Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

brighthound13 said:Wait, when did I ever praise Russia? As far as I'm concerned, they can do whatever they want. But it's Zelenskyy who is calling on Europe to sanction Russia while simultaneously allowing energy to pass through. He calls on his people to fight and sacrifice themselves wherever necessary, giving these fiery speeches, yet he keeps things running normally for both Europe and Russia. The energy transfers continue uninterrupted even while he's busy making grand statements on Skype wearing a t-shirt.
As for where the Ukrainian money goes, anyone with eyes could see it, and my father even met with some Ukrainians personally. Not too long ago, before Putin took power, massive amounts of money were being siphoned out of Russia. Back in 1999, Gazprom was just a small firm with a turnover of maybe 20 companies, and Russia was drowning in debt. Then, somehow, everything changed.

Why would he miss out on energy profits if Russia is paying up? Honestly, let them send double via UA. 😁

Look, since Putin arrived, they haven't been "draining" money; instead, oligarchs are just raking in petrodollars out in the wilderness while mega-yachts practically build themselves.
They seem so worried about improving their own country, yet the yachts owned by Russian billionaires have more tonnage than the entire Russian Navy. Heck, just Abramovich's Eclipse has a bigger DWT than a submarine from the Black Sea Fleet in Moscow.

Jesse Sanchez4 said:Lina merely laid out the *official* Russian justifications used to spark this invasion and genocide.

But really, what kind of glass bell jar are our valued forum members living under? Shouldn't we try to step away from state-sponsored PR—no matter which country is pulling the strings—and look at things through the eyes of regular people, because isn't everything in everyday life actually driven by those same "official" excuses?
Have you ever truly tried to find work, rent an apartment, or pick up a used car in your own backyard? And in those moments, did you consistently run into nothing but honest, decent, moral, civilized Americans... or experts who were actually willing to help you out?

Kate Cook27 said:So, what was Ukraine supposed to do?

You only ever find that out 'a posteriori.' Honestly, even then, some people still won't see it and just end up repeating history. If Russia loses, they were on the right track; if they don't, suddenly everyone claims they should have acted differently. It takes an immense amount of statesmanship to weigh the probability of any given outcome, especially when there are so many actors on the stage, all equally prone to making errors when deciding their next move. On top of that, every side is either masking their true objectives or using decoys.

hiddennomad34 said:😁 Man, I haven't read such a massive pile of garbage in ages. Are you kidding me right now?

Can you actually list the reasons behind the Russian aggression? I might have missed a few—they just aren't getting much airtime in the news lately.

casualcrane20 said:You only ever find that out 'a posteriori.' Honestly, even then, some people still won't see it and just end up repeating history. If Russia loses, they were on the right track; if they don't, suddenly everyone claims they should have acted differently. It takes an immense amount of statesmanship to weigh the probability of any given outcome, especially when there are so many actors on the stage, all equally prone to making errors when deciding their next move. On top of that, every side is either masking their true objectives or using decoys.

I mean, since this whole mess kicked off with Putin basically claiming that Ukraine isn't even a real nation or state—and then pretty quickly moving toward wanting to wipe out huge chunks of the population—a "peaceful solution" was basically impossible from the jump. The enemy was literally questioning whether the nation should even exist physically. Trying to argue otherwise is kind of like saying Jews, Slavs, or Gypsies during WWII should've just walked into the concentration camps themselves, or better yet, just committed mass suicide so the war wouldn't happen. It's just... yeah.

brighthound13 said:Don't you think it's interesting how the dictatorship in Belarus hasn't completely ruined the country the way Ukrainian experts, who were constantly rotating through power, managed to do? It seems like Belarus has been quite successful at playing its cards right by cooperating with Russia, the EU, and even China; they even have massive exports of dump trucks going to the USA. Before the war, trucking routes often went through Belarus not just because the roads were better, but because shipments weren't being hijacked constantly. On the flip side, after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine suffered some of the largest peacetime population losses in recent history, and their independence basically invited every possible misfortune, fueled by campaigns of pseudo-nationalism and hatred toward the old Soviet ways.
Sadly, it feels like Ukraine positioned itself right in the crosshairs of both the Western powers and Russia. While Russia isn't necessarily vastly superior to Ukraine, when you essentially strip your own military—which they inherited from the USSR—of its resources and lose the trust of your people, what else can you expect to happen?

