Sanctions on Russia

darkdriver said:So, wait—is George actually writing for The New York Times now?
Because, if you look at it, he’s basically just rehashing (or maybe just quoting himself?) everything they—or rather, he—already put out regarding the policies and moves being made by the Joe Biden administration, right?

It's just an echo chamber.

All you have to do is search for "NYT Russia oil embargo" and you'll see how they pull a complete 180 in their articles every single week.

First it's "the embargo is choking Russian production," then it shifts to "the embargo is hurting the West," then suddenly it's "the embargo will long-term destroy Russian production capacity," followed immediately by "the embargo will destroy the global energy market," and it just keeps looping like that week after week...

It’s the exact same deal with the "solutions" for the war. One week they're singing about how Ukraine needs to surrender and hand over territory, and the next they’re insisting Western aid provides the upper hand and Ukraine can win...

I mean, whatever, man. You gotta clickbait both sides of the conflict just to keep those ad revenues rolling in...

Check out this screenshot of that famous front page featuring the biggest news ever. It’s so monumental that even the browser being used is a bigger story.

https://i.postimg.cc/3xNB4dLv/image-...-145903869.png

The article basically talks about putting a price cap on oil as a way to keep things moving while sanctions stay in place, supposedly to ease up on recessions, crises, and all that other stuff. I don't see any real genius in it, honestly, and I think some American economists were actually pushing for this exact move too.

hollowdriver13 said:Classic Gojko Drljac post here; total clickbait vibes, like "You won't believe what they're hiding from you! Click to find out!"

The article completely ignores the fact that crude oil prices have been dropping for over 30 days straight. Plus, gas and diesel prices at the pumps across the US are falling, with the national average sliding below $3.50 per gallon—the lowest we've seen since $3.12.

So, July 4th has come and gone. 😉

07:45 am CDT 10/07/2022
WTI Crude(August Contract)
104.79 +2.01%
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/

But what about fuel costs? Are we looking at the same data source?... 🤔

Today’s AAA National Average
$4.684
Price as of 7/10/22
https://gasprices.aaa.com/

George Robinson43 said:Which Taliban from 40 years ago? What are you even talking about?
You are confusing the mujahideen with the Taliban. One group actually took down the first, while the first took down the communists.
And where did you get the idea that the Taliban didn't have access to Russian unknowns, Chinese HN-5s, or even old Soviet ZPU-1s and ZU-23s?

I'm not confusing anything at all, but let's just clear up what you're actually saying here: are you suggesting the mujahideen were literate while the Taliban weren't?

George Robinson43 said:With what?
AK-47s and Russian RPGs? The Taliban had those lying around by the truckload!
If you're suggesting they needed ballistic missiles, S-400s, Sukhoi jets, and things of that nature—fine. But are uneducated shepherds really capable of operating hardware like that?

Anthony Hill5 said:Everything you're writing here is just nonsense peddled daily by Mearsheimer, who completely ignores Putin's essay and speeches where he denies the very existence of Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity...

For the hundredth time, this has nothing to do with NATO, so I have no idea what "trinity" you think you're talking about... perhaps NATO was supposed to explain to Ukrainians that they aren't really Ukrainian and don't have a right to exist outside of Russia...

The claim that Americans are fighting a proxy war until the very last Ukrainian is just incredibly worn-out, degenerate Russian propaganda...

I honestly don't see how the Russians could fail to view the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO as a threat... Mearsheimer didn't explain it, so I doubt you will either...

Ah, look how worked up we've all gotten... It's a shame it's Sunday...

Anyway, I promise I won't bother annoying you any further until tomorrow afternoon...

brightheron64 said:So, July 4th has come and gone. 😉

07:45 am CDT 10/07/2022
WTI Crude(August Contract)
104.79 +2.01%
https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/

But what about fuel costs? Are we looking at the same data source?... 🤔

Today’s AAA National Average
$4.684
Price as of 7/10/22
https://gasprices.aaa.com/

Mkay, the page I was looking at just cleaned up its averages by only comparing the 3 or 4 cheapest spots.

But even so, it still shows that gas prices are dropping—like, by more than $1 per gallon in just a month. Even your link shows that.

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/

There are also charts here showing that prices across the country are trending down. At the end of the day, even back home, the price per gallon dropped from $5.25 to $5.25 for gas.

brightheron64 said:I'm not confusing anything at all, but let's just clear up what you're actually saying here: are you suggesting the mujahideen were literate while the Taliban weren't?

Ah, look how worked up we've all gotten... It's a shame it's Sunday...

Anyway, I promise I won't bother annoying you any further until tomorrow afternoon...

I am not agitated in the slightest; I simply struck a nerve, and your response serves as nothing less than proof of that fact.

The real headache with gas prices is that, for quite some time now—and I mean way before February 24, 2022—retail prices haven't really been tied that closely to what's actually happening on the commodities market.

Anthony Hill5 said:I am not agitated in the slightest; I simply struck a nerve, and your response serves as nothing less than proof of that fact.

