Posts by Nancy Gomez26

gentlerider7 said:Russian Ambassador says you haven't seen a real war until you see one

"The Russian Ambassador to Sweden, Viktor Tatarincev, was basically telling reporters that what’s happening in Ukraine isn't even a real war—and if the Russian Federation actually decided to go all out, they'd wrap things up in no time at all. He dropped those lines on Swedish journalists, according to Expressen.

“Look, from the Russian side, this is just a special operation. It's not a war. If Russia ever starts a real war, Ukraine will be finished before you know it,” Tatarincev claimed.

He also went on to say that Russia isn't just some country, but an entire continent, making it impossible to isolate them.

“We are winning. You should probably write that down,” the Russian Ambassador concluded.

https://www-gazeta-ru.translate.goog..._x_tr_pto=wapp

History will simply record this as a "special operation," allowing them to claim they never lost a war. It’s their classic playbook—everything looks perfect on paper, while the reality leaves nothing but a bitter taste in everyone's mouth. There is zero incentive for them to change their mindset or behavior when they can continue living in this fantasy of invincibility. Why bother with self-reflection? Then people wonder why vodka consumption remains so high in the Russian Federation.

Richard Wilson4 said:Biden: The British people didn't show us any respect; they weren't even at Reagan's funeral

Honestly, Biden scores own goals all the time, but you gotta give him credit for this one

Aside from some representatives from Turkey, I don't think anyone else bothered to attend the Reaganite funeral. It’s up to us to ponder why that was the case. And whether it was truly "coincidental." Or perhaps everyone else was just driving in the opposite direction at the time, and we were the only ones heading there. That's probably what happened.

Sandra Harris2 said:Yeah, I'm with you on that one.
I live in California, where the goat is on our state seal, and seeing it paired with Kadyrov just feels wrong. 🕺

As for that "red line"... wasn't that already crossed when they sent the HIMARS?

Personally, I find it distasteful to drag a noble creature into any conversation involving Kadyrov.

Nicole James said:Train within NATO, allow the Americans to establish military bases and missile defense systems, develop a sophisticated mid-sized military, and just sit back and watch Russia burn with frustration and helplessness...

My take? They won't join NATO overnight. Instead, they'll likely forge "special relations." It’s a classic maneuver: reap most of the benefits without the heavy baggage of full membership. This war is proving that leaving them alone is actually the best policy—though, frankly, the Russians are already feeling that reality quite acutely. Think of it like the status of Finland prior to this conflict. On paper, everything stays formal, but in terms of actual strategy, the situation for the Russians couldn't be worse. I suspect this war represents one of the final death throes of this Kremlin regime. We're looking at inevitable political reshuffling and internal crises within Russia. Then again, I've been wrong on my projections plenty of times before, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Anthony Hill5 said:The real question one must ask is how many NATO nations even have the Su-25 in their current inventory? I am quite skeptical that they possess any at all, and if they do, we are likely talking about maybe ten units at most; isn't that precisely why the focus has shifted toward training for the A-10 Warthog and the F-16 Fighting Falcon?

Furthermore, considering this conflict could drag on for years, isn't it obvious why the Ukrainian military is prioritizing the mastery of Western technology?

Even if the war ended tomorrow, Ukraine couldn't afford to drop its guard. They have no choice but to build up a serious arsenal. This intensive training for modern Western aviation isn't some wasted effort; it's a necessity for survival.

Morgan Wright5 said:I suppose I wonder, in what specific ways is the A-10 actually considered superior to the SU-25?

For the Ukrainians right now, the Su-25 would be a far more logical choice because they already have the experience. It’s a practical asset ready for the front lines—they have the maintenance infrastructure, the pilots, and the munitions all lined up. Introducing any other airframe requires a massive lead time to integrate logistics, spare parts, and specialized ammo. The only real edge the A-10 Warthog holds is sheer availability; there are simply more of them sitting ready than there are Su-25s.

bluemason3 said:That would turn those bases into legitimate military targets and effectively drag NATO into the war. I doubt that’s an option unless NATO decides to jump in directly or Russia forces their hand with an attack.

