Posts by Nancy Gomez26

Rachel Barrett8 said:Russia decided they have the right to dictate the politics of other nations—which is exactly what the EU and the USA do all the time. Honestly, we shouldn't be surprised when these kinds of scenarios play out.

You really shouldn't.

And in his desperate attempts to micromanage foreign affairs, Putin seems to have adopted the exact coaching methods of Miti Sadomazođubrilović.

Kate Cook27 said:Reasons for the war in Ukraine:
Demilitarization, denazification, stopping NATO expansion, and taking down the fascist regime in Kyiv—plus all those rumors about biological labs in Ukraine holding 900 different pathogens, or the lab where COVID was supposedly created, or even the one allegedly developing viruses to target Russians. Then there’s the whole nuclear weapons issue in Ukraine. Apparently, Ukraine was planning to strike the People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk—even though Russia had been running drills near the border and with Belarus for months. Was Ukraine actually planning to hit Russia? If so, then Russia’s move was just a preemptive strike. Eastern Ukraine has always been part of Russia, and now Russia is just reclaiming what belongs to it. Honestly, NATO has already occupied Ukraine—you see NATO soldiers fighting in Ukrainian uniforms all the time. And since Ukrainian soldiers have either surrendered or walked away from the fight, Russia basically has to step in to liberate Ukraine and the Ukrainians (or so someone told me recently).
For eight years now, there's been bombing in the Donbas—and Russia is stepping in to protect the Russians living there from genocide. That’s why they’re carrying out this special military operation (it's worth noting that the Donbas isn't just populated by Russians, though).

Fighting off demons and witches.
Broken institutions.
A nation destroyed.
Jihad for the defense of Islam. 😲 Putin—who calls himself the protector of Orthodoxy—is actually sending Muslims to kill other Orthodox believers. It’s just wild. Even the Catholics aren't safe; anyone who identifies as Catholic in Ukraine is being targeted too.
The list keeps growing.

Let’s not forget borscht—just another "vital" reason for the war.

When you look at this exhaustive list of "reasons," it becomes obvious. When so many trivial excuses are piled up to justify a war, it's clear they are using this noise of triviality to mask the actual motives. That is the sole purpose of throwing out such insignificant reasons.

casualcrane20 said:That was a long time ago in the timeline of the Russia-West conflict. One of the pivotal turning points was the Russian leadership deciding that the West was out to get them, regardless of what they did to prevent it. Whether that perception is actually accurate is irrelevant; Russian actions have been driven by that premise.

The idea of exterminating a significant portion of the population emerged quite quickly; a peaceful resolution became impossible because the enemy had challenged the very physical existence of the nation.

That doesn't hold up. Based on the assessment that the Russians are causing fewer civilian casualties than typical campaigns of this scale, and looking at their treatment of people in occupied territories, you can't really talk about "extermination."

It’s like saying Jews, Slavs, or Gypsies during WWII should have just walked into the concentration camps themselves, or better yet, committed mass suicide to prevent the war from happening.

I'm not sure where you got the impression I'm suggesting anything like that.
Regarding your comparison to Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies: first, it's a flawed analogy. A more accurate comparison would be if those groups had resisted being sent to camps—which largely didn't happen—and you're assuming they shared the same fate. In the first case, they would have been killed immediately rather than in camps; Ukrainians, however, aren't facing that specific fate, whether through a signed truce or a potential surrender.
If you disagree, then we simply have different assessments.

I am not particularly convinced that Ukrainians would fare much better than victims of the Nazi regime. Perhaps those who immediately and unconditionally embraced a Russian identity—effectively "forgetting" their own Ukrainian roots—would escape trouble. Everyone else, however, would be in jeopardy. Then there is the matter of "denazification." Who determines who qualifies under such a label? It falls to the occupier, who will "assess" based entirely on their own arbitrary whims who is a "Nazi" and who isn't. We are already seeing the first death sentences being handed down—specifically to prisoners of war defending their homeland. History teaches us a grim lesson: in these specific territories, state violence against its own citizens, regardless of nationality, can be exceptionally brutal (think the Russian Empire, the October Revolution, or Bolshevik rule). Here, a nation would essentially start playing judge over who belongs. After all, before the invasion even began, Vladimir Putin stated quite clearly that Ukrainians, as a distinct nation, do not even exist. It feels far too much like a recurring pattern from history for that timing to be coincidental.
One only needs to observe how the Russian authorities are treating people in the occupied territories of Ukraine to see the reality clearly.

