Posts by Nancy Gomez26

hiddeneagle98 said:Yeah, you're spot on; in America, commodity reserves are a total myth.

I was watching this program where they explained that America imports wheat because even though we produce plenty of everything, there isn't enough space to store it all, so a huge chunk gets exported and then we end up importing it back later...

Wouldn't it make more sense to just store it in silos instead of exporting it? Then, instead of importing it down the road, we could just pull it out of storage. Why doesn't that ever happen?

Silo capacity isn't the issue; there's enough space (at least where I live, and I assume elsewhere too). When it comes to storage, the real headache is managing aging facilities that are still being used, though that's slowly improving as new construction picks up.
The actual bottleneck with wheat is the logistics of producing specific varieties—the so-called "enhancers." High-quality bread flour is usually a blend of different wheat types, and without those specific additives, you aren't getting premium flour. I was talking to some local grain buyers yesterday, and they were claiming this year's crop quality is subpar due to low protein levels. They suggested mills will have to lean heavily on enhancers to hit standard quality specs (though it’s hard to tell how much of that is reality and how much is just an excuse to drive down purchase prices). On top of that, growing these enhancer varieties isn't exactly rocket science—you just need the right seed—but these crops have lower yields. That means they have to be sorted out during intake and stored separately. Managing that within a massive, high-volume system that processes thousands of tons daily without stopping is a logistical nightmare. And since you have to pay a premium for these lower-yield crops, asking American agribusinessmen to swallow that cost is like pulling a tooth without anesthesia.

Lisa Jackson7 As stated by:
I will simply reiterate what you have highlighted in bold. As for the rest, I find myself in agreement—not that I am particularly pleased about it.

It wasn't the Russians who voted to put those people in power. They’ve been voted in.The first presidential elections back in '91 were perhaps the only ones that could be considered somewhat legitimate. Everything following that was little more than a staged performance—orchestrated, unfortunately, with heavy involvement from the West, most notably the USA.
So, it seems Boris Yeltsin has already become that "friend you simply can't let hang out to dry"—if I may be so bold as to put it that way.

Putin is simply the logical progression...

I don't view Putin as the logical successor to Boris Yeltsin. The man comes from an entirely different social sphere. One can only wonder why, and under what specific circumstances, Yeltsin "selected" him to take the reins. But then again, that’s a question for the historians.

Linda Collins3 said:Judging by how this thread has spiraled, we should just rename it "Self-Imposed Sanctions."

It is an obvious fact that sanctions always cause damage to everyone involved. They hurt the ones imposing them just as much as those they are targeted at. It is simply a question of who bears the heavier burden and who suffers more significantly from the fallout. Generally speaking, the smaller, weaker economy takes the harder hit. The greater the disparity in economic power—or even economic dependency—between the parties, the more severe the impact typically becomes, though that depends entirely on the specific measures taken. Whether it was actually worth implementing these sanctions—effectively wounding oneself in the process—is a matter of pure political perspective.
Considering the cost of war, sanctions are a relatively inexpensive tool, provided they can achieve their objective instead of resorting to weaponry.

hiddeneagle98 said:We keep hearing our leaders claim the gas reserves are at 50% and that they have plans to hit 90% once deliveries arrive... but if I'm reading the situation correctly, those reserves might just be enough to limp through the season.

And while we're on the subject, I don't understand why we don't have adequate grain silos. Is it just that expensive, or is the return on investment not high enough for them? The government should be treating this as a matter of national security, even if it’s essentially a sunk cost. Otherwise, all this talk about banning grain exports is completely pointless... you can't actually enforce an export ban if you don't have the infrastructure to store the stuff.

In this new era, governments—actual administrations—have to step up and handle these fundamental necessities. You can't leave this stuff to profit-driven capitalism to solve. In fact, it's that exact obsession with the bottom line that creates these strategic vulnerabilities in the first place.

fgzcvijetic As stated by:
And why would they? Do you honestly believe anyone in this administration is capable of strategic, long-term thinking?

Just take a look at the prices for flour, bread, and pastries lately. It’s absurd. Meanwhile, they offered farmers a buyout price that barely covers the cost of seeds.$0.70 Per kilogram (currently trading at about $0.37 on the European markets).
Anyone with enough silo capacity will play it smart. They’ll store their harvest, sit tight through the peak of the season, and wait for the dust to settle. Once those market prices skyrocket again? That’s when they strike.

