Posts by Nancy Gomez26

Steven Kim35 said:It gives me a chill to realize that Ukrainians are currently walking the same path we traveled thirty years ago. We managed to shake off our occupiers long ago, but we’re still grappling with the lingering trauma of war just to reach a sense of normalcy. For them, the outcome remains a massive question mark. Even when the fighting stops, they face the monumental task of rebuilding an entire nation from scratch. They have to endure those same hardships, and it might be another thirty years before they finally experience a truly stable life.

When politicians weaponize wartime trauma to serve their own agendas and personal interests—well, you don't just move past that. There is always lingering potential to exploit the wound, to squeeze out a little more profit from the misery. On top of that, the very people exploiting these traumas often find themselves in bed with the 'other side' in the political arena. But that is a different conversation altogether...

goldenowl73 said:Honestly, it feels like the Russians are even planting these total psychos inside their own embassies. Just pure, unadulterated sociopaths at work.

Check out this tweet from the official Russian embassy account over in New York City.
War prisoners ought to be hanged because the Azov guys aren't actual soldiers.

💬#Azov militants deserve execution, but death not by firing squad but by hanging, because they’re not real soldiers. They deserve a humiliating death.

A married couple from #Mariupol tell how they were shelled by 🇺🇦forces from #Azovstal. #StopNaziUkraine https://t.co/jyQGEOJFYz

Embassies operate under direct orders from Moscow; it's practically part of their job description. This specific post for the UK was calculated. They know the UK has its own people held in captivity, so this is a way to strike back since the UK provides maximum support and weaponry to Ukraine. It's all a psychological play intended to make voters in the UK pressure their government to stop helping Ukraine, essentially begging Russia to spare their citizens. They fail to grasp that Russia crossed the Rubicon long ago—this kind of policy stopped being profitable ages ago. The Russians consistently operate under the false premise that the West is "soft" simply because we value human life, while viewing themselves as "tough" because they can lose people without facing domestic consequences. The West respects human life, certainly, but we respect certain values even more.

urbanotter said:I honestly think it might be time to send your crystal ball in for repairs or just buy a new one. This one seems to be glitching just like the Russian gas supply—one minute it's working, the next it isn't, and the Russians certainly don't mind playing those games.
You mentioned you could have started a business there but passed because of the instability.

From what I can see, things aren't much better on our side; plenty of people rushed to open businesses in Russia, only to be forced to shut them down once the sanctions hit.
I hear some people are still paying to keep their shell companies alive, just hoping they can get back to business as usual someday.
I ran into Usmijani the other day, and he was just shaking his head; I couldn't tell if he was frustrated or just stunned, especially since he made such a huge investment to expand his footprint in the Russian market
But hey, someone stirred up the chaos, and now we're left wondering if his company will remain a leader in the industry like it has been in recent years.

Well, there's no doubt about it—Putin is responsible for everything; he actually "confessed" that to a group of students one day.😉

And honestly, you can't blame anyone for staying cautious; you don't just jump headfirst into a situation involving that kind of organized crime. Better to stay home.😁

In Russia, doing business became untenable long before the sanctions actually hit. Putin decided to purge foreign players from the country much earlier by imposing various restrictions and heavy obligations. Compared to this, the mafia rule of the 90s was child's play. People simply packed up and left; it wasn't worth enduring the headache. A few major corporations remained, but for the people running them, living in such an environment was no longer remotely tolerable compared to what it once was.

I am increasingly convinced that this isolation of the Russian Federation by the West plays right into the hands of the current leadership. In fact, Putin began working on isolating Russia from the outside world long before this conflict erupted—just look at the attempts to cut Russia off from the internet, which proved more difficult than anticipated, or the systematic expulsion of foreigners. Now, the West is inadvertently executing his plan. This isolation is a gift to him; it makes wide-scale "ideological conditioning" and population control significantly easier. For his specific mindset, mass indoctrination is a necessity, as such policies could never be implemented nearly as effectively in a democratic, open society. Combine ideological manipulation with an efficient repressive apparatus and enough time, and you can do whatever you want. If that situation could be leveraged for the national good, that would be ideal, but in this case, I doubt that will happen.

Joshua Bishop3 said:Look, I’m a petroleum engineer and a former ExxonMobil employee, so what you're saying just isn't right.