brighthound13 said:Wait, when did I ever praise Russia? As far as I'm concerned, they can do whatever they want. But it's Zelenskyy who is calling on Europe to sanction Russia while simultaneously allowing energy to pass through. He calls on his people to fight and sacrifice themselves wherever necessary, giving these fiery speeches, yet he keeps things running normally for both Europe and Russia. The energy transfers continue uninterrupted even while he's busy making grand statements on Skype wearing a t-shirt.
As for where the Ukrainian money goes, anyone with eyes could see it, and my father even met with some Ukrainians personally. Not too long ago, before Putin took power, massive amounts of money were being siphoned out of Russia. Back in 1999, Gazprom was just a small firm with a turnover of maybe 20 companies, and Russia was drowning in debt. Then, somehow, everything changed.

Why would Zelenskyy stop the energy flow? Those resources are the very raw materials needed to manufacture grenades and the various munitions used to defend Ukraine. The Russians are clearly stuck in another win-win scenario: they sell the gas, only to have it processed back into the very projectiles falling on their heads every single day. This is the reality for everyone who isn't a grandmaster strategist like Vladimir Putin.

hollowdriver13 said:What kind of post is 🙏

Phenomenal stuff right here. You're basically admitting as a pro that Russia is actually turning into a terrorist state, because what you're describing are straight-up acts of terrorism.
...not to mention that an act of terrorism can pretty much be used as a justification for war... so, if they really think they can take on all those countries at once... 🍿

A single nation terrorizing the entire globe—or simply backing such chaos—would be a monumental blunder. History suggests that after attacks of that scale, serious warnings follow. If those warnings fail to bite, you start seeing "accidental" disasters hitting gas pipelines in remote, inaccessible regions. Even Badave wouldn't be able to rely on their energy wealth if the transport infrastructure starts collapsing overnight. Imagine trying to fix things when it's -40 degrees outside. Protecting critical infrastructure from terrorist strikes is practically impossible, which shifts the strategy toward preemptive action against those deep in the hinterlands who facilitate the terror, should the need arise. This is why any serious power wouldn't even entertain such a game; the blowback would be devastating. Even the masters in the Kremlin, despite their penchant for hybrid warfare, understand this. They won't pull moves like that because, at the end of the day, it would come back to haunt them.

Kate Cook27 said:This article has already made the rounds. The most striking part:
"I have no idea where your lawyers studied law when they claim that in a sovereign nation, legislative drafts should be proposed by separatists rather than a democratically elected government." Especially back in 2019, during the implementation phase of the agreements, Ukraine underwent a certain degree of demilitarization.

Just a bunch of twisting arguments about who didn't follow what or who violated which rule.

"Putin also claims that Kyiv possesses nuclear weapons 😲, which Emmanuel Macron finds hard to believe."

Putin makes that claim because he needs some sort of justification for the aggression (alongside all those other fabrications used to rationalize the invasion—from up here, it looks like just another line in the script). In reality, that would constitute an overt violation of the Budapest agreement. But stated this way? It’s nothing more than thrashing about in his own lies.
What interests me is whether stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus would eventually be considered a violation of that same agreement. Both Belarus and Kazakhstan—alongside Ukraine—were signatories and beneficiaries of that deal.

crimsoncyclist71 said:This reads like a pamphlet from the Communist Party of the USA, preaching about the superiority of the USSR over a decaying capitalist West that's barely hanging on.

I have a suspicion that such pamphlets weren't even being printed after '48. It would be quite interesting to actually get my hands on an original one from before '48 today.

feralhawk45 said:I’m genuinely struggling to wrap my head around how a country with such lagging tech infrastructure can claim to be self-sufficient (Mario Lugorec on n1). Aside from vodka, what exactly are they producing entirely on their own? Even their nuclear weapons with modern guidance systems aren't truly homegrown.

