Posts by Linda Collins3

Nancy Gomez26 said:My own view is that the U.S. was the primary force behind ensuring that gas simply wouldn't flow through the completed NS2. I suspect that was one of the main triggers for Putin deciding to invade Ukraine—he realized he was becoming dependent on someone else's "goodwill," so he decided to raise the stakes in what looked like a viable "operation" at the time. If the Americans can control gas flows through mere bureaucratic pressure (and in that case, they can also ease that pressure if the opportunity arises), it becomes a massive political lever in their hands. Perhaps his internal circle sent him a "message" suggesting it would be wise to open the valves before winter to show "goodwill"—letting the gas flow instead of letting it burn off uselessly—to normalize things. Instead, he preempted them by ordering the pipeline to be sabotaged, effectively stripping them of that leverage.

Maybe, maybe... honestly, it doesn't sound right. It’s way more likely that Putin just executes anyone even thinking about rebelling, so everyone stays in line and nobody dares to act. But hey, who knows...

I see this as classic American cowboy energy, basically just Victoria Nuland saying "screw the European Union."

They love making threats, even if they aren't quite as blunt as Russia—who, let's be honest, wasn't exactly subtle when they were blackmailing and threatening us during the Civil War.

And this whole idea about causing panic and division within the EU is a joke. If you take away the physical possibility of ever getting gas flowing from Russia again, there's nothing left to argue about because that option is dead and gone.

Timothy Nelson5 said:

says:
To my mind, it’s just blindingly obvious that Americans were the ones who mined those pipelines. It feels like a massive signal sent to Europeans, especially since economic discontent is starting to boil over there. But regardless of the motive, what I find particularly striking is how nobody on European news networks even dares to mention it as a possibility. Everyone seems terrified of Big Brother...

Blowing up a pipeline that wasn't even operational in the first place strikes me more as a desperate, short-sighted move rather than some masterfully crafted long-term strategy.

If anyone is acting out of pure desperation right now, it’s probably Putin.

In his own little delusions, he likely thought he could leverage energy against Europe. Now that he sees that hasn't worked, maybe he’s convinced himself that Europe is still just waiting for him to turn the valves back on when things get tough. So, he’s hoping this sabotage will trigger even more panic.

The fact that the pipeline is offline isn't the point; the message for the future is what matters.
Look at how the far right has already taken power in Italy, and people are pushing back elsewhere too.
The USA's message would be: "Not on our watch." This is about prevention.

Russ doesn't need to blow up their own pipe; they can just turn off the valve, which is exactly what they've already done.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Americans mined those pipelines. It was clearly meant as a message to Europeans, especially since everyone over there is getting restless about the economy. But what really gets me is how nobody on European news channels even dares to mention it as a possibility. Everyone is just terrified of Big Brother...

It’s funny watching the Western media play dumb and refuse to even hint that the US might have been behind the Nord Stream sabotage—which is clearly the most logical explanation.
Everyone is acting like they don't see what's right in front of them.

Most likely, this was just a message to Russia and Europe that things will never go back to normal with Moscow.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Ukraine has more than enough people to drive the occupiers out of their territory. They don't need help with manpower. If they, as a nation, refuse to defend themselves against the invaders, then they will remain occupied. It rests entirely on their shoulders, much like it once rested on ours. Material aid is necessary, of course, because it serves the West's interest to see a democratic order in Ukraine. But ultimately, what matters most for Ukraine is what the Ukrainian citizens want, not the whims of their neighbors.

Yeah, right. Democracy is definitely their top priority...

darkrider55 said:What a joke. 🤣

He probably stole the car...

Well, I guess there’s still some hope left for Russia.

We're all hoping that's how it happened...

Larry Wilson25 said:That's a solid point, and honestly, we need to keep saying it because some people keep pushing those what about arguments.
And they’re all just Americans.
Did we actually have a chance to handle things back in 2014? As a community within the European Union?
We did. It's just like our own domestic conflicts—a total mess. A Fryer attacks another nation and then starts waving nukes around. It's precisely because we let bullies operate within the European sphere that we're sitting here worrying about nukes now.
If we had slapped him with brutal sanctions on gas and everything else back then, none of this would be happening.
But no, instead everyone says it's the fault of the USA. They claim the USA is the villain. That they're always at war. So why should we get involved?
Who was it that actually took down Slobodan Maddox?

Yeah, sure... but they were explicitly backing him to "keep America together," right up until they realized he couldn't pull it off and was actually hurting their broader geopolitical goals—especially regarding the Muslim world (they didn't give a damn about us).