In most cases, starting up or shutting down wells is absolutely no big deal. You literally just close the valves on the wellhead equipment and production stops dead. In oil and gas fields, there are tons of wells tied directly into production facilities where all the gas, oil, and water get separated. So, in an area like Ivanica, you've got maybe 100 oil wells, then around 80 in Bilogora, and the Midwest has plenty too—these are actual oil fields. Then you've got about 20 gas condensate wells in the Midwest. We track the production parameters for every single individual well, so we know exactly how much oil, gas, condensate (gasoline), and water each one is spitting out... which means it's incredibly easy to scale back production by, say, 20% just by shutting in the specific wells that make up that 20% of the total output.

This applies to, I'd say... 98% of wells. Out of 100 wells, you might have one or two that have unstable formations where suddenly closing or opening them could cause the layers to collapse, or they might hit a water zone and you end up getting more water than gas, or a column of water starts choking the well. If the hydrostatic pressure in a 3.5" tubing at a depth of 4200m exceeds the dynamic pressure of the well, it goes dead. But even then, you can lighten the column with nitrogen until it kicks back in, perform some stimulation above or below the collapse point, or move the packer closer to the producing zone. Basically, those kinds of wells are rare, and you don't mess with them.

But seriously, you can open or close more than 98% of wells without any fallout whatsoever. All that oil and gas is still going to be there once you reopen the well; it isn't going anywhere. Except for that tiny 1% where you run the risk of collapsing the formation.

Right now in America, you could shut down 99% of production across all fields in less than four hours. And you could turn it all back on the next day without any issues.

Also, I know from firsthand experience that back in the day, people used to fill gas station tanks with water, or more commonly, gasoline derived from production wells. They'd basically take regular gas out of the tank and top it off with condensate. That was like 15 or more years ago though; things have changed a lot since then, and I am 100% sure that doesn't happen anymore. I pump my own fuel at ExxonMobil myself.

That is the reality of our wells. But does anyone have data or info regarding the status of the gas fields in Russia, which supply gas and oil to the European Union? Are those fields also the type where production can be easily toggled on and off, or must the flow remain constant? What is the situation with the pipelines in Russia—can the flow through them be stopped and restarted without issue, or is it a complex process? There was some talk that Russians cannot simply shut down production at their gas and oil fields; I'm curious how much truth there is to that.

Melissa Rivera5 said:If Informer is the one reporting it, it’s probably fake. I just double-checked the info and, honestly, looking at it now, Shoigu didn't even say what they're accusing him of. Someone just badly edited the speech; they cut out the part where he was clearly talking in the past tense.

This is good news, though it hardly comes as a surprise.

rowdytiger13 said:Shoigu claims he’s going to build a new Soviet Union—massive and powerful.

https://twitter.com/XSovietNews/stat...C46eyw6osrAAAA

These people are dangerous imperialists.

Pure delusion fueled by an imperialist complex.

William Cooper11 said:Great. Now Americans get another chance to pick a new Reagan and take down the USSR all over again. 👍

It doesn't look like anyone of that caliber is left on the political stage. Just a bunch of actors playing parts... 😁

Melissa Rivera5 said:I don't really get the issue. Vladimir Putin and Sergey Lavrov keep saying the will of the people has to be respected. Or is it just that everyone else has to respect the will of the Russian people? This whole thing with the "referendums" feels like a total farce, starting all the way back with Crimea, right?

It isn't just that referendums held in occupied territories are a sham—if we are being honest, the elections within the Russian Federation themselves are a farce. They are a farce because opposition politicians are thrown in jail and political parties are effectively neutralized. It is essentially a one-party system masquerading as a democracy through elections. In an environment like that, the concept of an election becomes meaningless.

gentleviper62 said:Why on earth would China attack Russia? They’d be throwing away the only real ally they have left. Besides, those massive oil and gas reserves aren't even sitting right on the border with China; they're tucked way up north.

That’s a fair question. Conflict is almost always about seizing territory. The Chinese are hungry for land just as much as the Russians are—much of China is ruggedly mountainous or consists of vast deserts. And what did the Russians gain from this invasion of Ukraine? They’ve essentially bogged themselves down for nothing, and they will likely emerge from this far weaker than when they started. But that’s a conversation for another time. The Chinese will undoubtedly attempt to exploit this situation to their advantage, one way or another. Much like the Russians, the Chinese don't actually have true allies; they only have vassals.

Jessica Peterson2 said:Americans? No?

Looking at it from an internal perspective—to us, this whole situation feels perfectly standard. No one views themselves as being overly complex. But when viewed from the outside, the picture often looks quite different...

