Russian President Putin says Trump confirmed willing to mend ties - Polidicks

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51404515]The United States is a nation in North America. I think we should stop doing anything militarily outside of our border unless it can be proven to be an actual threat to our safety and sovereignty. If that means Russia rampages all over the Middle East and Europe then so be it. Why should I care? I live in the middle of North America. Explain to me why I should waste my nation's blood and treasure to pull off military theatrics in some faraway land when it has no benefit to my safety and security.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE="some guy"]The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=maniacykt;51408208]Crimea joined [B][I]willingly[/I][/B]. [/QUOTE] ya if you call an election held under military occupation willing.

I guess all of the people that were outspoken against joining Russia that vanished in the days before the vote just left willingly.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51409025]The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.[/QUOTE] Said George Bush on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.

[QUOTE=Sableye;51409471]ya if you call an election held under military occupation willing.[/QUOTE] It's either military occupation or another Odessa all over Crimea.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51409643]Said George Bush on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.[/QUOTE] JFK said it before the Canadian parliament as part of a greater plea for cooperation across the western hemisphere both militarily regarding NATO and economically/humanitarian in South and Central America. If you don't like that quote this one also fits [QUOTE=presumably someone pretty smart]Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.[/QUOTE]

Ah. This topic again, Before we go into deep - i am notified that for some reason there is a huge backlash to anything that i am trying to write by certain people here on FP. All i have to say is, before attributing qualities of bigot and shill to me, i encourage you to actually read thru some of my older posts on Russia/US/Politics as whole rather than go mandela effect on my ass , simply "remembering" things that are just not there. Sure, i was not always right, but i am still determinated to share my thoughts for sake of dialogue and topic. I found this quote in one of games - "fear breeds a desire for simplicity". As somebody recently asked - why Georgia atributed to Russia's agression if everything started with initial atack on south osetia? Why everyone forgot how lots of western news media strted live coverage ONLY after Russia responded? Why people keep defending what happend in Lybia of even presidents of France and US admitted it as a mistake, and before it was not as horrible country as people try to paint the Ghaddafi's rule? And why everything that happens in Ukraine ignored, i mean ffs when was last time you checked news out there? Do you know about all recent clashes and protests? About ridiculous laws and ministry appointments? Oh right, we got outselves Crimea back, this deserves any more attention than anything what Ukraine done to fuck up lives of their people. But for some reason there alwas exist justification: Russia's response to Georgian attack is unproportional. Should've politely wait at their border. Lybia was worth it because Gaddafi is wrong soo lets just bomb everything to shreds. Ukraine is on way to European Union, it's ok if they denounce everything the EU stands for to achieve that goal. In desire for simplicity way too many details are being dismissed for sake of keeping the picture of boogeyman and agenda that being covered up by that.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;51409935]Ah. This topic again, Before we go into deep - i am notified that for some reason there is a huge backlash to anything that i am trying to write by certain people here on FP. All i have to say is, before attributing qualities of bigot and shill to me, i encourage you to actually read thru some of my older posts on Russia/US/Politics as whole rather than go mandela effect on my ass , simply "remembering" things that are just not there. Sure, i was not always right, but i am still determinated to share my thoughts for sake of dialogue and topic. I found this quote in one of games - "fear breeds a desire for simplicity". As somebody recently asked - why Georgia atributed to Russia's agression if everything started with initial atack on south osetia? Why everyone forgot how lots of western news media strted live coverage ONLY after Russia responded?[/QUOTE] You're tired of being branded a shill yet you follow up with the Russian "truth" of Georgia. Please make your mind up. [QUOTE=karimatrix;51409935]Ukraine is on way to European Union, it's ok if they denounce everything the EU stands for to achieve that goal.[/QUOTE] [citation needed]

Georgia did start shooting first, get your head out of your ass boy.