Yeah, right... as if. At the end of the day, the West basically handed Putin his win on a silver platter, which led us straight to this mess where people act like someone can just decide what the Ukrainian national identity should be.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Yeah, right... as if. At the end of the day, the West basically handed Putin his win on a silver platter, which led us straight to this mess where people act like someone can just decide what the Ukrainian national identity should be.

This is nothing more than Pozner's typical nonsense.

The French Finance Minister is suggesting that a total cutoff of Russian gas supplies is looking like the most probable scenario right now

Here’s a breakdown of why increasing oil production isn't actually in Saudi Arabia's interest.

Don't forget that Saudi Arabia is an OPEC member, while Yemen isn't. That tells you everything you need to know about alternative oil routes. Same goes for Algeria. Our brilliant experts claimed that since the pipeline from Algeria hits Italy, we could easily just transport it from there to us. It seems they forgot to factor in countries with shared interests—especially Italy, which is also desperate for gas. ☕

Joshua Myers432 said:Mark my words, there is absolutely no way Europe can fully cover its needs through alternative energy alone. The only real shot we had was building out nuclear power to kick Russian energy to the curb. Because of short-sighted, incompetent people, that option was tossed aside. Then, those same fools went ahead and slapped sanctions on Russia regarding those energy supplies—essentially sanctioning themselves.

Someone sold you this idiotic fantasy about alternative energy, and now you're just chanting it like a mantra. 🤦

I disagree. Every country has the potential to develop highly efficient alternative energy, but so far, they've been blocked by oil lobbies and their cheap products. The government makes a killing off them through various levies meant for "research projects" that are basically just ways to waste time. An unnamed official was one of the first to push this, suggesting it would be "ideal" if citizens paid for highway construction through the price of gasoline. ☕

And the government didn't stop there; they even tacked on a "renewable energy fee" to electricity bills. Just another unnecessary cost for the average person. I honestly wonder how much of that fee actually goes toward renewable energy. ☕

Of course, Russia's invasion of Ukraine messed up global trade, mostly because the Alan Ford crowd in Brussels, that unpopular goat in London, and the geriatric leader in Washington, D.C. thought they knew what they were doing with those sanctions.

So, it’s not just Putin, or whatever name you want to call him, who is responsible for the current economic mess. Sure, he's responsible for destroying Ukrainian infrastructure and killing civilians, but Saudi Arabia does the same thing in Yemen and nobody makes a fuss.

The peak level of bureaucratic lethargy and cronyism is visible in the geothermal testing at that never-built hospital in Washington, D.C. It's worth noting that the project was led by Mason's daughter, and despite all that time, not a single test was ever conducted to prove whether geothermal resources even exist or if exploiting them in that area would be profitable. ☕

To completely decouple from oil dependency, it should take us ten years. But since our leadership positions are filled by people who can barely copy a diploma, let's multiply that by five.

rowdyraven112 said:Here’s a breakdown of why increasing oil production isn't actually in Saudi Arabia's interest.

Don't forget that Saudi Arabia is an OPEC member, while Yemen isn't. That tells you everything you need to know about alternative oil routes. Same goes for Algeria. Our brilliant experts claimed that since the pipeline from Algeria hits Italy, we could easily just transport it from there to us. It seems they forgot to factor in countries with shared interests—especially Italy, which is also desperate for gas. ☕

I disagree. Every country has the potential to develop highly efficient alternative energy, but so far, they've been blocked by oil lobbies and their cheap products. The government makes a killing off them through various levies meant for "research projects" that are basically just ways to waste time. An unnamed official was one of the first to push this, suggesting it would be "ideal" if citizens paid for highway construction through the price of gasoline. ☕

And the government didn't stop there; they even tacked on a "renewable energy fee" to electricity bills. Just another unnecessary cost for the average person. I honestly wonder how much of that fee actually goes toward renewable energy. ☕

Of course, Russia's invasion of Ukraine messed up global trade, mostly because the Alan Ford crowd in Brussels, that unpopular goat in London, and the geriatric leader in Washington, D.C. thought they knew what they were doing with those sanctions.

So, it’s not just Putin, or whatever name you want to call him, who is responsible for the current economic mess. Sure, he's responsible for destroying Ukrainian infrastructure and killing civilians, but Saudi Arabia does the same thing in Yemen and nobody makes a fuss.

The peak level of bureaucratic lethargy and cronyism is visible in the geothermal testing at that never-built hospital in Washington, D.C. It's worth noting that the project was led by Mason's daughter, and despite all that time, not a single test was ever conducted to prove whether geothermal resources even exist or if exploiting them in that area would be profitable. ☕

To completely decouple from oil dependency, it should take us ten years. But since our leadership positions are filled by people who can barely copy a diploma, let's multiply that by five.

There is potential to partially replace oil and gas. Anything beyond that is a pipe dream. We could have leaned into nuclear energy, but the green lobby idiots blocked that path. But hey, we'll see who was right in the end. 🎉

Just like I was right when I said these sanctions would hurt us more than they hurt the Russians.

