving that he was not too friendly to Russia! Voters never got the thawed relationship with Russia they’d voted for. (Or the wall, now that I think about it.)
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
RIDDLE: WHAT’S EASIER TO ROLL THAN AN EASTER EGG?
Donald Trump. The smoking gun of Trump’s collusion with Russia was supposedly Trump’s platform committee rejecting a delegate’s proposed amendment to sell “lethal weapons” to Ukraine.
You know who else didn’t want to sell lethal weapons to Ukraine? Obama. German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Professor Graham Allison of Harvard, national defense expert. As Matthew Rojansky, director of the Kennan Institute, explained to the New York Times in 2015, sending lethal weapons to Ukraine would make the U.S. “a belligerent party in a proxy war with Russia, the only country on Earth that can destroy the United States. That’s why this is a big deal.” This was “the view of many experts,” the Times added.
You’ll never guess what happened next. Before the end of his first year in office, Trump approved the sale of … lethal weapons to Ukraine! Conservatives were thrilled! See? Trump isn’t controlled by Putin! What do you say now, Resistance? (They said: Trump still stole the election by colluding with Russia.)
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
BIDEN ERA, 2022: The Cold War is back! You might say liberals are “stuck in a Cold War mind warp.” They talk like they’ve “only seen Russia by watching ‘Rocky IV.’”
Joy-Ann Reid, Feb. 27, 2022: “Republicans … who came into the party through Reagan … which was highly adversarial toward the Soviet Union, why do they love Russia so much, … why do they love the Kremlin and Putin so much?”
Hey, Joy-Ann! The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back!
Unlike the experts and journalists whose deep study has led them to a sophisticated take on Russia (that flips back and forth with the politics of the moment), my position on Russia has been as unchanged as the Rock of Gibraltar, at least since the end of the Cold War. Coincidentally, it is exactly the same as my position on Taiwan, Haiti, Uganda and North Korea.
It is this: Tens of millions of illegals are pouring across our border and must be stopped.
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
Go Get 'em
In today edition of Remember When:
Ann Coulter
...OBAMA ERA 2009: Throughout President Obama’s “reset” of the relationship with Russia — which had “deteriorated alarmingly” under President Bush, according to the New York Times — foreign policy experts were thrilled to have an American leader finally acknowledging the end of the Cold War.
A Times article cheerfully reported that “Mr. Obama has resolved not to let the ghosts of the 20th century get in the way of his goals in the 21st.” The paper editorialized, “We are relieved that Washington and Moscow are talking about cooperation.”
In a May 20, 2009, column titled “Cold War Leftovers,” Stephen Sestanovich expressed delight that “the cold war really is over.” More than two years later, on Oct. 28, 2011, British historian Geoffrey Wheatcroft informed Times readers: “Putin’s Russia, though obnoxious enough, scarcely represents a strategic threat.”
Evincing our shared humanity, the Russkies loved Obama. “After relations with the United States curdled in the final years of President George W. Bush’s tenure,” the Times cooed, “many people [in Russia] were relieved by Mr. Obama’s election.” Indeed, “Russia’s leaders … could not say enough good things about President Obama.” Sting was right: The Russians DO love their children, too!
Obama didn’t sanction Russia for placing spies on U.S. soil, and barely did for annexing Crimea. Peace reigned.
Evincing our shared humanity, the Russkies loved Obama. “After relations with the United States curdled in the final years of President George W. Bush’s tenure,” the Times cooed, “many people [in Russia] were relieved by Mr. Obama’s election.” Indeed, “Russia’s leaders … could not say enough good things about President Obama.” Sting was right: The Russians DO love their children, too!
Obama didn’t sanction Russia for placing spies on U.S. soil, and barely did for annexing Crimea. Peace reigned
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
ROMNEY ERA 2012: When Mitt Romney came along and described Russia as our “No. 1 geopolitical foe” in 2012, the world laughed itself silly.
Ridiculing Romney in an editorial titled “The Never-Ending Cold War,” the Times said his remark revealed “either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.”
The BBC cited “experts” who said Romney’s statements on Russia reflected “his lack of experience in foreign policy.”
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell proved Romney was wrong with a video clip of Andrea Mitchell stating: “Russia is not the greatest foreign policy challenge.” Enough said!
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow couldn’t contain her hilarity over the Republican National Convention’s offering “an extra bonus of threatening Russia.”
In a debate, Obama responded to Romney, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” To hoots of laughter at the Democratic National Convention, he accused Romney of being “stuck in a Cold War mind warp.” Then-Sen. John Kerry joked, “Folks, Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. Mitt Romney talks like he’s only seen Russia by watching ‘Rocky IV.’”
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
TRUMP ERA, 2016: Trump ran on having better relations with Russia, and he questioned the wisdom of letting every country in Europe into NATO — whereupon Russia became the most psychotically evil country in the world.
Nearly all the other Republican candidates jumped on Trump, sneering, “that’s not how the real world works” (Jeb!), calling Putin a “gangster” (Sen. Marco Rubio) and vowing to “start rebuilding the Sixth Fleet right under [Putin’s] nose, rebuilding the … missile defense program in Poland right under his nose … conduct very aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states … and I might also put in a few more thousand troops into Germany” (Carly Fiorina).
Clearly, Republican primary voters thus had a choice of two very divergent views of Russia. They picked the guy who wanted to have a better relationship with Russia.
Then Trump beat Hillary, and Democrats announced that he’d stolen the election by colluding with Russia, the most evil country on Earth. (This was absolutely NOT an insane conspiracy theory supported by zero evidence.)