They might achieve self-sufficiency, but the real question is the quality of that technology. If they intend to rely on "tried and true" methods inherited from the USSR era, one has to wonder how much is even viable today. Most of those old factories have either shuttered or integrated into global supply chains just to stay afloat. Furthermore, much of that industrial capacity was spread across various former republics; now, it's simply out of reach for the Russian Federation (even Ukraine was a more technologically advanced republic within the USSR). I suspect their first move will be to patch things together through smuggling and whatever stockpiles they have left. If this becomes a long-term necessity, they'll be forced to substitute imports with domestic alternatives. That is inherently irrational—you end up with products that are more expensive and significantly lower in quality.

urbanotter said:My colleague Nancy Gomez26,
I am still sitting here waiting for an answer regarding how the current shortages, the skyrocketing cost of synthetic fertilizer, and the subsidized diesel—all triggered by the heavy sanctions placed on Russia—
will impact our own fall planting season here in the States, and whether Europe will ever truly achieve food self-sufficiency again.

I would also appreciate it if you could clarify which specific new scientific methods you are referring to, who exactly is conducting this research, and when farmers across Europe can actually expect to access them so they can operate with little to no reliance on synthetic fertilizers and diesel.
Who are these scientists? Because, frankly, everything these seven EU anti-samurai types have "invented" so far has just been turned into more sanctions, which has mostly just backfired.

Additionally, if you happen to have any intel on when the fertilizer factory in Indianapolis will resume operations,
since they reportedly halted production because natural gas became too expensive, I'd love to know what the approximate price per unit of fertilizer will be once they finally get back online.

And I’d ask that we move away from the "crushing boots" metaphors regarding who is being stepped on and by whom; we went quite extensively into that debate during our discussion about America. If you want to revisit that, let's take it over there. For now, let's stay focused right here on the sanctions and their actual fallout—looking specifically at the economies and food production of both those who imposed them and those who are feeling the brunt of them.🙂🙂

Sanctions and this entire situation impact production, profit margins, and food prices in two ways. One side is positive for us producers, as sanctions and war drive up market prices—benefiting the warring sides that act as grain exporters. The other side is negative, because the war partially drives up production inputs (though even this spike in grain prices and input costs began long before the February 2022 conflict). Which force prevails, I cannot say, but I suspect finished product prices will outpace input costs. Right now, things are relatively balanced. The biggest headache could occur if, for example, we run out of gas in the fall and can't dry the corn. Even then, there's a relatively simple alternative. Or if fuel runs out and autumn soil prep becomes impossible. These factors—fuel prices, food prices, gold prices—are deeply interconnected. When a barrel of oil is $30, a bushel of corn is $3; when a barrel hits $120, a bushel of corn hits $12. Input costs move in tandem. Since production operates on a relatively long cycle, you might plant using "old" prices and harvest at "new" ones, but by the next season, you'll be buying your supplies at the "new" prices. As I mentioned, prices were already climbing well before the conflict and the sanctions against Russia, so that certainly isn't the sole driver of inflation. But there is no doubt this situation fuels the rise.
As long as we live in an open market, it doesn't matter if America or the EU is self-sufficient—production always flows toward whoever is currently the best provider. In a closed market, that logic might hold weight, but then different market laws take over. If you have enough money, you won't go hungry. It has always been that way, and it will remain so.
Methods like no-till farming, green fertilizers, and integrating livestock with crop production have been known for quite some time; they're simply more refined now, and the benefits to agriculture are better understood. Industrial tillage is at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. And of course, it is incomplete—heavily reliant on synthetic inputs. But it is a comfortable way to work; you get all your solutions ready-made, either from a bag or a bottle. You just apply it. And the people providing those bags and bottles charge accordingly. People complain about the cost, but they've been conditioned to it, quickly reaching a state where they have no idea how to escape the cycle. They become dependent on high yields because only such massive yields can justify the convenience of having someone else "think" for you—and charge you well for it. The more of these turnkey technological solutions you use, the more you invest, and the more you depend on a yield that must cover all those expenses. If I were to write out everything you might find in a purchased bag—all of it carrying legitimate certificates—hardly anyone would believe me. My own "homegrown" stock (specifically my soy) is always superior to what you buy. Not because I am smarter than the sellers, but because I pay attention to when the soy intended for seed is harvested. I pay attention because I know I will be replanting and harvesting that same soy again; it pays to be careful. They don't have to care; they're just moving volume. Of course, for that "homegrown" approach to work properly, it requires its own refinement. But that is a different conversation entirely. The main thing to understand is that these systems exist; it isn't some great mystery, even...Certain people are working on this here in America too —though it feels like progress is moving at a snail's pace. Anyone actually involved in the field, or even just curious, could easily find something online to get their bearings. If you keep a small backyard garden, try growing some tomatoes or peppers under a layer of mulch—just use some straw or grass clippings—and you’ll see the difference for yourself. This concept is essentially the same thing, just applied on an industrial scale. But that’s beside the point.
I have no clue what the current status is at the BASF plant in Indianapolis. All I know is they were looking for an owner, there was plenty of resistance, and things got complicated. From what I gather, they’ve slashed their workforce down to about a quarter of what it was before the war. Apparently, the union is quite powerful there and they have their own "unique" set of demands.
Since we operate in an open market—both for our finished goods and our inputs—what happens at that specific plant matters less than it used to. Personally, I prefer their fertilizers because they're locally produced, but quality and price are the ultimate deciders when making a purchase. If they meet those standards, I'll choose domestic production every single time. If they can't provide it, someone else will. You just need to have the capital.