If I remember correctly, there’s already a massive headache regarding how to get donated MiG jets across the border. Using foreign bases for direct combat operations? Not a chance.

Following that line of reasoning, the Russians might as well just strike the factories producing HIMARS and the other systems being sent to Ukraine. They could hit the warehouses in the US where the military keeps its gear, or target the planes and ships transporting everything to Europe. Why limit the scope to just what's near the Ukrainian border? 🤣

Roger Fowler said:I honestly find myself wondering what happens to Kaliningrad if the Ukrainians actually pull off a win in this war. Wouldn't this be the one perfect moment to finally push the Russians out of there, considering that place isn't even really part of Russia?

The borders stay exactly where they are—that is the principle. Vladimir Putin would trade Kaliningrad for all of Ukraine in a heartbeat. And such trades? They are nothing more than accounting tricks—all smoke and no substance.

feralstag7 said:If they were to deploy a nuclear weapon, they would instantly lose any global propaganda advantage by drawing comparisons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It would essentially be an admission that they cannot secure Eastern Ukraine without resorting to nuclear force. They already intend to occupy those territories, but if radiation from strikes on Kyiv or Lviv were to drift into Poland, things would escalate quickly. The real question is whether that triggers Article 5.
They would likely only use a nuclear weapon in response to an Allied attack on Russia, rather than just occasional Ukrainian shelling. That’s my take.

The reality is that even with nukes, they aren't going to "win" Ukraine. Using them would only serve to bury themselves and everyone else even deeper. They understand this perfectly well; they just play dumb and issue threats to mask the weakness. The worst part is threatening with an empty gun. It would have been better if they hadn't mentioned it at all. They should focus on their own conventional military capabilities instead. They aren't the only power in history to have fired blindly in a conflict. One learns far more from defeat than from victory.

bluemason3 said:The US wasn't hit by radiation from Fukushima or Chernobyl, so boundaries actually do exist. Sure, we're close to Russia, but if we're talking about those tactical nukes people bring up in these scenarios being dropped somewhere in Ukraine, it wouldn't necessarily be a direct threat to the American population. Nobody is seriously suggesting they'd go after us with strategic nukes. The bigger issue would be the political fallout.

Deploying that kind of weapon triggers an inevitable response. Everyone understands the math, and no rational actor is actually weighing that option. Those who bring it up are merely performing for their domestic audience. Everywhere else, even whispering about such options just puts them in a weaker position.
As it stands, the conflict remains largely contained within the borders of Ukraine; there has been very little activity deep inside the aggressor's territory. It would be a disastrous development for Putin if ammunition depots and military bases within the US-equivalent of the Russian mainland suddenly started taking hits.

Brenda Murphy3 said:It's almost a mathematical certainty that it won't happen, but hey, if Putko happens to drink some bad tea or something... who knows? We aren't quite at that stage yet, but in situations like this, things can flip upside down incredibly fast.

As for an actual trial? That's pretty much out of the question...

If—or when—someone manages to flip the Secret Service to their side, Putin’s career is elegantly over. Whether he "suddenly falls ill" or "succumbs unexpectedly to a virus" is secondary. I don't buy the suicide theory; it bears too much resemblance to Hitler's end. Given that Putin has seized every lever of power in the country, bypassing local political authorities (those folks who sign petitions calling for his removal), and filled the political landscape with his loyalists, I don't expect any movement toward dethroning him from within the government. To move against him would mean they risk losing their own grip on power. The only force capable of acting right now, possessing even a semblance of organized structure, is the military. Since Putin has cycled through so many commanders, relations are strained—not to mention the massive loss of life resulting from catastrophic political miscalculations. A military coup isn't an unprecedented concept in recent American history; the real question is which side the citizens would actually stand on.

casualtiger2 said:How would they even explain that to their own people—or the rest of the world?
What would be the point of those bombings anyway?

