Putin and the separatists

Why_Yes_I_Do's Avatar
what he should do is immediately increase oil production. fuck over Russia and crash their economy... Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
I see your problem right there. That makes sense, ergo - not gonna happen.

I wonder what Vlad thinks about the chances of F Joe Biden doing that?




bambino's Avatar
I see your problem right there. That makes sense, ergo - not gonna happen.

I wonder what Vlad thinks about the chances of F Joe Biden doing that?




Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
Did Joey Bribes say he was cancelling the 100,000 barrels a day we’re buying from Putin? I didn’t hear that, did you?
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
what he should do is immediately increase oil production. fuck over Russia and crash their economy.

strange that Russia as large as it is, the largest nation on the planet, really only has one major industry it seems, oil. don't have time at the moment to research it but i'm pretty sure the US has far more export industries than them drunk Russies. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
the problem with russia was that its past leaders including the current one failed to develop russia as an economic power like the way USA did with their territories. russia was too busy empire building and playing other stupid power games, they never developed the interior which is resource rich of raw materials.

Putin is trying to rectify this as one notes, too little too late.
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
NATO Sec'y General Stoltenberg disagrees with you...

President Donald Trump "is committed to NATO" and deserves credit in obtaining $100 billion more in defense spending for the alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said Sunday...

"We agreed to do more to step up – and now we see the results. By the end of next year, NATO allies will add $100 billion extra toward defense," he said. "So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact."


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/2695799002/




Well, Joey better come up with a "stunt" of his own, and soon. Little Rocket Man wants attention.

Date Weapons Tested
Jan. 5 Missile with hypersonic glide vehicle flies 500 km
Jan. 11 Kim attends second test of similar hypersonic missile
Jan. 14 Two short-range ballistic missiles fired from train
Jan. 17 Two more short-range ballistic missiles fired
Jan. 25 Two long-range cruise missiles launched
Jan. 27 Two additional short-range ballistic missiles tested

https://time.com/6143233/north-korea...s-kim-jong-un/ Originally Posted by lustylad
so Trump was right all along, NATO was sandbagging and expecting the US to shoulder too high a cost for their defense. who knew? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

regardless, USA should leave NATO. this is a european problem, not an american problem. let them fund nato with their taxpayers, not with usa taxpayers.
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
regardless, USA should leave NATO. this is a european problem, not an american problem. let them fund nato with their taxpayers, not with usa taxpayers. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
none other than 5 star General and President Eisenhower said exactly that.

"If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed."


Trump's NATO heresy was Eisenhower's wisdom: James Robbins

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...lumn/91282406/


OPINION
Trump's NATO heresy was Eisenhower's wisdom: James Robbins

Then why are people so mad? Because The Donald might actually do something about it.

James S. Robbins




"There is no reason for the American taxpayers, in the face of our own substantial deficit, to continue to subsidize Germany, France, England, Norway, Belgium and other prosperous European democracies." Is that Donald Trump going off again about NATO? Will Hillary Clinton smack him down for his reckless rhetoric? Are we on the brink of an international crisis?


Oh wait, it was uber-liberal Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in 1994, talking about a NATO burden-sharing amendment to the defense authorization act. He wanted to start pulling troops out of Europe unless our allies paid more to keep them there.


OK, well how about someone saying that unless European allies started spending more on capability and work out cooperation with NATO, the alliance could become "a relic of history”? That undiplomatic, irresponsible comment had to be Trump, right? No, it was President Bill Clinton’s secretary of Defense, William Cohen, fulminating at a NATO meeting in 2000.


This one just has to be Trump: “Turkey even gets to renegotiate (NATO) base rights every year. I don't know what genius negotiated that deal, but every year we give Turkey the option to shoot at our feet and say, 'Tap-dance, Uncle Sam!’ ... As long as (our NATO allies) can get one more bite out of the apple, nobody is going to voluntarily say, 'We will pay more money.’ ” Hillary Clinton would jump on that comment, calling it uncouth, destructive and careless. Oh but sorry, it was Colorado member of Congress and feminist icon Patricia Schroeder criticizing NATO way back in 1988.


Politicians have been getting upset over NATO burden-sharing for a long time, at least since President Eisenhower fumed over the Europeans “making a sucker out of Uncle Sam.” Trump is just the latest public figure to say the free-riders need to pay their freight.


Trump's winning terrorist narrative: James Robbins


Trump’s insistence that our NATO partners pay their bills or else has generated an overheated response. Clinton’s campaign frets that Trump’s position is an attack on the integrity of the alliance itself. Former secretary of State Madeleine Albright fulminated about Trump’s “irresponsible” comments, accusing him of “blackmailing our partners.”


But back in 1997, Secretary Albright told Congress that she'd “insist that our old allies share this burden fairly. That's what NATO is all about." She must not have insisted very hard because a study group she chaired in 2010 found that “the primary limiting factor hindering (NATO) military transformation has been the lack of European defense spending and investment.”


That same year, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates discussed the “NATO budgetary crisis” and noted how few allies are meeting their defense spending targets. He said this could create “real or perceived weakness” that would be “a temptation to miscalculation and aggression.” In other words, the threat to peace and stability isn't Trump's irresponsible rhetoric; it is Europe's irresponsibly low defense spending.


NATO “doesn't fund itself. Just come with me to my constituencies and ask them whether or not we should primarily fund it.” Vice President Biden made this veiled threat at a NATO summit in 2015. He added that “every NATO country needs to meet its commitment to devote 2% of its GDP to defense.” But only five of the 28 NATO countries clear this bar — Estonia, Greece, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States. And U.S. outlays cover $650 billion of the $900 billion spent by NATO's member nations on their military budgets, or 72%.


Not only is Trump right on the facts, his more forceful tone also might be the tonic needed to shake the other 23 countries out of their complacency and meet their obligations. The only difference between Trump’s approach to NATO burden-sharing and those of his predecessors is that he might finally get our allies to pony up.


James S. Robbins writes weekly for USA TODAY and is the author of This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive.


You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.