[QUOTE=maniacykt;51418855]Georgia did start shooting first, get your head out of your ass boy.[/QUOTE] I've done my reading and it seems like Russia was largely to blame. They've been aggravating the conflict for years before the war happened. They'd been subverting South Ossetia to the point where by the time the war broke out, South Ossetia's government and military were controlled by Russian officials, and most of their budget was supplied by Russia. A Russian military exercise took place outside the Georgian border, the enemy was described as the Georgian military, and at the conclusion the Russian forces remained outside along the border instead of returning to their barracks. Separatists began shelling Georgian villages while Russia quietly whisked away 90% of the civilian population in preparation of what was to come. By the way, did I mention that this population was granted Russian citizenship with the express purpose of giving Russia a legitimate interest in the region? So separatist shelling continued, and Georgia moved heavy equipment into place to dissuade the separatists. Georgia called for a cease-fire, but that only lasted a few hours before the separatists resumed shelling. As the Georgian military geared up to intervene, small groups of Russian military forces were already entering South Ossetia. Georgia fired warning smoke in order to give civilians a chance to flee, then began shelling Separatist and South Ossetian military positions in and around Tskhinvali, before sending infantry and armored forces in. This is clearly the origin of the "Georgia shot first" claim, which ignores days of separatist shellings that prompted it. It is at this time that the Russian military began their invasion of Georgia. Despite a cease-fire agreement being put in place, Russia did not stop. They went on to bomb and shell the city of Gori and other cities indiscriminately for days, and fired upon fleeing Georgian civilians. The forced deportation of Georgians occurred in areas of South Ossetia. South Ossetian militias were also accused of looting Georgian villages and cities. As Russia claimed they were not expanding their attack, Russian military forces expelled the Georgians from Abkhazia and entered Georgia. President Medvedev finally declared "The operation has achieved its goal, security for peacekeepers and civilians has been restored" and a cease-fire agreement was signed by both sides. Russian forces nonetheless continued their military campaign for several days before they were ordered to withdraw. After the withdrawel, Russian forces remained in South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

[QUOTE=Nitro836;51405515]I just hope that Russia keeps away from other countries. Why would they need MORE land while they're THE biggest country on earth? It perplexes me. I honestly do not know why, I can only theorize possibly being power hungry and unwilling to let go of old ways (of burning those who stand in their way with whatever makes the biggest fires at the time).[/QUOTE] Crimea has access to a warm-water port leading into the Mediterranean. Only other major ports the country has is in the Pacific and the Baltic. Having another access point leading into the Atlantic is a huge strategic win for the Russians despite their lackluster navy.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;51432158]Crimea has access to a warm-water port leading into the Mediterranean. Only other major ports the country has is in the Pacific and the Baltic. Having another access point leading into the Atlantic is a huge strategic win for the Russians despite their lackluster navy.[/QUOTE] Why do people always talk about this "warm water port" stuff whenever Crimea is mentioned? Guess what? Russia already had access to the Black Sea. [thumb]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6jrF7qV8OLg/Ts3Chg9wFWI/AAAAAAAACdI/AwrossPIe5A/s1600/black-sea-map-with-surrounding-countries.gif[/thumb] And what good does it do them? They have the same exact problem that they face in the Baltic. NATO countries control access to both of those seas at the Danish straits and the Dardanelles. Russia already controlled the military port at Sevastopol. That was not the reason they seized the penninsula.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51432307]. Russia already controlled the military port at Sevastopol. [/QUOTE] Yea, and the change of government in Ukraine made Russia worried that they would lose Sevastopol or lose access.

[QUOTE=Araknid;51432795]Yea, and the change of government in Ukraine made Russia worried that they would lose Sevastopol or lose access.[/QUOTE] Assuming that the new Ukrainian government was dumb enough to deny Russia's lease then yes, they would have lost the Sevastopol port and all the infrastructure there. I don't see how Russia would have magically lost all of this: [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/BqjgHiD.gif[/thumb]

[QUOTE=King Tiger;51432821]Assuming that the new Ukrainian government was dumb enough to deny Russia's lease then yes, they would have lost the Sevastopol port and all the infrastructure there. I don't see how Russia would have magically lost all of this: [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/BqjgHiD.gif[/thumb][/QUOTE] If I understand correctly, the ports at Novorossiysk and Sochi aren't fit for military vessels and are too small for the Black Sea Fleet. That and also the worry about Ukraine joining NATO and the EU, I'm not entirely sure how having a Russian naval base in NATO territory would work. That and the obvious symbolism, Sevastopol and Crimea have always been home to the Black Sea Fleet since it's creation.

[QUOTE=Araknid;51433666]That and also the worry about Ukraine joining NATO and the EU, I'm not entirely sure how having a Russian naval base in NATO territory would work.[/QUOTE] The US Navy has had a military base in a communist country since 1959, and it's been working just fine.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;51405398]While calling it a hellhole would be wrong " it was a prospering African nation, on the road to western social and economic standards" is just laughable.[/QUOTE] My college professor actually went there few times before all this and said many positive things about it similar to what Blizzerd said. Western media and politicians painted it worse than it was, according to him.