There’s really no need to "defeat" Russia.

It’s enough to push them back to the Ukrainian borders and just get Ukraine even better armed.

(Mostly air defense, maybe a few more HIMARS, some jets, tanks, etc.)—plus building up fortifications near the border.

Then you wouldn't even need to sit down for special negotiations.

A few more years of sanctions and change becomes inevitable.

Russia won't have the time—or the capacity—to worry about other countries then.

The whole thing is just one massive waste. 😢

Not just for Ukraine, but for the Russians too.

Think about what they could have done at home—with $600 billion in the treasury, plus all that wealth stolen by oligarchs, energy reserves, and...

Western investment and tourism.

They could have been richer and more organized than Switzerland. What a mess.

PS
This might also impact how the war develops moving forward.
OPEC basket:
2.24 - $92.81
3.08 - $123.70
9.10 - $95.28

They couldn't. Because to be like the Swiss, you first need the Swiss mentality, not the Russian (or American) mindset. And if the Swiss had Russian-style natural resources, they certainly wouldn't possess the temperament they have today. It is part of the "resource curse."

analogmarlin4 said:Is there even an end in sight for this war? Even if the Ukrainians manage to reclaim their territory, we're still going to be dealing with the fallout of missiles raining down on cities and tearing lives apart.

Do you honestly think the Ukrainians wouldn't strike back in kind? Their missile industry is arguably more advanced than Russia's. If they felt the need, they could easily pivot back to ballistic missile production. Such a move would be incredibly foolish on Russia's part—an escalation into a conflict they clearly aren't equipped to handle, as everyone can see now.
But then again, that wouldn't exactly be the first—or even the biggest—idiotic mistake they've made so far.

bluemason3 said:That probably isn't physically possible. It's worth asking if Ukraine actually has the prison space or the budget—especially while they're dealing with war-torn infrastructure—to keep piles of Russophiles behind bars.

Preventing future genocide might mean the best move is just to deport them back to Russia. For anyone who wasn't at the very top of the command chain or a direct perpetrator, maybe amnesty is the way to go.

Besides, they probably didn't spend all that time consulting on American reintegration strategies for nothing. 😁

There is an alternative to simple amnesty: convict them first, then pardon them. It’s a distinction without a difference to some, but it matters. When people are granted amnesty, they often claim they were never "convicted," essentially maintaining the delusion that their actions were perfectly acceptable. But when there is a conviction, they carry that weight for life. Furthermore, if they are pardoned after being convicted, the state has technically shown mercy, leaving them a debt of gratitude toward the nation. This kind of conduct needs at least a formal condemnation. After all, how can you trust a teacher who immediately embraced the occupiers and their curriculum? How can that individual teach children in a country that fought so hard to expel those very occupiers? They can't teach in Ukraine anymore. Perhaps they should just relocate to Russia, since everything was so fine with them there.

gentlestag15 said:Look, I agree that we shouldn't go looking for trouble right now. Most people probably didn't have much of a choice, or they just did what they had to do out of pure fear.
But that doesn't change the fact that anyone who ditched their Ukrainian citizenship to grab Russian papers should be kicked out of the country. At this point, they're basically foreign nationals on Ukrainian soil.
They actually had a choice in the matter, and from everything I know, Russia wasn't forcing them to switch sides.

That kind of pressure is essentially the same thing as when people were "voluntarily" forced to get vaccinated. It’s simple: if you don't want the shot or the citizenship, fine—but then you won't have a job in the public sector. Either the state makes your life miserable until you quit, or you simply bow down. Sure, plenty of people rushed to satisfy whatever the current administration demands, but for any man with a backbone, it should have been a total no-brainer to refuse. Unfortunately, those types are rare in government service; those roles are mostly filled by the sycophants and the ones who excel at bending to whatever way the wind blows.

