Posts by Nancy Gomez26

bluemason3 said:Nasty or not, it's just one of the actual consequences of war.

This didn't just start yesterday, and it isn't strictly a consequence of the war—though the conflict certainly exacerbates it. In my view, this is simply an inevitable byproduct of the inhumane regime that once ruled the USSR and continues to rule Russia today. Give people decent living conditions and prosperity at home, and they won't feel the need to flee. People simply do what they can to survive with whatever tools they have at their disposal. The same applies to women; there is no reason to blame them if they simply want to live a somewhat normal life.

rowdyraven112 said:Was US territory ever threatened by Cuba? No. By Grenada? No. Yet they pulled the exact same moves Putin did in Ukraine. The US explanation: "Preserving US territorial integrity."

It’s funny how history repeats itself, especially when people favoring one side conveniently forget the facts. Was Afghanistan ever a threat to Russia? No. Was Vietnam a threat to the US? No. Let's round out the comparison. Who actually reacted? Nobody. Whenever the US and Russia get involved—both are garbage in my book—all the little guy can do is grab his gear and hit the road.

The bottom line is that Russia is severely weakened right now, both militarily and economically. But what's causing the panic is Zakharov claiming we're delusional if we think Russia can lose this. Whatever that means. The real danger is Western politicians completely ignoring that statement. The million-dollar question is who's going to be the first to get screwed... ☕
Reminds me of the Matrix and that quote: Ignorance is bliss!

When exactly did the US occupy Cuba?
And now, it seems someone is finally 'reacting' to this.
Besides, where are you going to run from a nuclear war? Do you have a spot reserved in some bunker? Well, good luck to you somewhere deep underground. Bring some photos along, just so you don't forget what life used to look like. In the event of a nuclear conflict, I'll head underground too, but not as deep. Or perhaps I'll just evaporate instantly—if luck is on my side.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Are you kidding me? 😁

Democracy, Russian style...

Do you actually have any idea who these reservists are that they're supposedly mobilizing, or even how many there are? Where are these people coming from, and what kind of structure are they even working with?

They will mobilize anyone who fails to slip through the cracks, continuing until they've met whatever quota they've set for human life.

Ashley Ramirez4 said:Whether they’re "modern" or actually modern—if those things start going off (anywhere, really), it’s gonna be a mess. Just imagine if one of them blows up right on their own soil. Given how much they've been bragging, they could probably launch anything at this rate.

If someone intends to use long-range or even medium-range projectiles, how is the opposition—or NATO, who are monitoring all launches—supposed to know they are specifically aimed at Ukraine? At the exact moment of launch, you have to decide whether to counterstrike, yet you have absolutely no way of knowing the true target. That is why you don't play games with this. The Russians understand this dynamic perfectly well; their verbal outbursts are mostly just self-soothing or perhaps an attempt to intimidate the uneducated masses.

gentlestag15 said:They'll probably annex those regions into Russia within a week; they already snatched up Crimea
under that whole "territorial integrity" delusion this guy is peddling

Once our resident forum legend Ivan the Terrible gets his mobilization notice...
😁

Thinking is clearly...

Kate Lewis3 said:Let's be real, even if they called it general mobilization, half the guys with deep pockets would find a way to dodge being sent out there to man the HIMARS thanks to all the corruption.

Those with sufficient means essentially buy their way out of any draft. Russia functions as a highly bureaucratized state—one that is inherently prone to graft (after all, what is the point of bureaucracy if not to facilitate corruption?). They possess an "experienced" administrative class that knows exactly how to monetize every single situation. This particular moment provides the perfect opportunity for quick, easy cash.
And I suspect the government will ensure its loyal sycophants aren't sent to the front lines. They serve a different purpose entirely. Since the actual patriots were exhausted long ago, who else is left to act as cannon fodder? Only those who lack the connections or the wits to slip through the cracks.

I didn't sit through the entire speech because I was stuck watching those subtitles—which honestly drive me up the wall—but from what I gathered, there was some nonsense about preserving the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. Let’s be clear: Russia isn't launching an attack, nor is its own sovereignty under threat. What we are seeing in Ukraine is nothing more than standard territorial expansionism disguised as defense. By his logic, any nation could invade its neighbors and claim they're simply "protecting their borders." It’s a completely moronic way to frame reality.

Timothy Nelson5 said:He’s going all in.
It’s all or nothing at this point.

Then we end up with nothing.

Bradley White73 said:And he's saying Russia won't be blackmailed with nukes, and if things keep going this way, they're ready to strike back—he isn't bluffing. It's just completely wild.

The only ones constantly and loudly bringing up the use of nuclear weapons are the people sitting in Moscow. Everyone else mostly stays quiet; occasionally, someone like Telk might suggest that escalation simply wouldn't be worth the cost. It's a classic straw man argument—nothing new from that crowd.

It seems to me they’re still agonizing over which version of the announcement to release. The shortlist appears to be down to two options: one involving mobilization orders, and another that opens with: following a long and grueling illness, the President has passed away... We’ll have to wait until morning to see which script becomes reality. After all, waiting until dawn is always more prudent than deciding in the evening.

driftingfox66 said:The issue is there's at least 200,000 National Guard troops standing right between the protesters and the military. We'll see just how loyal they actually turn out to be.

The National Guard is useless... the real hurdle is getting past the Secret Service, assuming you even think you can reach Putin.

analogbear5 said:When you're losing at chess, just smash the board—scatter the pieces everywhere and blow yourself and everyone else up, partners included.