George Robinson43 said:Oh, please. Think about the Mexicans.

Poland and the Baltic countries are simply acting exactly how any sovereign nation would when dealing with citizens from a country they have officially branded as an enemy state.
Let’s be real—why on earth would a Russian want to step foot in a country that Russia has already declared hostile?

And even with all that, those nations already have more than enough of their own "local" Russians.

Roy said:You're exhausting.

He simply doesn't get it. If someone were to actually dominate him, maybe he'd see reason. Or perhaps this dynamic is exactly what he craves. But he's just one man—it's impossible to find an entire nation that would embrace such a relationship; a nation like that wouldn't survive long enough to matter.

gentleviper62 said:There aren't many groups with bigger complexes than those in the Baltic states and Poland.

Once you actually understand the history of those regions, you realize it isn't about psychological complexes—it's a raw struggle for national survival. What Russia is reaping today is simply the harvest of seeds planted by the USSR long ago.

rowdyraven112 said:Read the last sentence. Don't pull things out of context. ☕
We basically tripped ourselves up because nobody was supplying us. I've said it more than once: Ukrainians don't need a lecture on Winston Churchill. They need 1,000 tanks (even old T-55s work; like someone said, if they fire ten rounds before getting blown up, they did their job), 20,000 artillery pieces, and 1,000 planes.

Or do you think good vibes and a dozen roses are enough? ☕

A Russian oligarch living in exile in England mentioned it would have been smarter for the EU to keep trading with Russia. They could have pocketed $200 billion in monthly industrial profits, then easily sent a quarter of that to Ukraine for weapons. How much has America actually provided so far? Maybe $10 billion?

I'm sending a kiss to the Ukrainian girl on the front lines. Maybe that'll help since that's clearly what you think works. ☕

Do you honestly imagine that Western nations possess thousands of tanks, planes, and artillery units sitting in some warehouse just waiting to be shipped to Ukraine (or anyone else)? Maintaining such stockpiles is an expensive endeavor—buying massive amounts of hardware only to let it sit there gathering dust is a logistical nightmare. Most nations hold only the bare minimum required. The Americans might be the exception, given how often they engage in conflict and how much they invest in defense. At best, the West has an industrial base capable of responding if needed, but reserves remain minimal. This is precisely why they organize under NATO; it serves as a guarantee against aggression, and collective defense is significantly more cost-effective than everyone fighting their own isolated battles.
Trading with Russia simply means allowing them to expand their military capabilities. That is a direction of action that is entirely undesirable at this moment. Even the White House needs to learn that they aren't the only players on the global stage.

rowdyraven112 said:I've said it before and I'll say it again. That "just endure a little" rhetoric is exactly what they used back in the communist era when they'd say, "Comrades, we must tighten our belts." How much longer? ☕
Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić wrote a beautiful fairy tale called "Kosjenka and Regoč" where two villages are feuding, and one gets the idea to breach a river dike, which would flood the village sitting slightly lower than theirs. As the water rose, the people from both villages just pulled out their instruments and sang, watching the end come for the other side because the difference in elevation wasn't actually that big. ☕
That's how I'd describe these pro-Russians and the pro-Western crowd. If the superpowers actually wanted to do something, this war would have been over in a month. A few HIMARS and some Howitzers aren't going to change the battlefield; they'll just slow the Russians down. What's being sent is mostly just testing out new hardware. Sure, Russian depots were hit, but what you don't see on CBS is that Ukrainian supplies were hit just as much. Ukrainians don't need dozens of these systems; they need thousands of tanks, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, hundreds of planes... And what are they getting? Winston Churchill quotes. 🤦
And then Johnson coldly claims that brave Ukrainians will stop the Russians. Honestly, you'd want to serve a guy like that a breakfast consisting of whatever caliber he's talking about.
If we hadn't seized the Varaždin military barracks and secured the heavy weaponry we desperately needed, we'd be living through hell right now. Immediately after that, we faced the Slope, the Hurricane, and Papuk 91.

So, if I understand you correctly—you believe we had every right to stop the Mexicans when they attacked us, yet you deny Ukrainians the right to defend themselves, choose their own destiny, or expel their occupiers. I don't grasp why there's a double standard here, but fine, at least we've clarified your position. Though, I suspect the Ukrainians won't find your opinion particularly helpful. Only time will tell.

