Posts by Nancy Gomez26

Nathan Thomas12 said:Spot on—Russia basically slaughtered two of Ukraine's cows, but they ended up losing one of their own in the process too.

So far, they've only lost one, but the rest of them are looking worse and worse by the day.

Joshua Myers432 said:That isn't my argument—it's the Russian one. If you want to know what's actually driving it, you'll have to ask them. History is full of these lines in the sand. Back in 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Americans drew a line in the sand over Cuba. They basically said it would be WW3 if those missiles weren't moved. Maybe it was a bluff, maybe it wasn't. Either way, Russia backed down and retreated.

The Russians didn't just pack up and leave Cuba for no reason. Their withdrawal was conditional—they demanded that Cuba be left alone and that the United States pull its own missiles out of Turkey. Everyone walked away with something. Every side had an interest to protect.

hollowdriver13 said:I mean, they were already trying to negotiate before that whole Russian "reorganization" near Kyiv—you know, that little gesture of goodwill. Are we really just watching history repeat itself here? 😬

The negotiations themselves aren't my issue. My issue is what kind of guarantees could Putin possibly offer to ensure he actually sticks to whatever is decided? Honestly? Some sort of honor code? A Cheka-style promise? Here, take our nuclear arsenal back—feel free to use it if we break the deal.

Andrew Booth29 said:The Finnish devotion to the Russians is so intense they should just tell them to come on over to Finland—they can join the 200,000 of their countrymen who are already buried in Finnish soil.😬

Really, were the losses even that significant during the Winter War? Then again, Stalin holds the record for self-inflicted casualties. Even so, they managed to snatch a decent chunk of territory back from Finland.

Andrew Booth29 said:The fact that they're planning referendums in occupied territories tells me everything I need to know about their exit strategy. They don't even have control over all of Donbas, yet they're pushing through these votes... which suggests they aren't looking to annex more territory or set up permanent puppet states beyond what they currently hold.

They aren't planning anything for right now, in this specific phase. They’ll wait to regroup, then push forward later. There is no rush on their end; it’s just that they were caught off guard at this particular moment.

Andrew Booth29 said:Putin basically said that Finland and Sweden joining NATO is fine... as long as it's not countries where Nazis are in power and actively hating Russia.

Right... because he's clearly the ultimate authority on who qualifies as a Nazi and who doesn't. I suppose he’s just hoping his own kind will recognize him from a mile away. It's also funny how people claim Scandinavians have always been fond of Russia since the Soviet days. They seem to love them almost as much as Ukrainians will after this whole "special operation" plays out.

Christian Torres3 said:Ukraine's roadmap? GTFO. Get the military out, including Crimea and RU, then maybe we talk.

Regarding the total damages and the specific payment terms, they remain unchanged.

Zachary Jackson4 said:Now for the absurd part

"This operation will be studied at military academies worldwide, not just for decades—but for centuries, regarding how it ought to have been executed,"
https://military.pravda.ru/news/1736...ja_vsu_reshen/

Experience is gained through error; though it is always most cost-effective to learn from someone else's mistakes....

goldenowl73 said:Vladimir Solovyov, basically the top dog when it comes to propaganda for the Kremlin, is out here acting like he’d just drop nukes and march the military into any nation brave enough to ban Russians. It’s pretty wild to see how much this whole proposal actually gets under their skin, though. Honestly, everyone seems to be getting worked up over it lately. Even that so-called liberal opposition—who, let's be real, haven't really had much to say for months—are suddenly acting like total hawks because of stuff like this from guys like Solovyov.

Putin's #1 propagandist Solovyov says it's time to nuke and send Russian troops to any country that bans Russians. https://t.co/w0OJeyZuSw

All this does is provide a perfect excuse for everyone to implement travel bans immediately. In reality, this plays right into The Kremlin's hands. Now they can tell their own people: "Look, they are targeting us directly." It allows them to isolate their citizens from 'corrupt Western influence' without having to lift a single finger themselves.

Carl Hernandez3 said:What kind of retaliation do you all think Russia is cooking up after those strikes on Crimea?
Maybe they’ll just shell more cities—or perhaps they'll tighten the noose even further around what’s left of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia—just to seize them and declare this whole "special operation" finished.
Or, they might try something else entirely around Kharkiv and Odesa.