Or when I pointed out that the USA stands to profit the most from this whole mess.

It’s as clear as day. If you refuse to see it, you’re either blind or on someone's payroll.

Joshua Myers432 said:There is potential to partially replace oil and gas. Anything beyond that is a pipe dream. We could have leaned into nuclear energy, but the green lobby idiots blocked that path. But hey, we'll see who was right in the end. 🎉

Just like I was right when I said these sanctions would hurt us more than they hurt the Russians.

Or when I pointed out that the USA stands to profit the most from this whole mess.

It’s as clear as day. If you refuse to see it, you’re either blind or on someone's payroll.

So, basically, Putin is the ultimate American player? Not only did he boost their economy while tanking his own—I mean, losing an initial $300 billion instantly has to sting for anyone—but he also pulled off something unthinkable until recently: expanding NATO into Scandinavia. It's like Congress's wildest dreams coming true.🙂

Melissa Rivera5 said:That's all well and good until the rest of the world decides it’s actually less painful to just band together and finally get rid of the dealer through some kind of "special operation" to sober everyone up.

Eighty percent of the globe hasn't even touched Russia with sanctions. Even close US allies like Mexico—or take Israel, for that matter—haven't moved an inch. In fact, most of them maintain perfectly fine relations with Russia and show zero interest in changing that. Just another day in this messy world.
A few months back, when I dropped this exact figure, a bunch of "experts" popped up just to tell me the rest of the world doesn't matter because the West controls 50% of global GDP. Funny how fast the narrative shifts once reality hits the fan. It doesn't matter what we think on this forum, but that dismissive, West-centric attitude has always been the playbook—and the rest of the world sees right through it. No wonder one of Russia's biggest rivals, MBS, recently suggested he'd rather cut deals with the Russians who actually respect an agreement than deal with us and our habit of breaking them. But sure, let's go back to our old arrogance, pretending the rest of the world is irrelevant and everyone else is too blind to notice.

Joshua Myers432 said:Mark my words, there is absolutely no way Europe can fully cover its needs through alternative energy alone. The only real shot we had was building out nuclear power to kick Russian energy to the curb. Because of short-sighted, incompetent people, that option was tossed aside. Then, those same fools went ahead and slapped sanctions on Russia regarding those energy supplies—essentially sanctioning themselves.

Someone sold you this idiotic fantasy about alternative energy, and now you're just chanting it like a mantra. 🤦

A couple of months back, this same user was peddling the exact same nonsense. Back then, they went even further, insisting we should just shut down all energy imports immediately because—get this—“we'll just get electricity from the wall outlet.” They never once bothered to explain where that power was actually supposed to come from. Typical. 🤣
Progress is finally visible.

John Deere. Just another cog in the machine. I remember seeing one of those massive tractors idling outside a diner back in Iowa—smelled like diesel and broken promises. Same old story. Terry Hernandez10 says:
Given Putin's age, a regime change is almost inevitable long before any fifty-year milestone. Will the successor follow the exact same playbook? Who knows. But it would be incredibly foolish to just keep doing the same thing without trying to pivot. If you look at the history of the USSR—which the current Russian policy mimics quite closely—every new leader introduced significant shifts, even within such a rigid system. Stalin was different from Lenin; Khrushchev was different from Stalin; Brezhnev from Khrushchev; even Andropov, despite his short stint, was highly critical of those "years of stagnation." Then there was Chernenko, who was perhaps the only outlier because he failed to truly grasp control, much like how Andropov managed to leave his mark. Finally, Gorbachev was the icing on that cake. At the end of the day, both Yeltsin and Putin had distinct styles, so it's likely someone will emerge after Putin with fresh ideas, even if they have to use the old structures to seize power.

Looking at the fallout after Putin, the only person who could step in is someone even more hostile toward the West.
We all know truth is the first casualty in war, but today's news coverage has devolved into a full-blown propaganda binge. Sure, the Russians have messed up plenty—as happens in every war—but there’s zero balance here, no alternative perspective whatsoever. It’s not like some Russians aren't watching how the other side reports this; I highly doubt they enjoy what they see. Are people really going to be foolish enough to vote for some pro-Western politician because of this?
Every action triggers a reaction. In this case, the result is a galvanized Western public opinion, while the Russians—who might have once found the West attractive—have completely shut out.

brightheron64 said:It’s true that Putin set his sights on war, but... (there goes the classic whataboutism) if the CIA really knew everything they claim to know, then they should have reacted much earlier and much more aggressively—something like, "Hold on, let's negotiate a 'Ménage à trois'," because no single life, whether Ukrainian or Russian, is worth this level of warfare and chaos. Instead, we are currently rolling out every possible sanction imaginable (all at once, rather than step-by-step), yet not a single drop of Russian oil or cubic meter of gas isn't finding its way to a destination somewhere.