James Chavez91 said:Alright

I’d say the show has officially started

https://twitter.com/the_ins_ru/statu...o_dxkczaEHq5sw

If this turns out to be true—and we have actual substance here—it feels like a small snowball has just started its slow, inevitable roll down a long, snowy slope...

Zachary Reyes6 said:Yes, it looks like they've started a brutal campaign using strategic weapons against the Ukrainian infrastructure.

At this stage of the conflict, such a move is foolish. It isn't their first blunder, nor will it be the most catastrophic one Russia has committed thus far. However, it serves as a clear indicator of how thin their lines actually are on the ground—they resort to these "measures" precisely because they are weak.
On the flip side, it has become obvious to them that the dream of occupying Ukraine is dead. Previously, they preserved the infrastructure, perhaps hoping that once they seized the state, they wouldn't have to rebuild everything from scratch. Now that those delusions of conquering Ukraine have finally crumbled, their mindset has shifted toward simple destruction—wrecking whatever they can reach.
Even the most die-hard pro-Russian residents in Ukraine will soon see the occupier for what they truly are. They will come to understand exactly why these invaders must be driven out of the country at any cost.
And let's not forget, they have larger Russian cities nearby if they decide to keep playing this game. Ultimately, this clumsy maneuver likely stems from total impotence; it's the act of someone unable to do anything concrete to halt the advance of the liberating forces.

If someone manages to completely sever Crimea from Russia using anti-ship missiles—then seizing it becomes a relatively straightforward task. At that point, it’s just a matter of patience and staying systematic. Once that happens, Crimea transforms into nothing more than a massive trap for anyone foolish enough to think they can hold their ground.

Daniel Ward87 said:What do you guys think—are the Ukrainians going to go all-in on Luhansk and Donetsk? If the Russians are retreating this fast, maybe it means they’re losing interest and just letting those regions slip away, which could be a sign they're handing them back to the Ukrainians. Since the Ukrainians used HIMARS to hit their ammo dumps and wrecked so much gear, basically gutting their logistics entirely, those territories might end up facing a fate similar to what happened in Knin.

As for Crimea, I'm not so sure the Ukrainians can just grab it right now. It feels more like a political chess move than a purely military one.

If they act intelligently—as they have demonstrated thus far—success depends entirely on whether the Russians commit a major blunder while organizing their defenses. If a clear opening presents itself, they will strike. If the cost of an assault appears too high, they’ll pivot to a "soft" target elsewhere. At least for now, the Ukrainians have plenty of options on the map. The Americans seem to possess a crystal ball that is functioning quite effectively, allowing them to exploit enemy vulnerabilities to the maximum. Furthermore, it appears the enemy is struggling with internal instability and friction within their command structure. Ultimately, the objective should be removing Putin and his entire circle from power. Doing so would pave the way for serious negotiations regarding a full withdrawal from Ukraine, avoiding unnecessary bloodshed on both sides.

boldotter2 said:I mean, why would anyone even sign up for a losing war?

Here’s a quick little scenario:

Government Agent: Good morning, you've been drafted.
Citizen: Oooookay.
Government Agent: Here's your rifle, head toward Ukraine.
Citizen (holding the rifle): No way. Get lost.

-----------

The last thing Putin needs right now is hundreds of thousands of armed, volatile people whose loyalty is super questionable, I guess. He'll probably just end up trying to scramble for asylum somewhere in North Korea, China, Africa, or maybe Mexico (though you'd see if that old-school brotherhood actually holds up there, wouldn't you?)...

Realistically speaking—there is no asylum for Putin. There isn't a single place left where he can settle down peacefully, unless he clings to power in Russia after the war ends, leading to another era of stagnation (much like the infamous "Era of Stagnation" seen during the latter half of Leonid Brezhnev's reign).
And Mexico can't offer him refuge anyway because—thankfully—he physically cannot even make it there. It was the same story when Sergey Lavrov tried to visit them; he couldn't get through. They might welcome a visit, but by pure coincidence, it just isn't happening.