Linda Collins3 said: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...

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.

crimsoncyclist71 said:Yesterday Dmitry Peskov claimed the only way to end the war is for Ukraine to cede territory to Russia. That confirms this is nothing more than a land grab, yet people here still insist on rambling about American interests. Unbelievable.

When it comes to weaponry, the Russians actually offered Ukraine a much more favorable deal—at least from an economic standpoint. Their demand was simple: demilitarization. In a crisis this severe, it’s actually quite logical. If they followed that path, they wouldn't be stuck paying off massive loans years after the fighting stops. This is where that Russian pragmatism shows up—something nobody in the West bothered to consider. The West just wants to keep selling weapons to Ukrainians. In a situation this dire, their eyes are solely on the profit margins. Damn them.

Linda Collins3 said:We’ll offer you a fair price for the chance to fight for our interests...

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.

Linda Collins3 said: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.

In this conflict, Ukrainians are primarily fighting for their own freedom, which indirectly serves all of us. This war was thrust upon them; they didn't initiate the aggression, they simply endured it. It is an event dictated by circumstance. At the end of the day, someone in the West had to foot the bill for those weapons regardless. And eventually, someone will have to pay for the replacements once current stock is depleted. Weapons age; technology becomes obsolete. Much of what remains unused will eventually need replacing or refurbishing. This is how it will play out. The financial arrangement for Ukraine is actually quite advantageous given our current geopolitical standing. They essentially have access to everything now, with the understanding that they will settle up later—once they are capable. And they will only be capable once the war concludes and the economy is rebuilt. Perhaps some donations will occur. The Ukrainians understand that once the West has placed its bets on their side, it isn't in anyone's interest to let them sink—mostly because of who will be left to settle the debts. Furthermore, purchasing these arms triggers a chain reaction. The US buys older equipment from NATO partners—much of it manufactured under old USSR standards—and what replaces it? Western-made hardware. This leads to immediate military modernization, increased sales for the defense industry, and significant R&D investment fueled by fresh capital. There is even the possibility that Ukrainians might sell back any of their own gear that proves effective during this struggle.

slyfox43 said:To cover tens of millions of tons of weaponry, food, and strategic raw materials, the United Kingdom ended up footing a bill exceeding a billion pounds over a fifty-year stretch!!!!!!!!!!@@@

That’s easily the most spineless piece of journalism I’ve read in a long time; the level of manipulation here is staggering. It conveniently omits the fact that everything was eventually settled with WW2 America, because acknowledging that would make their little list look far less impressive.

The British would likely have found themselves much better off avoiding that "debt" altogether, had they left it in the hands of the Berlin version of Putin back then.

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?

Bryan Booth82 said:It really depends on your perspective. Surely in Ukraine, just like anywhere else, alongside those who favor Russia, there is a large group of nostalgics who wouldn't mind if a Russian boot... ruled over them.

Let's be honest: for certain minority groups in America, as well as the masses of people nostalgic for the old ways, the shift away from being ruled by New York City might have seemed acceptable back in '91.

And once the war in Ukraine ends, just as it will here in the States, there will always be those... who wish things had gone differently.
It's all a matter of perspective.

Best regards,

It is perfectly standard for desires—mine or anyone else's—to diverge from reality. Personally, I advocate for a fully sovereign and independent Ukraine within its former borders (my reasons are purely principled). However, if the Ukrainians see it differently—or fail to mount a sufficiently fierce resistance against the occupier—then the outcome will likely reflect that.

urbanotter said:The real question is how you manage to get by when you're drowning in high-interest credit card debt versus how much easier life feels when you aren't carrying that weight on your shoulders.