To our great misfortune, instead of doing what he’d run on, Trump decided the sole focus of his administration would be proving that he was not too friendly to Russia! Voters never got the thawed relationship with Russia they’d voted for. (Or the wall, now that I think about it.)
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
RIDDLE: WHAT’S EASIER TO ROLL THAN AN EASTER EGG?
Donald Trump. The smoking gun of Trump’s collusion with Russia was supposedly Trump’s platform committee rejecting a delegate’s proposed amendment to sell “lethal weapons” to Ukraine.
You know who else didn’t want to sell lethal weapons to Ukraine? Obama. German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Professor Graham Allison of Harvard, national defense expert. As Matthew Rojansky, director of the Kennan Institute, explained to the New York Times in 2015, sending lethal weapons to Ukraine would make the U.S. “a belligerent party in a proxy war with Russia, the only country on Earth that can destroy the United States. That’s why this is a big deal.” This was “the view of many experts,” the Times added.
You’ll never guess what happened next. Before the end of his first year in office, Trump approved the sale of … lethal weapons to Ukraine! Conservatives were thrilled! See? Trump isn’t controlled by Putin! What do you say now, Resistance? (They said: Trump still stole the election by colluding with Russia.)
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
BIDEN ERA, 2022: The Cold War is back! You might say liberals are “stuck in a Cold War mind warp.” They talk like they’ve “only seen Russia by watching ‘Rocky IV.’”
Joy-Ann Reid, Feb. 27, 2022: “Republicans … who came into the party through Reagan … which was highly adversarial toward the Soviet Union, why do they love Russia so much, … why do they love the Kremlin and Putin so much?”
Hey, Joy-Ann! The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back!
Unlike the experts and journalists whose deep study has led them to a sophisticated take on Russia (that flips back and forth with the politics of the moment), my position on Russia has been as unchanged as the Rock of Gibraltar, at least since the end of the Cold War. Coincidentally, it is exactly the same as my position on Taiwan, Haiti, Uganda and North Korea.
It is this: Tens of millions of illegals are pouring across our border and must be stopped.
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Ann Coulter Ann Coulter
Go Get 'em
- WTF
- 03-03-2022, 06:29 AM
Someone will have to quote because this chickenshit does not like the way Ipoint out his ignorance and distortions.
With no evidence of Trump's involvement or did I miss that part in Mueller's report? If I did, would you please supply it? Let's look at what Manafort was found guilty of because surely they found him guilty of conspiring to interfere in the election, right? Because that is what this was all about, right?
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
Yes Manafort was convicted on tax charges from PRO RUSSIAN forces inside Ukraine.
What HedonistForever fails to point out is that Trump and company changed the GOP platform concerning its stance on Russia and Ukraine to a more pro Russian view.
Why would they do that?
Because Trumps campaign manger had taken unreported pro Russian money?
Did Trump then pardon Manafort?
Why yes the fuck he did.
So fuck you now enlightened Pro Ukrainian assholes who still think Trump and Russia weren't in bed together.
A piss bed.
- LexusLover
- 03-03-2022, 06:43 AM
I wasn't even going to post this, partly because even saying the same of the author would cause the Libtards to go into cardiac arrest .... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_DoThere are NO FACTS supporting the claim that Trump "colluded" with the Russians, but there are FACTS that support the reality that the HillariousNoMore campaign through U.S. government employees "colluded" with the Russians in an attempt to defeat Trump.
The first FACT: The fabricated document ("dossier") about Trump that was provided to the HillariousNoMore campaign by the Russians for which the HillariousNoMore campaign paid to those providing it.
The most recent FACT: The identity of the company providing the technical support to intercept messages and information at the Trump residence in the Trump Tower in NYC and the Oval Office in the White House WHILE OBAMBINABLE WAS STILL OCCUPYING IT.
The FACTS were provided to a Federal Grand Jury, who voted for indictments describing those FACTS. What the Russians are doing at the moment are systematically destroying the people, facilities, and documents in Ukraine that prove the illegal activities of the Biden family in Ukraine while the U.S. citizens pay for it by the purchase of Russian oil to replace the U.S. produced until Bitten took office and his son's bribery was discovered, but not publicized during the election/campaign period by the media.
Cheating, fraud, and lying is a way of life with Bitten ...
https://american-herald.com/2020/07/...of-plagiarism/And it's not old age ... it's old habits.
- winn dixie
- 03-03-2022, 07:47 AM
china is watching closely. They're the ones pulling the strings. On both russia and the u n . You see.
IT was Barzini all along!
IT was Barzini all along!
- Jacuzzme
- 03-03-2022, 08:53 AM
Look around the board and particularly this forum. But what is extraordinarily obvious is he is provided the forum to trash people and ridicule them personally with IMPUNITY!Like I give half a shit what some random guy thinks or what so-callled consequences a hooker board moderator hands out. That’s not the point.
I'll provide the standard definition of "impunity" for him: Originally Posted by LexusLover
He proposed that Russia should be given an ultimatum, do this that and the other thing or else, but is unwilling or unable to define what the ‘or else’ consists of. The world is already doing everything they can financially, short of boycotting Russian energy, which will cut their own throats since nobody took Trumps advice and weaned themselves off of it years ago.
The only repercussions that make sense would be a military engagement to throw them out by force, economic sanctions are meaningless because they don’t effect the leadership. Only ordinary Russian citizens who have nothing to do with it will feel any pain, political officials won’t miss a single meal or shot of Stollys.