It feels like a twisted kind of gymnastics, almost perverse, watching the endless talk about tens of thousands of deaths, the destruction, and the devastation... not to mention the economic fallout. Honestly, why didn't the EU simply say, "we are shutting down every single pipeline this very second, even if it kills us"? Even Ukraine, which is the one under direct attack, is still allowing Russian energy to transit through its territory, essentially collecting the cash from it...
Good grief, we aren't the Japanese, so why are we acting like kamikazes?

Man, even Domazet Lošo would have passed out looking at all of this...

It is fair to ask who actually threw the doors wide open for Putin to embark on this war adventure, and who is now trying to fix it with such desperation at the cost of tens of thousands of souls, misery, and hardship. Is someone truly invested in peace and reaching a solution right now (even if it doesn't favor Ukraine), or is a proxy war of attrition against the Russians actually more interesting to them, even if it drags on for years?
And in the end, what is the actual resolution? Are the Russians just going to hand back Crimea and Donbas?

What triggered the conflict is a massive topic for another thread, but Putin has been warning us since 2007. This tragedy isn't some random outburst; it's a long-planned reaction from Russian leadership who felt backed into a corner.
It brings us back to that old idea of "what's legal for one isn't for the other"—how we spent years trying to stomp on the Russians, and out of pure arrogance, refused any dialogue with them until the bitter end.

EDIT: Does anyone remember the shock when the Russians demanded payment in rubles? People were acting like, "How dare they! That violates our sanctions!" Or look at the recent turbine situation.
That perfectly illustrates the mental capacity of our esteemed leaders. They are completely detached from reality, drafting grandiose plans on paper that could easily push us into a recession, or even a depression.

Total misunderstanding and ignoring the opposing side hasn't made anyone happy.

So, what's the move here? Is Europe supposed to just roll over, bow down to Putin, and basically admit he's the Emperor of the continent and somehow more in tune with the rest of the world than we are?

A quick word on oil and those famous 5 million barrels from Biden:
Not long after the conflict kicked off and prices skyrocketed, the US started tapping into reserves at a rate of 1 million barrels a day, with a six-month plan in mind. In short, they’ve released about 100 million barrels so far. The real headache with this 5 million is that it was being shipped out of the US.
That supply helped stabilize things slightly, but I can't help but wonder what happens in three months. Winter is coming, stockpiles are depleted, and you can bet the Americans will be looking to refill them.

On natural gas:
In parts of Europe, they’re already starting to implement cuts, and we’re barely into July. People over there have already run the numbers on what happens to the German economy without gas—no point me repeating the grim math here.

So, it’s hardly surprising that nobody is even mentioning a seventh round of sanctions anymore, despite how loudly everyone cheered for them after the sixth.

steelfox98 said:A quick word on oil and those famous 5 million barrels from Biden:
Not long after the conflict kicked off and prices skyrocketed, the US started tapping into reserves at a rate of 1 million barrels a day, with a six-month plan in mind. In short, they’ve released about 100 million barrels so far. The real headache with this 5 million is that it was being shipped out of the US.
That supply helped stabilize things slightly, but I can't help but wonder what happens in three months. Winter is coming, stockpiles are depleted, and you can bet the Americans will be looking to refill them.

On natural gas:
In parts of Europe, they’re already starting to implement cuts, and we’re barely into July. People over there have already run the numbers on what happens to the German economy without gas—no point me repeating the grim math here.

So, it’s hardly surprising that nobody is even mentioning a seventh round of sanctions anymore, despite how loudly everyone cheered for them after the sixth.

Watching this whole oil circus unfold is going to be quite the spectacle to follow...

Looking at the projections for 2022, we're seeing Chinese daily imports hitting around 7.5 million barrels, while India is pulling in about 5 million... It’s expected that India will save billions of dollars every single year because Putin has already offered them such an irresistible price, even if it means the Russians continue to rake in massive amounts of cash...

SINGAPORE, June 20 (Reuters) — It looks like the landscape of global energy is shifting quite dramatically, as Chinese imports of crude oil from Russia surged by a staggering 55% compared to this time last year, hitting record highs this past May... This massive spike has actually pushed Saudi Arabia out of its top spot as the leading supplier, leaving domestic refineries in a position to reap significant profits from these redirected flows, all while navigating the complex fallout of sanctions imposed on Moscow following its invasion of Ukraine...
According to recent data released by the Chinese Customs Service, imports of Russian oil have hit nearly 8.42 million tons, factoring in everything from the steady flow through the East Siberia Pacific Ocean pipeline to various maritime shipments arriving from Russian ports across Europe and the Far East...
That brings us to roughly 1.98 million barrels per day, which is actually quite a significant jump when you consider we were sitting at just over 1.59 million barrels per day back in April...