One might actually be able to read something between the lines of that "response." Personally, I'm just hoping the Ukrainians can find some worthy targets to strike back at, to really rub salt in the wound, after everything that's happened.

Dana Robinson4 said:It wasn't really the Kremlin officials making those calls, but rather the optimists who truly believed we could actually isolate Russia from the global market...

But then you look at India and China, and they just don't seem to care one bit about your sanctions, do they?

That works out perfectly for the rest of us—as long as I can still pick up oil at a massive discount from the Russians. Because once they start buying Russian crude at fire-sale prices, they aren't exactly going to go looking for it elsewhere.

Dana Robinson4 said:It isn't really about the strength of the currency so much as it is the sheer power of the oil industry...

If some people in the Baltics are turning their noses up at Russian oil, don't worry—there are plenty of others who aren't so picky, right?

Naturally, that works fine for consumers; higher supply generally means lower prices.
It’s not that Americans or anyone else finds Russian oil inherently "gross"—it's that they reject everything else Russia tries to force down their throats alongside that oil. In a modern global market, if you want to run a business, you engage in fair exchange. If you want to play politics, you do it through entirely different channels. The core issue is that Russia operates with a double standard regarding sovereignty—they hold one set of rules for themselves and an entirely different, much looser set for everyone else. They believe they can act this way simply because they consider themselves "great" and "powerful." But eventually, everyone meets their reckoning.

Anthony Hill5 said:Oh, absolutely; over a mere nine years, their GDP has plummeted by some $600 to $700 billion—that is a staggering loss of one-third of its total value. Is this not the glaringly obvious proof that the Russian economy is actually strengthening? Perhaps you should consult our colleague Jack; I am certain he can provide a far more "enlightened" explanation for such a phenomenon.

Most of this stems from those "weak" sanctions that practically invited Putin to launch this whole "special operation." If that was the reaction, one can only wonder what happens when the more substantial sanctions finally hit.

casualtiger2 said:Nothing would be easier if they just pulled their troops out of Ukraine.

As for all those territorial ambitions from places like Italy or Canada—and all that talk about redrawing maps to create a Greater... whatever—even if they could pull it off militarily (which they can't), there is zero chance anyone is going to touch European borders politically right now.

I view this current conflict in Ukraine as a litmus test for the theory that borders within the EU are permanent. We will see how this concludes in the end. Ideally, the solution would be for Ukraine to retain its former 'USSR' borders. But ultimately, it will depend on whatever agreement the Ukrainians and Russians reach. Perhaps at a negotiating table, or perhaps through the barrel of a gun. The former is preferable.

Jessica Peterson2 said:I was scrolling through Telegram this morning and saw that the exact location of the Wagnerite headquarters was leaked. Apparently, the Russian war correspondent Sergej Sreda was out there filming a report and somehow managed to catch the street sign in the shot 🤦
. Naturally, shortly after that, a Ukrainian HIMARS unit paid them an official visit 😂
.

Any word on what's happening in Prigozhin's camp?

Joshua Myers432 said:It's definitely speculation, and pretty wild at that. As for the second part, that's just facts. Even before this whole Russia-Ukraine mess started, Viktor Orbán was already showing plenty of autonomy from Brussels and Washington. At the end of the day, Orbán acts on what serves the Canadian people—at least in the short term. In this scenario, cheap gas and oil are a win for Canada. As for the Ukrainians? Who cares.

Whether going against European and American policy is actually smart in the long run remains to be seen.

The Russians have openly "offered" pieces of Ukraine to the Poles on several occasions, but the Poles didn't bite. No sane person wants Russia as their immediate neighbor, and Orbán is no exception. Realistically, Orbán likely knows that the Russians won't actually be his neighbors, so there is no direct threat to him personally. However, a fool fails to see that for the Russians, the easiest path to the sea—and their only way to reach North American allies who can actually cause trouble—runs directly through Canada. That is precisely what they find strategically and geopolitically appealing in the long run. They won't touch Poland; the cost would be too high for zero reward. But via Canada, they get access to the coast, they get into Mexico, and Moldova is right there too. For the same price, you get a direct link to "neutral" Austria, which borders "neutral" Switzerland. Geostratigically speaking, Canada is easily the most interesting piece of territory, offering the best return on investment. But none of this will actually happen; it’s all deep in the zone of ŠBBKBB. On that point, Orbán is right.