It is worth examining who actually controls the storage infrastructure. For instance, take a look at John Deere—they hold 45,000 tons in their silos under the control of an unknown owner tied to Mitsubishi and King ITC.

Gentlemen and ladies—do you honestly believe that wheat is harvested and corn is gathered all year round, making storage capacity entirely unnecessary?
Of course silos exist. They are almost entirely privately owned, which is a stroke of luck since they have zero connection to the government. History shows that whenever the state manages strategic reserves, those supplies have a funny way of vanishing right when things get tight. One day the silos are brimming with wheat; the next, they’re bone dry. I suppose we should just blame the security guards for pocketing the grain while they walk out the gate. It is the same old story we see with bank bailouts or those massive subsidies for failing shipyards—whenever the government hands out taxpayer money to fix a crisis, that cash inevitably evaporates into thin air.
Wheat is a global commodity. Seriously, walk me through the logic here. As a producer, why on earth would you ever sell your grain below the current market price? It defies all common sense. Unless, of course, you are actively trying to drive yourself into bankruptcy—or perhaps you’re just an executive at someone else's firm, motivated by some "special interest" to dump stock below value. It makes zero sense.
Government-run grain silos won't do a damn thing to drive down wheat prices. It’s a fallacy. You still have to fill those silos in the first place, which means you have to buy the grain from someone else. That requires massive amounts of capital. Suddenly, your liquidity is tied up in bushels of wheat or corn sitting in a bin, and everyone knows the market is a gamble—prices could skyrocket or crater overnight. Then there's the matter of shrinkage; even with perfect storage, you're looking at about a 1% loss in mass annually. But that’s a whole different headache.

Kate Lewis3 said:Funny thing is, the same country trying so hard to keep NATO away from its borders is simultaneously obsessed with swallowing up neighbors that sit right on the edge of NATO territory.

I'm sure those pro-Kremlin hacks have some perfectly "rational" explanation for that massive contradiction.

There is no contradiction here. Nothing they choose to "integrate" will ever actually join the NATO alliance; therefore, they succeed in keeping NATO at arm's length from their own borders. In the event of a conflict, these newly integrated territories serve as the primary buffer zone—a frontline standing in place of the homeland itself. It buys them time and physical distance from potential adversaries. Naturally, it is far easier to sacrifice these proxy regions than it is to surrender one's own soil. Of course, in an era defined by missile technology and information warfare, such a strategy feels somewhat antiquated, perhaps even stuck in a previous century. Or perhaps it isn't. It seems Russia prefers kinetic warfare, despite failing to show much preparation for it. Alternatively, it might all just be a convenient pretext for plain old aggression. When dealing with chess players like these, you never truly know their endgame until the king falls.

Christian Torres3 said:Bureaucracy at its finest. They never actually intended to take control of Kyiv anyway...

New Russian passports issued this year are listing Kyiv as being part of Russia. https://t.co/fyzVA5H93X
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status...zAbjOj6eg&s=19

One must jump before they can shout "eureka." They prepared extensively, yet they chose the wrong stage. Had they focused slightly more on their tires and slightly less on the fine print in their passports—perhaps the future would look different. It is the same old story. They stumble over the most basic, fundamental details every single time.

feralhawk45 said:Imagine if Lukashenko fires a nuclear missile at Ukraine or Poland on Putin's orders, then Putin just shrugs and disavows him, cleans house, and installs some other puppet. Would that kind of tactic even work for them?

The idea that Alexander Lukashenko holds the launch button for nuclear weapons is pure fantasy. It's a delusion. Everyone knows who the real puppet master is on that side of the fence, and everyone knows who actually makes the calls.

gentlestag15 said:I don't know, man. My only logical take is that they're out there spraying for mosquitoes.
if they honestly think a bit of smoke is going to hide a massive bridge in the age of GPS, then they’re even more clueless than I originally thought.11 miles😁

It would actually make sense if they were setting up some kind of air defense system there first, perhaps using a little smoke before they attempt any actual masking. From what I can see, there's smoke rising near the shoreline by the bridge. It's a certainty that whatever area is currently obscured by that smoke will become a primary target for intense orbital analysis once the satellite passes over that sector.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Well, they are fighting. It's not like NATO sent over a single soldier to step in and stop WW3, but they are definitely helping out with equipment. I don't really see the issue with providing support. Even if it's just moral support from everyday people... and well, I won't get into the weeds about how that gear money comes straight from taxpayers.