NEW DELHI, July 8 (Reuters) — Ever since the conflict in Ukraine kicked off, the United States and its allies have been leaning heavily on other nations to scale back their purchases of Russian oil, all in an effort to hit Moscow where it hurts most for its aggression. However, Indian refineries have taken a completely different path, actually ramping up their intake of Russian crude oil instead... meanwhile, the government is now looking into various ways to shield its domestic oil companies from potential fallout if they ever find themselves caught in the crosshairs of international sanctions...
We're seeing a massive surge in supply coming straight out of Russia. Looking at the numbers, India was importing a staggering 819,000 barrels per day back in May, which is quite a leap from the 277,000 barrels per day they saw in April, and an even more dramatic jump from just 33,000 barrels per day a year ago... It turns out Russia has officially stepped up to become India's second-largest supplier, actually overtaking Saudi Arabia in the process, though Iraq still holds onto that top spot...

Where are all the other heavy hitters, though? I’m thinking about those smaller players who are basically teetering on the edge of total bankruptcy... take Pakistan, for example, which is practically broke right now... especially since the Chinese have just gone ahead and restructured $4 billion of their maturing debt...

The government over in Pakistan has officially reached out to its domestic refineries, asking for their input on whether importing Russian crude at those incredibly attractive price points might be a smart move to offset the rising costs of imports... It looks like they’re following suit with a growing list of Asian nations that are keeping their options wide open by looking toward suppliers outside of OPEC...
According to industry insiders and market analysts, if you look at the numbers on paper, sourcing oil from the Urals could potentially save Pakistani refineries at least $30 per barrel compared to what they’re paying for Middle Eastern crude...

"At the very best, if we were to shift 100% of our energy needs over to Russia and managed to snag a 30% discount on our total oil import bill, we'd be looking at annual savings of about $6 billion," noted unnamed from Pearl Securities.

So, when all is said and done, who is actually going to end up being the "matchstick" in this oil war? Good old Europe, most likely...
I’m sitting here impatiently waiting for the announcements from the administration and the new Secretary of the Treasury in ten days. Is Eurosuper still going to be $4.50?

Our only real glimmer of hope is that sanctions on Iran and Venezuela might finally be lifted, though it will certainly take some time before Venezuela can really get back up to full speed...

steelfox98 said:Eighty percent of the globe hasn't even touched Russia with sanctions. Even close US allies like Mexico—or take Israel, for that matter—haven't moved an inch. In fact, most of them maintain perfectly fine relations with Russia and show zero interest in changing that. Just another day in this messy world.
A few months back, when I dropped this exact figure, a bunch of "experts" popped up just to tell me the rest of the world doesn't matter because the West controls 50% of global GDP. Funny how fast the narrative shifts once reality hits the fan. It doesn't matter what we think on this forum, but that dismissive, West-centric attitude has always been the playbook—and the rest of the world sees right through it. No wonder one of Russia's biggest rivals, MBS, recently suggested he'd rather cut deals with the Russians who actually respect an agreement than deal with us and our habit of breaking them. But sure, let's go back to our old arrogance, pretending the rest of the world is irrelevant and everyone else is too blind to notice.

A couple of months back, this same user was peddling the exact same nonsense. Back then, they went even further, insisting we should just shut down all energy imports immediately because—get this—“we'll just get electricity from the wall outlet.” They never once bothered to explain where that power was actually supposed to come from. Typical. 🤣
Progress is finally visible.

John Deere. Just another cog in the machine. I remember seeing one of those massive tractors idling outside a diner back in Iowa—smelled like diesel and broken promises. Same old story. Terry Hernandez10 says:
Given Putin's age, a regime change is almost inevitable long before any fifty-year milestone. Will the successor follow the exact same playbook? Who knows. But it would be incredibly foolish to just keep doing the same thing without trying to pivot. If you look at the history of the USSR—which the current Russian policy mimics quite closely—every new leader introduced significant shifts, even within such a rigid system. Stalin was different from Lenin; Khrushchev was different from Stalin; Brezhnev from Khrushchev; even Andropov, despite his short stint, was highly critical of those "years of stagnation." Then there was Chernenko, who was perhaps the only outlier because he failed to truly grasp control, much like how Andropov managed to leave his mark. Finally, Gorbachev was the icing on that cake. At the end of the day, both Yeltsin and Putin had distinct styles, so it's likely someone will emerge after Putin with fresh ideas, even if they have to use the old structures to seize power.

Looking at the fallout after Putin, the only person who could step in is someone even more hostile toward the West.
We all know truth is the first casualty in war, but today's news coverage has devolved into a full-blown propaganda binge. Sure, the Russians have messed up plenty—as happens in every war—but there’s zero balance here, no alternative perspective whatsoever. It’s not like some Russians aren't watching how the other side reports this; I highly doubt they enjoy what they see. Are people really going to be foolish enough to vote for some pro-Western politician because of this?
Every action triggers a reaction. In this case, the result is a galvanized Western public opinion, while the Russians—who might have once found the West attractive—have completely shut out.

What triggered the conflict is a massive topic for another thread, but Putin has been warning us since 2007. This tragedy isn't some random outburst; it's a long-planned reaction from Russian leadership who felt backed into a corner.
It brings us back to that old idea of "what's legal for one isn't for the other"—how we spent years trying to stomp on the Russians, and out of pure arrogance, refused any dialogue with them until the bitter end.