Jessica Peterson2 said:I caught something interesting on the radio today. Apparently, border agents in the Baltic states have started asking Russians crossing the border to personally sign some kind of affidavit—essentially a formal statement condemning the aggression against Ukraine.
The catch, if you can call it that, is that signing such a document could potentially land them with a five-year prison sentence once they actually make it back home to Russia.🤷

That’s likely a procedure reserved for special occasions. I don't see much sense in forcing the rank-and-file to do it. But then again, who knows....

Lisa Jackson7 said:Props to Lev Yashin, and props to the Germans and Japanese after World War II, but they didn't just pull themselves out of the wreckage alone...

analogbear5 said:Russia wasn't even in the ashes.

It’s a simple fact: the Japanese and the Germans rose from the ashes and rebuilt themselves primarily because they weren't shackled by impossible conditions following the war. That was the greatest form of assistance ever provided—giving them the breathing room to actually build a better society. And looking at the results, they certainly didn't waste the opportunity.
It is an objective fact that Russia remains practically unscathed by this conflict, aside from the obvious human cost. You cannot compare the current standing of the Russian Federation to the position held by the losers of World War II. That wasn't my intention to suggest. Rather, Russia needs to rebuild itself upon sound ideological foundations—much like the nations that emerged from the aftermath of World War II. Achieving such a transformation is unlikely unless they suffer a massive, decisive defeat in Ukraine, coupled with a simultaneous softening of international sanctions. Significant shifts only occur in the wake of profound crises. It is certain that under the current leadership, such a pivot will never happen.

slysurfer14 said:Actually, it's the exact opposite. Europe will never give up Russian energy.

I find myself partially agreeing with that assessment. Once gas starts flowing from Russia at a reasonable price—devoid of political strings or sudden conditions—and once Russia begins behaving like a decent neighbor toward its peers, the supply will naturally gravitate back toward the European Union. For now, they ought to sit back and reflect on why those sanctions were imposed in the first place.

slysurfer14 said:The recent volatility in energy markets serves as a grim reminder that stability is often just an illusion. We watch as industrial giants struggle to navigate shifting supply chains and fluctuating costs, much like a heavy freighter trying to steer through a sudden storm without a compass. It is a repetitive cycle: uncertainty breeds hesitation, and hesitation leads to economic stagnation. Look at the manufacturing sector. When input costs spike unexpectedly, the ripple effects aren't contained to a single factory floor; they move through the entire economy like a slow-acting toxin. We see companies attempting to hedge their bets, yet they often find themselves caught between rising operational expenses and a consumer base that is increasingly unwilling to absorb higher prices. It is a delicate, precarious balancing act that most organizations are ill-equipped to perform. History suggests that these periods of adjustment are rarely smooth. They are characterized by frantic pivots and forced consolidations. One might compare it to a game of chess where the rules change mid-match—suddenly, the pieces you thought were protecting your flank are actually exposing your center. We are seeing this play out in real-time across the domestic landscape. Efficiency is being chased, but in the current climate, efficiency often looks more like desperate survivalism.

If you had bothered to actually read the beginning of the link you shared, you would have realized that Yara hasn't completely halted ammonia and urea production. They’ve simply scaled back operations at their plants in Italy and France. Given that they operate facilities in other regions, it stands to reason they are merely shifting production to locations where it's more cost-effective. A sensationalist headline is designed to mislead; one must actually engage with the text to find the truth.
At Dow Chemical, they always have a convenient excuse ready to shut down an entire plant just because it isn't profitable—not that they ever cared about profitability before this crisis hit, either. Meanwhile, it’s perfectly profitable for Yari.

Početak linka koji si postao:

After the global fertilizer giant Yara announced that... The rising cost of natural gas. It’s becoming an inevitable weight on everyone's shoulders. It diminishes. Production. Ammonia and urea production in Italy and France—it’s all following the same pattern. Dow Chemical just announced the exact same decision today.

As I mentioned before, the folks over at Dow Chemical are now looking to the government for a bailout because of this crisis. It’s a classic move—an opportunity to line their pockets, and they’ve mastered that particular craft long ago. Meanwhile, companies like Grupo are being supplied with fertilizer that was never even paid for. But that's a whole different story...

crimsonorca42 said:If what was mentioned in the previous post holds water, then maybe there’s still some hope left for Russia 👍

There is always hope for Russia. Right now, in this current chapter, those occupying The Kremlin hold their positions through nothing more than sheer luck—their decisions and actions have earned them zero respect from the American people or even their own citizens. But things shift. They always do. If the Germans managed to rise from the ashes after everything, then Russia will eventually find its way too.