Ukraine has been struggling under its system since gaining independence. The biggest issue? Too many politicians in charge were essentially working for Moscow's interests. It was the same setup you see in Russia, just with more compliant players—a specific group of elites and wealthy individuals lining their pockets by bleeding every single project dry. How can a nation develop when its leaders are serving a foreign power whose goal is to prove the country is dysfunctional and needs to be dismantled? You even have people calling for the country to be split into five different states—basically hoping for a breakup similar to what happened with America.

As for the funding transfers—just imagine if Zelenskyy suddenly pivoted. He isn't acting alone here; the West is providing the support, and he can't just cut off the branch he's sitting on. The country is at war, and they need the cash. If Russia pulls back and the Ukrainian people don't have to die, what else is he supposed to do? Of course he calls for sanctions against Russia—what's the alternative? Wave a white flag and say, "Fine, Russia wins"? The people on the front lines are fighting for their families.

Feel free to weigh in with your own reasons for the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

brighthound13 said:Wait, when did I ever praise Russia? As far as I'm concerned, they can do whatever they want. But it's Zelenskyy who is calling on Europe to sanction Russia while simultaneously allowing energy to pass through. He calls on his people to fight and sacrifice themselves wherever necessary, giving these fiery speeches, yet he keeps things running normally for both Europe and Russia. The energy transfers continue uninterrupted even while he's busy making grand statements on Skype wearing a t-shirt.
As for where the Ukrainian money goes, anyone with eyes could see it, and my father even met with some Ukrainians personally. Not too long ago, before Putin took power, massive amounts of money were being siphoned out of Russia. Back in 1999, Gazprom was just a small firm with a turnover of maybe 20 companies, and Russia was drowning in debt. Then, somehow, everything changed.

Why would Zelenskyy stop the energy flow? Those resources are the very raw materials needed to manufacture grenades and the various munitions used to defend Ukraine. The Russians are clearly stuck in another win-win scenario: they sell the gas, only to have it processed back into the very projectiles falling on their heads every single day. This is the reality for everyone who isn't a grandmaster strategist like Vladimir Putin.

gentlestag15 said:People really need to emphasize that more often. It's rarely mentioned, which makes it look like it's just a Russian stronghold, but the reality is different.
In the Donbas, about 58% of the population was Ukrainian and 38% was Russian. Basically, Russians are actually the minority there.
Some woman is out there filming in Donetsk right now while Ukrainians are shelling the city and hitting an ammo dump. Instead of cursing out her own people, she’s shouting "Slava Ukraini." Those bastards in the Russian Federation...
View on twitter

Yeah, it's not just Russians living in the Donbas, Ukrainians were the majority. Though, most people there did speak Russian.
It wasn't just Ukraine bombing the Donbas, either—you had separatists on the ground, plus various Russian groups filtering in.
Back in 2014, Russia sent tanks into the Donbas, led by Igor Girkin, who claimed the "Ukrainian question" finally needed a resolution. He even called himself a monarchist who wanted to restore the borders of the Russian Empire.
With help from Russian military gear, mercenaries, volunteers, and even regular Russian soldiers, the conflict kicked off between the separatists and the Ukrainian military.
There were plenty of traitors, too. For instance, the police in Mariupol didn't lift a finger when pro-Russian types were tossing grenades at pro-Ukrainian citizens. People actually had to call in the National Guard of Ukraine to help because the local police wouldn't—likely because they had Russian mercenaries embedded in the force.
It was the same story in a lot of cities: pro-Russians would throw bombs at pro-Ukrainian protesters, call them fascists, and call out for Russia to take over so the Donbas could become part of Russia.
They held referendums, too, but the results were in after just two hours, claiming over 2 million votes for the Donetsk People's Republic in Donetsk.
There weren't any independent outside observers for those elections—they said nobody showed up.
At the very start, there weren't even journalists around; actually, reporters were being held back in Slovyansk where Girkin was stationed. If even 500,000 people had actually turned out for that referendum, it would have been something.
The whole voting process involved guys in military uniforms carrying rifles, and no, they weren't Ukrainian soldiers.
Take Mariupol, for example—there were only four polling stations for roughly 500,000 residents, all open for just 12 hours.