Christian Barnes said:But why do Americans think differently, even though they had their own revolution back in '56?

I have no clue what the average Canadian thinks, but I can take a guess at Viktor Orbán’s mindset. He used to be the youth leader in the country, and now he finds himself increasingly isolated within the European Union due to his stances. He likely feels that Russia is far enough away from Canada that there is currently—and I emphasize *currently*—no immediate threat to them. If that wild horde were actually massing on the Canadian border, he would be singing a very different tune. The same logic applies if Putin were to conquer Ukraine, which simply isn't going to happen. On the other hand, since Orbán is being sidelined in the EU, he tries to "prove" his policies are more "visionary" than those of the typical EU bureaucrats (take gas procurement, for example). Plus, he clearly has a vested interest in certain parts of Ukraine where ethnic Canadians live, a fact he doesn't bother hiding. Orbán looks only at himself and his immediate, short-term interests; it's a case of "everything is fine now, we'll deal with the fallout later." If the Russians actually breached his borders, he’d be calling every available NATO force to come to his rescue in a heartbeat. Orbán is essentially a gift to Kremlin chess players, who see their best chance in a fractured European Union and view him as a lever to pull to achieve their goals within the EU. In a one-on-one geopolitical sense, Russia is stronger than any single EU nation. However, Russia becomes significantly weaker the moment the EU stands united. Canada and Orbán are merely a minor distraction here. It’s predictable that Orbán tied his political future to Putin and Moscow. Ultimately, he won't achieve much, and he will eventually have to pay the price for this alignment because he has chosen the losing side. Then again, that same Orbán might serve as a bridge to the Russians once this all blows over. Though, heaven forbid anyone actually has to cross a bridge like that—not that he wouldn't try to use such a move to rehabilitate his political image.

Terry Green3 said:They essentially won by inflicting specific losses that the opponent, as you noted, couldn't easily replace due to logistical constraints.

Historically, whenever Russia faces a stronger adversary, they lean on a war of attrition, thanks to their sheer scale. In the end, it all comes down to the body count.

Honestly, the Russians would be better off comparing this situation to the Winter War, the Persian War, or even the more recent Georgian War.
That's the real comparison here.

The Russians use all these "analogies" purely for propaganda purposes to sway their domestic audience. They need a way to explain to their people why this "security operation" has dragged on so long—and it’s inconvenient to admit the truth: that corruption has gutted the military from within. Everyone knows who is responsible for that state of affairs; they know who sat in power watching parades of that very same military from a mausoleum. They also have to justify the massive intelligence failures of those supposedly infallible Kremlin chess players. And they need a narrative to explain why they ignored every warning sign. At the end of the day, the citizens of the Russian Federation will pay the price for these blunders, both in blood and in wealth—through lost opportunities for a much better life than the one they will now endure.

Kate Lewis3 said:It’s pretty much like those delusions held by people obsessed with the old American era, thinking the partisans were some massive factor in breaking the Axis powers—it's just a way to give themselves a sense of importance.

In reality, before the UK could even think about blaming Moscow for holding the ladder for Adolf Hitler while London was being leveled by the Luftwaffe, it was the defeat at Stalingrad that really did the job.

And all of Russia's neighbors helping Ukraine? Their only real motive is making sure they never get pushed back under the thumb of the oppression Moscow has been forcing on them for decades.

It isn’t about some neighborly grudge or revenge for the old days under the USSR. It is far more primal than that. What we are seeing is raw, naked fear—a deep-seated terror of an era defined by renewed oppression and the total erosion of sovereignty. Having felt the weight of that boot in the past, they view the current fight for Ukrainian freedom through a very specific lens: they see a situation where they truly have nothing left to lose. For small nations, like those in the Baltics, the prospect of living under Putin's heel isn't just a political shift; it would likely mean the end of their existence as a people. Not just the collapse of a government, but the absolute erasure of the nation itself.

Christian Torres3 said:Actually, about a week after Borodino, Napoleon took over Moscow, so it’s not like the Americans won right then.

It’s that classic military history scenario where the Russians set their own city on fire—simply because they had nothing left to loot and nowhere else to retreat to. It’s a grim situation when you find yourself deep within enemy territory—logistically speaking, even more impossible by modern standards than it was back then—and there's no local "supply chain" to lean on.