EDIT: Does anyone remember the shock when the Russians demanded payment in rubles? People were acting like, "How dare they! That violates our sanctions!" Or look at the recent turbine situation.
That perfectly illustrates the mental capacity of our esteemed leaders. They are completely detached from reality, drafting grandiose plans on paper that could easily push us into a recession, or even a depression.

Total misunderstanding and ignoring the opposing side hasn't made anyone happy.

The only real screw-up here is that Putin himself broke the non-aggression pact regarding Ukraine. Throughout this whole war, he won't even admit it’s an actual war—he just keeps calling it some kind of "special operation." I mean, Lavrov literally said they aren't even attacking Ukraine. So much for being reliable, I guess.

steelfox98 said:Eighty percent of the globe hasn't even touched Russia with sanctions. Even close US allies like Mexico—or take Israel, for that matter—haven't moved an inch. In fact, most of them maintain perfectly fine relations with Russia and show zero interest in changing that. Just another day in this messy world.
A few months back, when I dropped this exact figure, a bunch of "experts" popped up just to tell me the rest of the world doesn't matter because the West controls 50% of global GDP. Funny how fast the narrative shifts once reality hits the fan. It doesn't matter what we think on this forum, but that dismissive, West-centric attitude has always been the playbook—and the rest of the world sees right through it. No wonder one of Russia's biggest rivals, MBS, recently suggested he'd rather cut deals with the Russians who actually respect an agreement than deal with us and our habit of breaking them. But sure, let's go back to our old arrogance, pretending the rest of the world is irrelevant and everyone else is too blind to notice.

A couple of months back, this same user was peddling the exact same nonsense. Back then, they went even further, insisting we should just shut down all energy imports immediately because—get this—“we'll just get electricity from the wall outlet.” They never once bothered to explain where that power was actually supposed to come from. Typical. 🤣
Progress is finally visible.

John Deere. Just another cog in the machine. I remember seeing one of those massive tractors idling outside a diner back in Iowa—smelled like diesel and broken promises. Same old story. Terry Hernandez10 says:
Given Putin's age, a regime change is almost inevitable long before any fifty-year milestone. Will the successor follow the exact same playbook? Who knows. But it would be incredibly foolish to just keep doing the same thing without trying to pivot. If you look at the history of the USSR—which the current Russian policy mimics quite closely—every new leader introduced significant shifts, even within such a rigid system. Stalin was different from Lenin; Khrushchev was different from Stalin; Brezhnev from Khrushchev; even Andropov, despite his short stint, was highly critical of those "years of stagnation." Then there was Chernenko, who was perhaps the only outlier because he failed to truly grasp control, much like how Andropov managed to leave his mark. Finally, Gorbachev was the icing on that cake. At the end of the day, both Yeltsin and Putin had distinct styles, so it's likely someone will emerge after Putin with fresh ideas, even if they have to use the old structures to seize power.

Looking at the fallout after Putin, the only person who could step in is someone even more hostile toward the West.
We all know truth is the first casualty in war, but today's news coverage has devolved into a full-blown propaganda binge. Sure, the Russians have messed up plenty—as happens in every war—but there’s zero balance here, no alternative perspective whatsoever. It’s not like some Russians aren't watching how the other side reports this; I highly doubt they enjoy what they see. Are people really going to be foolish enough to vote for some pro-Western politician because of this?
Every action triggers a reaction. In this case, the result is a galvanized Western public opinion, while the Russians—who might have once found the West attractive—have completely shut out.

What triggered the conflict is a massive topic for another thread, but Putin has been warning us since 2007. This tragedy isn't some random outburst; it's a long-planned reaction from Russian leadership who felt backed into a corner.
It brings us back to that old idea of "what's legal for one isn't for the other"—how we spent years trying to stomp on the Russians, and out of pure arrogance, refused any dialogue with them until the bitter end.

EDIT: Does anyone remember the shock when the Russians demanded payment in rubles? People were acting like, "How dare they! That violates our sanctions!" Or look at the recent turbine situation.
That perfectly illustrates the mental capacity of our esteemed leaders. They are completely detached from reality, drafting grandiose plans on paper that could easily push us into a recession, or even a depression.

Total misunderstanding and ignoring the opposing side hasn't made anyone happy.

Backed into a corner? I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Russia ended up stuck like that just because of some internal Ukrainian issues. It feels like it doesn't even matter if the West decides to negotiate or listen to them or whatever. I guess the guy just cooked up a problem from scratch and then decided to start a war over it.