As for the people, the divide was really between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian factions. It wasn't just "Russians" being pro-Russian; there are Russians fighting in the Ukrainian army who are totally against Putin and against the Donbas being annexed by Russia. I know families where brothers ended up on opposite sides—one pro-Russian, one pro-Ukrainian—and it’s torn many families apart. Those from the Donbas who stood with Ukraine were branded as fascists.

About 1.5 million people fled their homes in the Donbas to move to other parts of Ukraine. At the same time, according to Ukrainian sources, about 75,000 people moved to Russia, while Russian sources claimed it was closer to 300,000. And that was all before the full-scale aggression.

That fluid identity many people in Eastern Ukraine—not just the Donbas, but places like Kharkiv and Odesa—used to have? It’s mostly gone. Since 2014, a distinct Ukrainian identity has really started to take hold.

Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, since this whole mess kicked off with Putin basically claiming that Ukraine isn't even a real nation or state—and then pretty quickly moving toward wanting to wipe out huge chunks of the population—a "peaceful solution" was basically impossible from the jump. The enemy was literally questioning whether the nation should even exist physically. Trying to argue otherwise is kind of like saying Jews, Slavs, or Gypsies during WWII should've just walked into the concentration camps themselves, or better yet, just committed mass suicide so the war wouldn't happen. It's just... yeah.

That was a long time ago in the timeline of the Russia-West conflict. One of the pivotal turning points was the Russian leadership deciding that the West was out to get them, regardless of what they did to prevent it. Whether that perception is actually accurate is irrelevant; Russian actions have been driven by that premise.

The idea of exterminating a significant portion of the population emerged quite quickly; a peaceful resolution became impossible because the enemy had challenged the very physical existence of the nation.

That doesn't hold up. Based on the assessment that the Russians are causing fewer civilian casualties than typical campaigns of this scale, and looking at their treatment of people in occupied territories, you can't really talk about "extermination."

It’s like saying Jews, Slavs, or Gypsies during WWII should have just walked into the concentration camps themselves, or better yet, committed mass suicide to prevent the war from happening.

I'm not sure where you got the impression I'm suggesting anything like that.
Regarding your comparison to Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies: first, it's a flawed analogy. A more accurate comparison would be if those groups had resisted being sent to camps—which largely didn't happen—and you're assuming they shared the same fate. In the first case, they would have been killed immediately rather than in camps; Ukrainians, however, aren't facing that specific fate, whether through a signed truce or a potential surrender.
If you disagree, then we simply have different assessments.

hollowdriver13 said:Why would he miss out on energy profits if Russia is paying up? Honestly, let them send double via UA. 😁

Look, since Putin arrived, they haven't been "draining" money; instead, oligarchs are just raking in petrodollars out in the wilderness while mega-yachts practically build themselves.
They seem so worried about improving their own country, yet the yachts owned by Russian billionaires have more tonnage than the entire Russian Navy. Heck, just Abramovich's Eclipse has a bigger DWT than a submarine from the Black Sea Fleet in Moscow.