The USA and the European Union basically set the stage for this war in a lot of ways.
That doesn't excuse Vladimir Putin being a criminal, though. Just because someone is undermining you doesn't give you a free pass to commit atrocities.

Now that the USA and the European Union share responsibility for much of what Ukrainians are going through, it would be pure cynicism and totally immoral not to help them out, whether through military aid or any other way.

velvetcanyon20 said:It’s deeply irrational. Honestly, it’s gotten to the point where if you look at any serious geopolitical writer from the last two decades, they’ve all basically argued that the only way to truly weaken Russia is by forcing them into this exact conflict with Ukraine.

The moment those paratroopers started dropping, I remember thinking... that was the day Russia lost.
There’s just no realistic way to hold 40 million people against their will without a massive logistical backbone.
For Russia, territory has always functioned as their defensive depth—a sort of buffer zone.
But looking at the numbers? Nothing is going their way. They don't have the population base, and their economy isn't up to the task.

We really ought to be looking at deeper analyses—the kind that project out twenty years or more.
It’s obvious the Americans are putting immense pressure on them. Perhaps there was a deep-seated belief in Moscow that this was a "now or never" window—a chance to make a move that would secure their standing for the next fifty years or so.

Sadly for them, the Americans are reading the room too. It’s clear to everyone that Putin is essentially a disciple of Dugin and his theories. Today's Russian rhetoric sounds exactly like Dugin back in 1997...
And back then, he was adamant that without "resolving" Ukraine, there's no point in even discussing continental politics. And well... here we are.

If that's the case, he isn't irrational by nature; he's just acting that way because they lack the capacity to pull something like that off.

Then again, maybe they actually could if they had competent leadership—people who knew how to build a functioning society and state system instead of running everything like a mafia outfit based on feudal hierarchies and mob bosses.

I'm ready to get to work. Send over the posts whenever you're set. kaže:
Did Capitec just announce they're ending the quarantine requirements?

mellowskipper said:Yeah, they did.
Things are getting pretty chaotic at my office—I guess you could say we've all lost our minds a bit. They're lifting the isolation rules, yet here we are, still being forced to follow these ridiculous testing protocols like we're being poked with sticks. It makes you wonder who's actually running the show anymore—it feels a little nonsensical, if I'm being honest.

It says in the chat:

Quarantine is officially a thing of the past. After getting in touch. With someone who stays positive.

Alright, that covers everyone who was exposed, but what about the people who actually tested positive or think they might be sick?

Found this:

The CDC just updated their guidelines on how long people need to isolate after testing positive. It looks like they're easing up on the strict quarantine rules for those who have been symptomatic.

I assume that applies to people who are already infected?

goldenowl73 said:Saudi Arabia is looking to jump from 10 million barrels a day up to 13 million!

BREAKING: Saudi Arabia's Crown prince announces The country will seek to increase its oil production capacity to 13 million barrels per day.

When though? Right now or sometime in 2027?

Terry Green3 said:Still feels like nothing more than scare tactics and political theater to me.
I find it hard to believe Russia would go all in on a move like this. Though, to be fair, the Canadians did completely miss their deadlines on that turbine project...
Then you have those "accidents" back in Russia—a turbine fails, a chain snaps, a sling breaks "by mistake." They have plenty of ways to dodge direct responsibility for delays by citing "unforeseen technical issues."

The way I read ExxonMobil's statement is that they aren't even sure if they'll get the turbine back, and if they don't, they can't guarantee deliveries.
Which basically means the turbine hasn't arrived yet.

Nancy Gomez26 said:For the Ukrainians, the best course of action is to settle every tab. If they don't pay up now, those "tails" might end up being far more expensive down the road. At the end of the day, these are quite favorable arrangements from a purely economic standpoint; they essentially pay just enough so that no one can claim anything was handed over as a gift—especially when you consider how most nations squander their budgets. This is money well spent. As I have noted before: a clean slate ensures a lasting bond.

They were already under US guidance long before the war started (just look at how Biden pushed to fire that prosecutor who was digging too deep into his son's shady business).

Man, what are you even talking about? Ukraine is going to be stuck under the US thumb forever (assuming they survive this war), and they'll be paying a premium for that privilege...

Nancy Gomez26 said:What you actually mean is they’ll be offered a favorable financial arrangement to procure weapons and gear—tools to drive the occupiers out of their own land. A clean transaction, a debt of gratitude, no hidden strings or lingering "tails" that typically haunt such arrangements.