If there’s actually some other reason for this besides just grabbing territory, it definitely isn't about the LNR/DNR situation, Nazism, or banning the Russian language. I really hope that's the case, because if not, then someone over there is seriously missing a few brain cells if they honestly believe Ukraine belongs to Russia.

steelfox98 said:Eighty percent of the globe hasn't even touched Russia with sanctions. Even close US allies like Mexico—or take Israel, for that matter—haven't moved an inch. In fact, most of them maintain perfectly fine relations with Russia and show zero interest in changing that. Just another day in this messy world.
A few months back, when I dropped this exact figure, a bunch of "experts" popped up just to tell me the rest of the world doesn't matter because the West controls 50% of global GDP. Funny how fast the narrative shifts once reality hits the fan. It doesn't matter what we think on this forum, but that dismissive, West-centric attitude has always been the playbook—and the rest of the world sees right through it. No wonder one of Russia's biggest rivals, MBS, recently suggested he'd rather cut deals with the Russians who actually respect an agreement than deal with us and our habit of breaking them. But sure, let's go back to our old arrogance, pretending the rest of the world is irrelevant and everyone else is too blind to notice.

A couple of months back, this same user was peddling the exact same nonsense. Back then, they went even further, insisting we should just shut down all energy imports immediately because—get this—“we'll just get electricity from the wall outlet.” They never once bothered to explain where that power was actually supposed to come from. Typical. 🤣
Progress is finally visible.

John Deere. Just another cog in the machine. I remember seeing one of those massive tractors idling outside a diner back in Iowa—smelled like diesel and broken promises. Same old story. Terry Hernandez10 says:
Given Putin's age, a regime change is almost inevitable long before any fifty-year milestone. Will the successor follow the exact same playbook? Who knows. But it would be incredibly foolish to just keep doing the same thing without trying to pivot. If you look at the history of the USSR—which the current Russian policy mimics quite closely—every new leader introduced significant shifts, even within such a rigid system. Stalin was different from Lenin; Khrushchev was different from Stalin; Brezhnev from Khrushchev; even Andropov, despite his short stint, was highly critical of those "years of stagnation." Then there was Chernenko, who was perhaps the only outlier because he failed to truly grasp control, much like how Andropov managed to leave his mark. Finally, Gorbachev was the icing on that cake. At the end of the day, both Yeltsin and Putin had distinct styles, so it's likely someone will emerge after Putin with fresh ideas, even if they have to use the old structures to seize power.

Looking at the fallout after Putin, the only person who could step in is someone even more hostile toward the West.
We all know truth is the first casualty in war, but today's news coverage has devolved into a full-blown propaganda binge. Sure, the Russians have messed up plenty—as happens in every war—but there’s zero balance here, no alternative perspective whatsoever. It’s not like some Russians aren't watching how the other side reports this; I highly doubt they enjoy what they see. Are people really going to be foolish enough to vote for some pro-Western politician because of this?
Every action triggers a reaction. In this case, the result is a galvanized Western public opinion, while the Russians—who might have once found the West attractive—have completely shut out.

What triggered the conflict is a massive topic for another thread, but Putin has been warning us since 2007. This tragedy isn't some random outburst; it's a long-planned reaction from Russian leadership who felt backed into a corner.
It brings us back to that old idea of "what's legal for one isn't for the other"—how we spent years trying to stomp on the Russians, and out of pure arrogance, refused any dialogue with them until the bitter end.

EDIT: Does anyone remember the shock when the Russians demanded payment in rubles? People were acting like, "How dare they! That violates our sanctions!" Or look at the recent turbine situation.
That perfectly illustrates the mental capacity of our esteemed leaders. They are completely detached from reality, drafting grandiose plans on paper that could easily push us into a recession, or even a depression.

Total misunderstanding and ignoring the opposing side hasn't made anyone happy.

I mean, it’s pretty much impossible to wrap your head around anyone else's perspective when they’re constantly lying and playing mind games without exception. You literally can't trust a single word coming out of the Kremlin. And honestly, trying to find common ground is even harder when they start acting like toddlers, throwing around threats about nuclear holocausts or erasing the United Kingdom from the map. Then you've got that head of Roscosmos(!) floating around posting pictures of "decision centers" and all that nonsense. It’s like watching some spoiled brat who has zero clue how the real world works, thinking they have an absolute right to demand ice cream from a random kid on the street just because they feel like having it right this second.

I don't even get what people expect. What kind of "understanding" are we talking about when they lie about everything so aggressively? It’s wild. I don't know how they aren't even embarrassed to be so shamelessly and brazenly dishonest.

Melissa Rivera5 said:The only real screw-up here is that Putin himself broke the non-aggression pact regarding Ukraine. Throughout this whole war, he won't even admit it’s an actual war—he just keeps calling it some kind of "special operation." I mean, Lavrov literally said they aren't even attacking Ukraine. So much for being reliable, I guess.

Backed into a corner? I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Russia ended up stuck like that just because of some internal Ukrainian issues. It feels like it doesn't even matter if the West decides to negotiate or listen to them or whatever. I guess the guy just cooked up a problem from scratch and then decided to start a war over it.

If there’s actually some other reason for this besides just grabbing territory, it definitely isn't about the LNR/DNR situation, Nazism, or banning the Russian language. I really hope that's the case, because if not, then someone over there is seriously missing a few brain cells if they honestly believe Ukraine belongs to Russia.