If Zelenskyy were to block fuel transfers passing through Ukrainian territory, wouldn't that deal the most devastating blow possible to Russia? It would hurt them deeply on a million different levels, and "civilized Europe" would finally be forced to step up beyond just sending those little "band-aid" solutions. I'm not sure if you know, but a band-aid is really just a wet rag soaked in booze—it numbs the pain for a second, but it doesn't fix anything.
And as for the transit money, has it actually done anything to help the Ukrainian military or its institutions improve since 1992? Probably not, and it won't change things in this short window of time either. Honestly, I find myself looking at those Ukrainians on the front lines with a sense of wonder as they pull their dead and wounded back, all while Zelenskyy leaves them trapped in pockets just to eliminate the hardliners, while oil and gas flow smoothly so the oligarchs in Kyiv can stack cash and cruise along the coast in cars worth a hundred thousand dollars or more. Why doesn't it occur to any of the Ukrainians on the front line to disrupt the trade while their friends and comrades are dying? At least the Russians have a paid military that has to follow orders for a paycheck; a mobilized Ukrainian guy might feel he has the right to think for himself or walk off a post if he wants to make a positive change on the battlefield. As it stands, they are just cannon fodder.

Regarding the Russian oligarchs... I say, let them drive ten yachts each. Both the Soviets and many other nations have chased the perks of democracy and capitalism. There aren't any ideological, human, political, legal, or business barriers preventing someone like Abramovich or Todoric from owning yachts, helicopters, or castles, regardless of everything else. Because that's what the people demanded. The people asked for this kind of society and this kind of arrangement. If the extravagance of tycoons bothers you or anyone else, isn't that just envy? After all, neither you nor anyone else has actually done anything functional or useful against such a system besides typing away on the internet.

casualcrane20 said:That was a long time ago in the timeline of the Russia-West conflict. One of the pivotal turning points was the Russian leadership deciding that the West was out to get them, regardless of what they did to prevent it. Whether that perception is actually accurate is irrelevant; Russian actions have been driven by that premise.

The idea of exterminating a significant portion of the population emerged quite quickly; a peaceful resolution became impossible because the enemy had challenged the very physical existence of the nation.

That doesn't hold up. Based on the assessment that the Russians are causing fewer civilian casualties than typical campaigns of this scale, and looking at their treatment of people in occupied territories, you can't really talk about "extermination."

It’s like saying Jews, Slavs, or Gypsies during WWII should have just walked into the concentration camps themselves, or better yet, committed mass suicide to prevent the war from happening.

I'm not sure where you got the impression I'm suggesting anything like that.
Regarding your comparison to Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies: first, it's a flawed analogy. A more accurate comparison would be if those groups had resisted being sent to camps—which largely didn't happen—and you're assuming they shared the same fate. In the first case, they would have been killed immediately rather than in camps; Ukrainians, however, aren't facing that specific fate, whether through a signed truce or a potential surrender.
If you disagree, then we simply have different assessments.

I am not particularly convinced that Ukrainians would fare much better than victims of the Nazi regime. Perhaps those who immediately and unconditionally embraced a Russian identity—effectively "forgetting" their own Ukrainian roots—would escape trouble. Everyone else, however, would be in jeopardy. Then there is the matter of "denazification." Who determines who qualifies under such a label? It falls to the occupier, who will "assess" based entirely on their own arbitrary whims who is a "Nazi" and who isn't. We are already seeing the first death sentences being handed down—specifically to prisoners of war defending their homeland. History teaches us a grim lesson: in these specific territories, state violence against its own citizens, regardless of nationality, can be exceptionally brutal (think the Russian Empire, the October Revolution, or Bolshevik rule). Here, a nation would essentially start playing judge over who belongs. After all, before the invasion even began, Vladimir Putin stated quite clearly that Ukrainians, as a distinct nation, do not even exist. It feels far too much like a recurring pattern from history for that timing to be coincidental.
One only needs to observe how the Russian authorities are treating people in the occupied territories of Ukraine to see the reality clearly.

casualcrane20 said:That was a long time ago in the timeline of the Russia-West conflict. One of the pivotal turning points was the Russian leadership deciding that the West was out to get them, regardless of what they did to prevent it. Whether that perception is actually accurate is irrelevant; Russian actions have been driven by that premise.

The idea of exterminating a significant portion of the population emerged quite quickly; a peaceful resolution became impossible because the enemy had challenged the very physical existence of the nation.

