Putin/Trump friendship already over?

[Deadlift]

After the escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran (in which the latter threatened to destroy an American military base in Bahrain, and even to launch missiles to Tel Aviv in case of American aggression) Trump defined Iran as "the number one terrorist state".
At this point, Moscow (one of Teheran's most important military partners) challenged Trump's claim, with Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, saying that Iran has never been proven having ties with terrorist groups like Al Nusra and, instead, should participate in the fight against terrorism.

In the meantime, Russia, Iran and Turkey started Astana's cooperation in order to target the situation in Syria.

On a side note, terrorist groups like Isis often display as much hatred towards Iran as they do against the West, probably due to their Sunni-Shia differences.

Sources:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

 

[Tauren Chieftain]

They are friends only in memes. Actually they are great persons for memes.

USA dont have literally any influence on 3 countries and those countries are Iran ,China and Russia (and North Korea) . Those countries have always been huge pain in the ass for them and its really frustrating them.

USA has global leadership but it doesn´t have global control (thats what they want) and only way to have global control is to posses huge natural resources Russia has.

Russia and China can not be beaten by war unlike Iran so Iran will be their target.Weakening Iran they will weaken China and Russia.
But attacking Iran would certainly mean WW3 so nothing will happen.You dont start war with most powerfull nuclear force on Earth (Russia) that can destroy you in 1 hour.

 

[Lightbringer]

Well Trump already said that he wants to do a safe zone in Syria, much like Hillary Clinton. How freaking ironic is that?

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

Implying Trump's foreign policies were coherent.

 

[Wparker6804]

USA dont have literally any influence on 3 countries and those countries are Iran ,China and Russia (and North Korea) . Those countries have always been huge pain in the ass for them and its really frustrating them.

USA has global leadership but it doesn´t have global control (thats what they want) and only way to have global control is to posses huge natural resources Russia has.

Russia and China can not be beaten by war unlike Iran so Iran will be their target.Weakening Iran they will weaken China and Russia.
But attacking Iran would certainly mean WW3 so nothing will happen.You dont start war with most powerfull nuclear force on Earth (Russia) that can destroy you in 1 hour.

Especially since Hillary Clinton told the entire world our nuclear response time

 

[SilverfoxUchiha]

Trump seriously doesnt have a clue.

All he has are small hands, a tiny mouth, money in his bank account and a big ego. He is not experienced or educated enough in world politics to know what he is doing.

 

[BlacLord™]

USA dont have literally any influence on 3 countries and those countries are Iran ,China and Russia (and North Korea) . Those countries have always been huge pain in the ass for them and its really frustrating them.

USA has global leadership but it doesn´t have global control (thats what they want) and only way to have global control is to posses huge natural resources Russia has.

Russia and China can not be beaten by war unlike Iran so Iran will be their target.Weakening Iran they will weaken China and Russia.
But attacking Iran would certainly mean WW3 so nothing will happen.You dont start war with most powerfull nuclear force on Earth (Russia) that can destroy you in 1 hour.

There are two fallacies here; your statement implies that WW3 would be insta-nuclear war, which it wouldn't. Secondly, Russia only has a slight advantage in quantity, but the quality of their nuclear weapons lags behind the rest of the world. They're slower and very unreliable thanks to using liquid fuel; those two words fit Russia's armed capabilities overall.

If Russia tried to "destroy you in 1 hour", the chances are that they'd self-destruct because their crap nuclear weapons run a high risk of blowing up before leaving the home land's airspace. They're certainly not the most powerful nuclear force anywhere ever.

Outside of that, they're still using technology from the 1950s with no plans to retire for another decade or two. The US would pawn Russia first in a nuclear war. This dewy-eyed glorification of Russia's power and Putin that low-key pervades the West is inaccurate. In their favour, they're at the top of their game in tanks, but they're not too useful against massive countries that are across an ocean.

 

[Urda]

Well Trump already said that he wants to do a safe zone in Syria, much like Hillary Clinton. How freaking ironic is that?

That Military-Industrial-Complex is a bitch for us. We gotta start knocking down the leaders at the top to get rid of it.

 

[BlacLord™]

Listen idiot you clearly don´t have any knowledge about Nukes or military at all.

You say their nukes are slow yet the fastest nuke in the entire world is Russian Voevoda.One Voevoda is 3 times stronger than strongest nuke USA have . SO those number are even more in favor of Russia cause her nukes have more megatons.

Second you are saying Russia uses old nukes. This alone confirms to me that you are butthurt idiot who doesn´t have any idea on this matter. Russia is developing new ICBM to replace Voevoda while USA isn´t doing anything about this matter. Fact is USA nukes are outdated not Russians. Even Trump was complaining about this.

Fact is in quality and quantity Russia is superior when it comes to nukes. Russia also have better defense against nukes (defending against nukes is exteremely hard and no system in the world can defend against big nuclear attack). Not to mention Russia is way bigger than USA so in no scenario she suffers greater damage.

How much of a fanboy can you be? You've got your head so far up their arse I'm surprised you'd be able to get out.

1) The Voevoda is sub-Mach 24, where Trident 2 is wholly Mach 24. Fastest? I think not.

Also, the Voevoda's max yield is 0.75Mt where the B83 has a max yield of 1.2Mt.

2) Can I suggest learning to read? I didn't say Russia is using old nukes, I said they're using old technology. Yes, their nukes are fairly new, but that's only because Russia's philosophy emphasises using comparatively basic designs that "go off" and need replacing every decade or so. The USA focuses on the opposite; long-lasting intricate and carefully designed weapons. You also failed to address Russia's issue with using Dimethylhydrazine as a fuel, but I guess you don't know because you've proved to be off in your own fairy tale already.

I'll point it out though; it's a unstable (especially thermodynamically speaking) liquid fuel that Russians love to use in warheads. To boot, with Russia using trucks (that are vulnerable and not radiation proof), these unstable masses run a great risk of firing wrong and either blowing up where they are or launching at the wrong trajectory and hitting themselves or a nearby country. Even if they do fire correctly, one tiny error and the warhead detonates mid-transit.

3) "Even Trump was complaining about this" - The draft dodger who pretended to be injured five times to avoid service? And whose first military strike was a total catastrophe?

4) Russia narrowly outdoes the USA in quantity, but don't even touch the sides in quality. They're far less reliable for a start.

5) The USA has a better missile defence system than Russia. If it's a case of throwing a few missiles at each other, the US wins. If we're talking MAD, then it's just that - both will be obliterated within seconds of each other's destruction.

6) The USA are in the final stages of updating one of their larger missiles.

Overall, I'm not a fanboy, I'm a realist. I'm British so it's not a case of pride, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in the US given the choice, never mind love it.