I mean, it’s pretty much impossible to wrap your head around anyone else's perspective when they’re constantly lying and playing mind games without exception. You literally can't trust a single word coming out of the Kremlin. And honestly, trying to find common ground is even harder when they start acting like toddlers, throwing around threats about nuclear holocausts or erasing the United Kingdom from the map. Then you've got that head of Roscosmos(!) floating around posting pictures of "decision centers" and all that nonsense. It’s like watching some spoiled brat who has zero clue how the real world works, thinking they have an absolute right to demand ice cream from a random kid on the street just because they feel like having it right this second.

I don't even get what people expect. What kind of "understanding" are we talking about when they lie about everything so aggressively? It’s wild. I don't know how they aren't even embarrassed to be so shamelessly and brazenly dishonest.

This war is actually very easy to understand. Russia invaded Ukraine to conquer it.

Is there anyone here who doesn't understand the motives behind the German Blitzkrieg in Austria back in 1938? This invasion of Ukraine is identical, except it isn't a Blitzkrieg.

steelfox98 said:Eighty percent of the globe hasn't even touched Russia with sanctions. Even close US allies like Mexico—or take Israel, for that matter—haven't moved an inch. In fact, most of them maintain perfectly fine relations with Russia and show zero interest in changing that. Just another day in this messy world.
A few months back, when I dropped this exact figure, a bunch of "experts" popped up just to tell me the rest of the world doesn't matter because the West controls 50% of global GDP. Funny how fast the narrative shifts once reality hits the fan. It doesn't matter what we think on this forum, but that dismissive, West-centric attitude has always been the playbook—and the rest of the world sees right through it. No wonder one of Russia's biggest rivals, MBS, recently suggested he'd rather cut deals with the Russians who actually respect an agreement than deal with us and our habit of breaking them. But sure, let's go back to our old arrogance, pretending the rest of the world is irrelevant and everyone else is too blind to notice.

A couple of months back, this same user was peddling the exact same nonsense. Back then, they went even further, insisting we should just shut down all energy imports immediately because—get this—“we'll just get electricity from the wall outlet.” They never once bothered to explain where that power was actually supposed to come from. Typical. 🤣
Progress is finally visible.

John Deere. Just another cog in the machine. I remember seeing one of those massive tractors idling outside a diner back in Iowa—smelled like diesel and broken promises. Same old story. Terry Hernandez10 says:
Given Putin's age, a regime change is almost inevitable long before any fifty-year milestone. Will the successor follow the exact same playbook? Who knows. But it would be incredibly foolish to just keep doing the same thing without trying to pivot. If you look at the history of the USSR—which the current Russian policy mimics quite closely—every new leader introduced significant shifts, even within such a rigid system. Stalin was different from Lenin; Khrushchev was different from Stalin; Brezhnev from Khrushchev; even Andropov, despite his short stint, was highly critical of those "years of stagnation." Then there was Chernenko, who was perhaps the only outlier because he failed to truly grasp control, much like how Andropov managed to leave his mark. Finally, Gorbachev was the icing on that cake. At the end of the day, both Yeltsin and Putin had distinct styles, so it's likely someone will emerge after Putin with fresh ideas, even if they have to use the old structures to seize power.

Looking at the fallout after Putin, the only person who could step in is someone even more hostile toward the West.
We all know truth is the first casualty in war, but today's news coverage has devolved into a full-blown propaganda binge. Sure, the Russians have messed up plenty—as happens in every war—but there’s zero balance here, no alternative perspective whatsoever. It’s not like some Russians aren't watching how the other side reports this; I highly doubt they enjoy what they see. Are people really going to be foolish enough to vote for some pro-Western politician because of this?
Every action triggers a reaction. In this case, the result is a galvanized Western public opinion, while the Russians—who might have once found the West attractive—have completely shut out.

What triggered the conflict is a massive topic for another thread, but Putin has been warning us since 2007. This tragedy isn't some random outburst; it's a long-planned reaction from Russian leadership who felt backed into a corner.
It brings us back to that old idea of "what's legal for one isn't for the other"—how we spent years trying to stomp on the Russians, and out of pure arrogance, refused any dialogue with them until the bitter end.

EDIT: Does anyone remember the shock when the Russians demanded payment in rubles? People were acting like, "How dare they! That violates our sanctions!" Or look at the recent turbine situation.
That perfectly illustrates the mental capacity of our esteemed leaders. They are completely detached from reality, drafting grandiose plans on paper that could easily push us into a recession, or even a depression.

Total misunderstanding and ignoring the opposing side hasn't made anyone happy.

The bottom line is that Russia attacked all its neighbors and took territory from all of them. They want to control everyone and would be happiest if they had the borders of the USSR again. We all know they're imperialists.
Europe shot itself in the foot, but that's short-term. No matter how bad the winter gets, it'll pass and energy issues will get sorted—it won't happen overnight. Long-term, Russia is a huge loser because nobody can function without the West, not even China.