I don't think I really need to spell out for you how much more your yields can improve if you opt for something more natural, like spreading some organic manure instead of relying entirely on synthetic fertilizers and planting cover crops.

The actual dilemma is whether it is better to be under a mountain of debt—or under someone else's boot. Looking at the historical patterns we see in Ukraine, it seems to me that being burdened by credit is the far superior choice this time around; it’s much cheaper for a nation. This is especially true when that foreign boot comes with a pre-packaged guarantee of total erasure. After all, Vladimir Putin has already been quite generous in announcing his "final solution" for them. If I were in their shoes, it would be a complete no-brainer. But those decisions belong solely to them—and it appears they made their choice when the president famously declared he didn't need an escape vehicle, just more ammo. Or perhaps it was when they first elected that leader. We are merely here to provide the support while someone carries out their imagined "final solutions" in the 21st century. We have seen this play out before, and we know exactly where it ends. It is better to stop it at the starting line, though reacting this late means things have already spiraled too far.

Regarding synthetic fertilizers—there are massive shifts happening in modern science and technology. We are only just beginning to grasp how little we truly understand about soil and the intricate processes within such a complex system. But that is a conversation for another time....

Gregory Ramos3 said:

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed this past Saturday that Ukraine tried to strike military sites on Belarusian soil just three days ago, though he insisted they intercepted every single projectile, according to the state news agency Belta.

Man, that Pancir system must be pretty legit if it actually managed to neutralize every single one of those projectiles ☕{{extra filler to match tone}}

Did he actually drive himself to his position—or did they have to haul him there on a flatbed?

urbanotter said:If sanctions aren't working as intended or expected, that's a matter of hard facts, not just the number of posts being written.

So many respected figures and economists are pointing out that they are either ineffective or poorly designed.
I might be missing something here, but I honestly don't see where these sanctions have achieved any kind of meaningful breakthrough or actual shift in policy.
From what I can gather, for the most part, they’ve just caused suffering, hurting ordinary citizens while setting entire countries back by decades.
We’re seeing this exact pattern with the sanctions imposed on Russia and Belarus; there's no sign of a change in the direction of their policies on the battlefield. If anything, the endless influx of increasingly modern and lethal weaponry only serves to prolong the suffering, drive more people to flee their homes, and increase the death toll.

And this whole idea of "helping" through arms shipments is pushing the country into a financial hole that won't be filled until 2077, regardless of whether the Ukrainian nationalists "defeat" Russia.

Americans boast about providing free aid to Ukraine, but it’s a lie—they’ve plunged an invaded nation into staggering debt that won't be paid off until 2077!

Honesty is the best policy.

crimsoncyclist71 said:The best proof of how effective these sanctions actually are is the sheer volume of posts you "neutrals" vomit out every day trying to prove they aren't working. 👍

Most of us posting here have zero direct connection to the implementation of sanctions—nor do we feel most of their consequences personally. Perhaps if we look at the whole group, only Ivan the Terrible feels the weight of this on his own skin. Everything else is just cheering for one side or the other, or rooting against them, based on individual political biases and personal whims.
It is naive to assume that sanctions against Russia are the sole driver behind fuel or grain prices. There are far more variables at play; sanctions are merely one cog in a massive machine.
Regarding food costs—arable land is shrinking while the population continues to swell, and nobody wants to live on half-rations. Fuel prices follow a similar logic. We currently have an administration in power that believes wind turbines and solar panels are a panacea for everything; they would push those green agendas at any cost, even if it means accepting these high energy prices to facilitate their specific policies.

analogbear5 said:Try looking at it from the perspective of a small-scale farmer who's never going to see a return on that kind of investment—then it might click.

Look, owning silos pays off; it always has. Basic economic logic dictates that prices bottom out when supply peaks—which is right during harvest season. It’s perfectly predictable that prices climb later on. I know most people who initially built those silos just to store their own grain eventually pivoted into buying up others' stock. But even that business model carries its own set of headaches, risks, and logistical nightmares. Sure, rising prices are great, but one shouldn't forget that prices can tank just as easily. There have been plenty of instances where folks bought high only to sell the exact same goods lower. Plus, you need serious liquidity to fund the purchasing. You tell people they'll get paid in two weeks—they nod and agree—but the second they dump their haul into the intake bin, the questions start: "Where's my money?"