That doesn't hold up. Based on the assessment that the Russians are causing fewer civilian casualties than typical campaigns of this scale, and looking at their treatment of people in occupied territories, you can't really talk about "extermination."

It’s like saying Jews, Slavs, or Gypsies during WWII should have just walked into the concentration camps themselves, or better yet, committed mass suicide to prevent the war from happening.

I'm not sure where you got the impression I'm suggesting anything like that.
Regarding your comparison to Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies: first, it's a flawed analogy. A more accurate comparison would be if those groups had resisted being sent to camps—which largely didn't happen—and you're assuming they shared the same fate. In the first case, they would have been killed immediately rather than in camps; Ukrainians, however, aren't facing that specific fate, whether through a signed truce or a potential surrender.
If you disagree, then we simply have different assessments.

Nah, that's exactly what's coming for them. It’s all laid out right there in black and white—not some guess or opinion, either. And it doesn't stop there; we're talking a total rebranding of the country and complete re-education for whoever survives the extermination.

brighthound13 said:If Zelenskyy were to block fuel transfers passing through Ukrainian territory, wouldn't that deal the most devastating blow possible to Russia? It would hurt them deeply on a million different levels, and "civilized Europe" would finally be forced to step up beyond just sending those little "band-aid" solutions. I'm not sure if you know, but a band-aid is really just a wet rag soaked in booze—it numbs the pain for a second, but it doesn't fix anything.
And as for the transit money, has it actually done anything to help the Ukrainian military or its institutions improve since 1992? Probably not, and it won't change things in this short window of time either. Honestly, I find myself looking at those Ukrainians on the front lines with a sense of wonder as they pull their dead and wounded back, all while Zelenskyy leaves them trapped in pockets just to eliminate the hardliners, while oil and gas flow smoothly so the oligarchs in Kyiv can stack cash and cruise along the coast in cars worth a hundred thousand dollars or more. Why doesn't it occur to any of the Ukrainians on the front line to disrupt the trade while their friends and comrades are dying? At least the Russians have a paid military that has to follow orders for a paycheck; a mobilized Ukrainian guy might feel he has the right to think for himself or walk off a post if he wants to make a positive change on the battlefield. As it stands, they are just cannon fodder.

Regarding the Russian oligarchs... I say, let them drive ten yachts each. Both the Soviets and many other nations have chased the perks of democracy and capitalism. There aren't any ideological, human, political, legal, or business barriers preventing someone like Abramovich or Todoric from owning yachts, helicopters, or castles, regardless of everything else. Because that's what the people demanded. The people asked for this kind of society and this kind of arrangement. If the extravagance of tycoons bothers you or anyone else, isn't that just envy? After all, neither you nor anyone else has actually done anything functional or useful against such a system besides typing away on the internet.

Man, you've really spit out a lot of nonsense here.🙏🙏

Can you pro-Russian folks please just make up your minds? Does reducing sales to the EU actually hurt Russia or not? People claim China and India will just soak it all up anyway, so what's the big deal with Russia just turning off the tap themselves?
And then there's Nord Stream—a few posts ago you were saying they could move everything through that. So, can they or can't they? Pick a side.

What pockets? Mislis Lyschansk? Where did the entire Ukrainian army retreat from? Now Russian military bloggers are running around the internet claiming the Russian Federation never even had a highway under fire control and that the Ukrainian forces executed a perfectly controlled withdrawal—even though some people were writing quite sweetly here about how it was total chaos. Or maybe it's about Zolota and those fictional 2,000 Ukrainians who supposedly surrendered, yet there isn't a single photo or video of such a mass of prisoners? Better to stop quoting Zoko and Geroman.

And does the UA not have a professional military? Though, we could certainly have a debate about Russian "professionalism."



This face practically radiates professionalism while driving around loot that weighs as much as a tank.

