If Russian forces knows what's good for them, their people, and the world...they will not interfere with Putin being permanently removed.

@fannybandit What the hell are you talking about?

Do you really believe that putin is a giant boogeyman in the world that is responsible for everything?

No, but he is responsible and will be held accountable for his recent stunts.

And what would that be?

Poisoning citizens, killing those who disagree with him in Russia and the US, posturing in Syria, cyberattacks that he controlled, and then not saying a damn thing when he's questioned by the international community.

Putin has said absolutely nothing lately about any of this...his silence says it all.

*What the fuck?* Those are some claims I would bet money on that you cannot back up.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-administration-sanctions-russians-for-election-meddling-and-cyberattacks/ar-BBKfUKN?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

You owe me money.

The US military owes the people Putin's head.

>Msm
You know why the alt-right claims that these sources are not trustworthy?

I don't give a fuck what Nazis think.

Alt-right aren't nazi's.

The Times are credible.

They always have been.

So I don't care what one group thinks.

@fannybandit Oh, like how they claimed that the world would be a giant iceball by 2010?

That was an opinion backed by science which was wrong.

Not an article about recent events.

@fannybandit Meaning that their credibility is to be brought to question.

They aren't responsible for having a wrong opinion...which they made clear was their opinion.

It's not smart to mix political events with science that was wrong at the time.

Oh, I could go on and on about how they predicted that bernie would beat hillary, or that trump would drop out of the race or be beaten by other members in the race, or that he would have a less than 1% chance of winning against killary klinton.

Again, all opinions.

That article does not contain opinions.

Yes, it does, infact I remember distinctly that there was an article passing around, that showed how russia demanded evidence for the supposed chemical attacks and europe failing to provide any.

Show me one opinion or prediction in that article.

...that has to do with the subject matter.

It isn't an opinion or prediction, but it is an assumption

You will never see any evidence backing these claims, but rather just assumptions.

It's not an assumption, these things actually happened.

It's an assessment.

How would you know?

Have you seen any evidence?

Assessments are self-evident, the same as a cross examination.

The defendant is dead silent.

These are not assessments however, they are assumptions that do not have evidence to back them.

Then what could be an alternate reality...the US attacking itself?

And I just told you, russia demanded evidence to back these claims, and europe failed to bring any.

Putin would say something to defend himself.