Makes total sense for the Russians.

Sure. Those are the kind of moves only the most elite grandmasters of 27D chess would pull.

Sean Watson3 said:We’re looking at the desperate moves of someone backed into a corner. The strategist has trapped himself; there's no way out, and nobody from the inside can pull him out of this mess. He’s running out of time at the end of his career.

A tactical strike on Ukraine to freeze the status quo doesn't seem entirely unthinkable, given the massive likelihood that no one—specifically the Americans—will actually respond to a tactical move in Donetsk or Lugansk of RF.

Total tactical isolation, a frozen front line, and then the Russians sit back hoping to jumpstart negotiations from that position.

Why on earth would Ukrainians even consider nuking their own cities? Seriously? Do you even hear yourself? If I were in the position of the Ukrainians, I’d be looking at striking somewhere deep within the Russian interior, maybe just one 280 miles along my border... Play it safe if you want, but let the enemy deal with the fallout, not me. That is why the people in Russia won't pull the trigger—they know full well it would come right back at them. They have proven to be ruthlessly cold-blooded so far, but only when it's someone else dying, not themselves. It is a group that is extremely protective of its own skin.

Melissa Rivera5 said:I don't know, I see it differently. They'll definitely push through a referendum if they think they can get away with it, but the whole nuclear thing? Like, dropping a bomb on the UK or Germany to wipe them out? Probably not gonna happen. They know that would be the end of Russia without NATO even having to lift a finger. Once that happens, British nuclear subs would just launch dozens of missiles at everything important in Russia west of the Ural, and that'd be it for them and their little "special operations."

If any kind of referendum actually happens, it’ll pass—provided they wait to announce the results until after the polls close. They’ll probably have international observers from Belarus, Mexico, and North Korea; maybe some folks from Venezuela or Cuba if they can manage the trip, though that's a long way to drag people in.
And it’s all for nothing. No sane person under these circumstances is going to recognize that sham as a legitimate vote. The Russians view this as a mere formality, a box to check before they start waving it around, failing to grasp that legitimacy requires a baseline level of quality for anyone serious to even consider it an argument. You can't explain that distinction to a group that entered this war with such reckless indifference.

COD2 said:The situation is dire. The diagnosis is grim. The prognosis remains uncertain.

https://www.nytimes.com/world/news/war-update...

Dugin lost his daughter, so now he’s calling for World War III as if it were some kind of remedy. It’s a classic coping mechanism. If we invaded Ukraine and proved ourselves utterly incompetent and incapable of handling the conflict, then fine—let’s just trigger a global war. Because the idea that we "supermen" could lose a fight to a nation that supposedly doesn't even exist? That’s an unacceptable reality. If they can be better fighters than us Russians, it’s easier to burn the whole world down than to let history record that failure.

Sean Watson3 said:I’m not sure why my input is being dismissed as useless.

Why push for an immediate referendum when you're losing ground on the battlefield and stuck in such a hopeless spot?

The only logic I see behind a move like that is annexation—triggering that clause about protecting the Russian Federation's existence.

As long as Donetsk and Luhansk remain outside the Russian Federation, that clause simply can't be invoked.
You can't drop nukes on Ukraine, but on a country that attacked the Russian Federation? That's a different story.

And I'm talking tactical bombs here, not strategic ones; surely you know the difference.

Nobody takes these Russian threats regarding referendums or nuclear weapons seriously. Any use of nuclear weapons would simply bury the Russian Federation even deeper. They’ve already dug their own grave in this conventional conflict; they don't need this too. They know it, but they can't help themselves because they are trying to win through brute force a conflict they sparked—a conflict they clearly haven't mastered given the current balance of power (the West versus the Russian Federation, with Ukrainians acting as the boots on the ground).

Kate Cook27 said:They won't even bother—they'll just annex them. Honestly, why waste the paper? It's all Russian territory anyway😁.

Fair point. Why bother being environmentally conscious when the decisions have already been finalized behind closed doors in the Kremlin...

dustyowl29 said:Now that the European Union is running low on urea for those high-performance diesel engines, we're going to see places like Canada become the massive hubs for AdBlue additives. And honestly? The US might see some similar shifts too...

Let’s be realistic. AdBlue consumption is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the sheer scale of agricultural fertilizers.

Kate Cook27 said:Lukashenko is pretty insignificant—just constant complaining about how Poland is getting ready to invade Ukraine and grab territory, then whining to the EU about sanctions, then suggesting Ukraine should just surrender... and then suddenly claiming he has zero issues with Ukraine and hopes relations improve soon. It's a bit much.
A lot of Belarusians aren't on his side—if he actually sent troops into Ukraine, I suspect many would just surrender on the spot, and some might even join the Ukrainians. He’s been playing both sides for years—trying to balance things with Russia and the EU—but once the Russians stepped in to prevent him from falling, he basically had to start paying back his debt to Vladimir Putin.

The logic holds, yet Lukashenko and Tokayev are clearly watching one another. One can imagine them calculating the exact moment to flip their allegiances again. Of course, Lukashenko possesses far superior geopolitical leverage to play that game compared to Tokayev. But then again, courage isn't exactly a common commodity among such men...

Kate Cook27 said:Even then, do you think The Kremlin would start screaming about a "coup, a government takeover, or white supremacists ousting a legally elected president"🙄?

Let them scream, if it helps them swallow the new reality. They need some outlet for all that rage, I suppose.