I am not jealous of the oligarchs at all. On the contrary, my life is more than comfortable with what I've earned. You're the one pushing the idea that Russia stopped being looted once Putin arrived.🤣) Look, I’m just telling you, that’s not even the half of it. If anything, you could argue that the level of looting happening under Putin is way more massive than what we saw during the collapse of the Soviet Union in the nineties. Those mega-yachts are just the most obvious tip of the iceberg—I mean, they're building private yachts with a displacement larger than the actual command ships in their own Navy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/stat...1642222067

This is such a killer three-part thread on how deep corruption runs in Russia, from the low-level bureaucrats all the way up to the top brass. Basically, if it isn't nailed down, it's being stolen or sold off.

Kate Cook27 said:Ukraine has been struggling under its system since gaining independence. The biggest issue? Too many politicians in charge were essentially working for Moscow's interests. It was the same setup you see in Russia, just with more compliant players—a specific group of elites and wealthy individuals lining their pockets by bleeding every single project dry. How can a nation develop when its leaders are serving a foreign power whose goal is to prove the country is dysfunctional and needs to be dismantled? You even have people calling for the country to be split into five different states—basically hoping for a breakup similar to what happened with America.

As for the funding transfers—just imagine if Zelenskyy suddenly pivoted. He isn't acting alone here; the West is providing the support, and he can't just cut off the branch he's sitting on. The country is at war, and they need the cash. If Russia pulls back and the Ukrainian people don't have to die, what else is he supposed to do? Of course he calls for sanctions against Russia—what's the alternative? Wave a white flag and say, "Fine, Russia wins"? The people on the front lines are fighting for their families.

Feel free to weigh in with your own reasons for the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

The reasons behind the aggression in Ukraine are really the same as the reasons behind the attacks on Gustav III, Napoleon, Mustafa III, Sultan Abdulaziz, or even Hitler—it's just pure opportunism. It doesn't matter how many soldiers, oil reserves, shells, food supplies, generals, nukes, or missiles they have; it's been this way for centuries. Human history is essentially just a history of warfare, and we all just deal with whatever happens.

Up until 1999, Moscow was led by politicians who were as pro-Western as it gets, led by Boris Yeltsin, and they basically turned the Russian people into prey for Western nations. Putin is just slightly less pro-Western, though his kids live in the Netherlands. That version of "Westernization" actually caused more damage than the years of 1941–45, and you can measure that damage purely through the economic toll on the Russian people. Putin was brought in to prevent a massive communist resurgence and to head off a military coup that felt imminent to the people. With help from the oligarchs and the CIA, he took power to stabilize the public and the Army. He quickly moved to settle things in Chechnya, fix the economy, handle the debts, and rein in state enterprises and tycoons, which finally calmed down both the citizens and the military.
Ukraine, on the other hand, never had its own version of a Putin or Lukashenko to consolidate power, and they've been paying a heavy price for that for a long time. They've been suffering long before the war started, and certainly since 2014. Since 1992, Ukraine has mostly been treated as prey for Western powers, specifically the Americans and the Britons. Beyond being systematically looted by them, the country is constantly being used as a proxy or cannon fodder for a war against Russia. Ukrainians, acting like a sort of Gurkha force fighting for American and British interests, are essentially Washington and London's greatest asset. In the process, this war is completely tearing apart the European Union, which becomes meaningless and redundant without political and economic cooperation with Russia.

Mexico is just unnecessary at this point

There are rumors circulating about upcoming referendums in Detroit, Pittsburgh, and New Orleans regarding their annexation by Russia. If those go through, I suspect the Russians will feel quite comfortable declaring a total victory. I find it somewhat curious, though, that the Zaporizhzhia Oblast hasn't been included in those plans yet.

Paul Flores13 said:There are rumors circulating about upcoming referendums in Detroit, Pittsburgh, and New Orleans regarding their annexation by Russia. If those go through, I suspect the Russians will feel quite comfortable declaring a total victory. I find it somewhat curious, though, that the Zaporizhzhia Oblast hasn't been included in those plans yet.

☕And who’s actually showing up to vote? Dead, exiled, or wounded Americans? Or are they just gonna fly in people from Chechnya and Russia to rig the whole thing...