There is this constant attempt here to push the narrative that Ukrainians are merely fighting someone else's war. They are primarily fighting for themselves and the sovereignty of their nation. For them, there is a massive distinction between living under the sphere of influence of Russia or being aligned with Western Europe. That matters deeply—and they have already made their choice.

Nobody actually claimed Ukrainians are fighting solely for outside interests—you just had to read the part where I said "effectively" and "among other things."
But like I said (since you clearly missed it), they *are* effectively fighting for outside interests too. And it’s because of that specific overlap that they get the weapons, not necessarily because of their fight for freedom. Now people act like there should be a bill sent to them for it...

Nancy Gomez26 said:I don't see what the controversy is regarding the fact that delivered weaponry and equipment must eventually be paid for. In fact, it’s a good thing for Ukraine; it ensures there won't be any sudden retroactive claims or hidden conditions later on. Naturally, people will frame this as a massive favor, given that these are critical moments for national survival. If someone had offered us those terms back in '91—we would have jumped at it without asking a single question. When someone extends terms like these during such a decisive moment, you could call it a significant privilege. On the other hand, you could spend years trying to build up your own arsenal through slow purchases, but that carries its own heavy price tag, doesn't it? No matter how you slice it, war is expensive. The only difference here is that the weapons are available precisely when the pressure is highest—when they are needed most—and you settle the bill later, based on what was actually used. Which option is better?

Give me a break. They keep preaching about how Ukraine is fighting this war for them and instead of them—which is literally true—and now they want to charge them for the very weapons being used to effectively fight for US geopolitical interests too... Americans are using this conflict to reshape the global landscape, or does anyone honestly believe they're just helping Ukraine out of pure humanitarian concern?

I'm not saying Ukraine shouldn't get help—they definitely should—but we need to be realistic. Charging Ukrainians for weapons in this specific context would be pretty pathetic.

Judging by how this thread has spiraled, we should just rename it "Self-Imposed Sanctions."

hollowdriver13 said:What exactly am I supposed to refute here? The arms embargo on Libya that went through the Security Council where Russia holds a veto? If they were so problematic, why didn't they block it?
Or the delivery of weapons to Ukraine, which isn't under an embargo, so they have every right to buy them and countries can choose whether or not to charge for them?

Or the NATO intervention, which is definitely questionable from a moral standpoint but legally shares the same foundation as a UN resolution dating back to 1973?
Go ahead, tell me what legal basis Russia has for invading Ukraine.
Give it another shot and try to draw that false equivalence with "what about NATO/USA."

I was just pointing out the logical flaw in how you define whataboutism as a fallacy.

You're just imagining the rest of the implications...

hollowdriver13 said:Why didn't the Russians secure an embargo then? Not their fault if they're running a "special operation"—Ukraine has every right to get help, so keep whining.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/statu...04777551421442

Hey, feel free to come over here and explain how Russia did everything for its own good and people just showed up to help them out.

But please, tell me more about NATO. There’s honestly nothing better than using Soviet-style whataboutism as a "valid argument."

Let me break it down for you:

"Whataboutism is a logical fallacy where you try to discredit your opponent by accusing them of hypocrisy instead of actually addressing their point."

That definition of a "logical fallacy" is actually a logical fallacy in itself.

Look, when one side accuses the other of doing exactly what they’re doing—without even bothering to disprove the claim—it isn't a logical fallacy. It just shows they lack the moral high ground to be pointing fingers in the first place, so they don't even deserve a response.

If you're going to point the finger at me, you better have the receipts to prove I’m doing the same thing—or worse. You can't just assume I'm guilty and demand an explanation without showing your hand first.

Does anyone actually know how much the EU has been hit by the sanctions against Russia compared to the USA?

Harold Nelson6 said:ExxonMobil Q1 2021 profit - $7 million
ExxonMobil Q1 2022 profit - $75 million

Source: https://www.exxonmobil.com/investors/...reports/

If this pattern holds true for all refineries in Europe, something is definitely fishy...

And it probably does, because that guy on France 24 seemed to know exactly what he was talking about.

So... if this is the main driver behind price hikes, should we be expecting some kind of political crackdown?

I haven't heard anything official yet, but I found the France 24 host's reaction pretty telling when he was interviewing the expert. He kept stuttering, like, "But that means... But that means..." before totally losing his train of thought and fumbling through it. He wouldn't even dare suggest war profiteering.

(Once the guy actually explained it, the vibe shifted instantly and they cut the interview short, even though it had been going great until then... 😁)