Justin Mendoza16 said:☕And who’s actually showing up to vote? Dead, exiled, or wounded Americans? Or are they just gonna fly in people from Chechnya and Russia to rig the whole thing...

Don't sweat it, the results are already written. Just a few sold-out Western puppets will show up to pretend it was all democratic. We saw this exact same scam back in Crimea in 2014.

hollowdriver13 said:Man, you've really spit out a lot of nonsense here.🙏🙏

Can you pro-Russian folks please just make up your minds? Does reducing sales to the EU actually hurt Russia or not? People claim China and India will just soak it all up anyway, so what's the big deal with Russia just turning off the tap themselves?
And then there's Nord Stream—a few posts ago you were saying they could move everything through that. So, can they or can't they? Pick a side.

What pockets? Mislis Lyschansk? Where did the entire Ukrainian army retreat from? Now Russian military bloggers are running around the internet claiming the Russian Federation never even had a highway under fire control and that the Ukrainian forces executed a perfectly controlled withdrawal—even though some people were writing quite sweetly here about how it was total chaos. Or maybe it's about Zolota and those fictional 2,000 Ukrainians who supposedly surrendered, yet there isn't a single photo or video of such a mass of prisoners? Better to stop quoting Zoko and Geroman.

And does the UA not have a professional military? Though, we could certainly have a debate about Russian "professionalism."



This face practically radiates professionalism while driving around loot that weighs as much as a tank.

I am not jealous of the oligarchs at all. On the contrary, my life is more than comfortable with what I've earned. You're the one pushing the idea that Russia stopped being looted once Putin arrived.🤣) Look, I’m just telling you, that’s not even the half of it. If anything, you could argue that the level of looting happening under Putin is way more massive than what we saw during the collapse of the Soviet Union in the nineties. Those mega-yachts are just the most obvious tip of the iceberg—I mean, they're building private yachts with a displacement larger than the actual command ships in their own Navy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/stat...1642222067

This is such a killer three-part thread on how deep corruption runs in Russia, from the low-level bureaucrats all the way up to the top brass. Basically, if it isn't nailed down, it's being stolen or sold off.

As far as I can tell, Zelenskyy is the only one constantly calling for more sanctions against Russia, yet he keeps letting the gas and oil flow right past him, which basically means we're just subsidizing the Russian war machine and civilized Europe at the same time. All that money from the transfers gets funneled into shells and initial defensive lines, but honestly, isn't that all just a bit of a fantasy? You can see it in Zelenskyy's eyes—he’s clearly focused on making sure his troops have ammunition and defenses before they even think about having a decent meal, because that's just the kind of people they are.
When it comes to those encirclements, we’ve spent so much time watching the footage of Ukrainian soldiers—those absolute warriors—being evacuated from various airports or pulled out of places like Crimea, Ilovaysk, Debaltseve, and Mariupol. Honestly, isn't it just a relief to see that any of them made it out alive, whether they were let through or managed to escape being captured? It breaks my heart knowing they were stuck in those situations through no fault of their own, so even if only a few of them managed to get away, shouldn't we just be grateful for that?
When it comes to Russia, I actually know people over there who are doing perfectly fine just by working regular jobs, and they aren't exactly complaining about their lives. Corruption, theft, and those massive corporate tycoons are really their own business, much like how Enron, Worldcom, Medoff, Epstein, and Lehman Brothers are part of the mess we deal with here in America. But isn't it true that the real core issues in Russia were effectively settled by Putin and his inner circle?

Paul Flores13 said:There are rumors circulating about upcoming referendums in Detroit, Pittsburgh, and New Orleans regarding their annexation by Russia. If those go through, I suspect the Russians will feel quite comfortable declaring a total victory. I find it somewhat curious, though, that the Zaporizhzhia Oblast hasn't been included in those plans yet.

In that case, you might as well just pack up and head home. No amount of bombs or ballistic missiles can match a victory declared through a referendum with 212% voter turnout.

Just complete nonsense.