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't an issue. My only hope is that they actually make efficient use of every piece of equipment they currently have, as well as everything arriving from abroad.

hollowdriver13 said:Get ready for the Meltdown Zarov reaction in 3....2....1....

Honestly, it's still sitting right up there in my top 10 all-time stupidest takes since the war started.

"The Ukrainians hid the recipe and won't share it!" 🙂 🙂

Now that there’s fresh beets and kale available... will they still be allowed to cook up some borscht at home without trouble? Will there be an issue if someone throws a cut of beef into the pot? Just asking for a friend.

Bryan Booth82 said:That is a remarkably narrow-minded perspective, implying that condemning Russian aggression somehow automatically necessitates putting on a uniform.
Fascinating.🤔

By that logic, wouldn't the "negatives" also include everyone who sided with the Americans during our own Civil War?🤔
If that isn't the case, I fail to see why Ukrainians feeling sympathy for the American Civil War would be seen as a negative, while we view our own Civil War as positive.🤔

The logic is simple: either both conflicts are inherently negative, or they are both inherently positive.

Honestly, trying to dismiss someone's perception using a tired, hackneyed cliché about the "Netflix generation" is just incredibly cheap, don't you think?
Furthermore, I am genuinely curious: what exactly makes you think you can judge whether someone has had military training just based on how they write online?
They used to say the exact same thing about the mustachioed officers back in the US Army.😁

Best regards,

In reality, at the start of the American Civil War, we possessed a much lower level of recognized state sovereignty than what Ukraine enjoys today. In fact, we had less than Ukraine did then, or even back during the days of the USSR. The way we managed to fight for our independence despite all the hardships—starting from a significantly weaker position—is precisely how Ukraine must struggle for its own now.

Russia joining the European Union is comparable to someone claiming America might one day become a "miniature Switzerland." Sure, theoretically speaking, there are arguments to be made for such an outcome—one could even construct a logical framework to support it—but, in reality, neither scenario is ever going to happen in our lifetime.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Man, tell me about it. I met some Russians back before 2014 around Crimea, and to them, it was never Ukraine—it was always Russia.

I’m certain there are Russians who hold that view, but there are also Ukrainians who insist Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
To me, the situation in Crimea is a matter of fundamental principle. If it remains under the control of the Russian Federation, it sets a dangerous precedent—it serves as a reward for launching an invasion and acts as a green light for any other nation looking to seize territory. It might even be seen as an invitation for the Russian Federation to resume its military campaigns in Ukraine down the road. Right now, they need to withdraw completely from Ukraine. That means retreating from everything they previously occupied.

steelheron25 said:We’re going to have to tread a bit more carefully with that approach, aren't we? After all, any strike on Crimea Russia is viewed by them as an assault on their own sovereign soil. We really shouldn't be handing them any excuses to escalate things further, especially at a time when some Russian lunatic seems to be threatening us with nuclear weapons every other day. Does sending missiles toward Crimea actually provide much strategic value right now? Perhaps it would be wiser to focus our efforts on reclaiming Kherson and securing that corridor leading toward Crimea instead.

That’s exactly why they need to hit them—precisely because of those threats.
From my perspective, Ukrainians face a fundamentally different dilemma here. See, Crimea is Ukraine. It isn't easy for them to decide to demolish infrastructure within their own borders—essentially destroying their own property—even if that property sits on occupied land. The Russians hold the psychological advantage here; they know they are occupiers, and they feel no hesitation about tearing through Ukraine. But necessity dictates action. It isn't a hard choice, particularly when you understand the nature of the occupier. You know that at the end of the day, they will likely just destroy everything in their path before they ever consider showing "goodwill."

I just hope the Ukrainians don't forget to pour out some water for those who abandoned Snake Island, ensuring they never have any reason to set foot there again.

Joshua Myers432 said:Of course, people assume you can just flip a switch and start mass-producing something as complex as a modern vehicle—and I'm not talking about some boutique Tesla operation making two cars a year. This Chinese scrap metal only looks modern because they shamelessly ripped off the styling. Copying a silhouette is easy; try copying what's actually under the hood.

Then there are the ones who genuinely believe China is going to churn out ten aircraft carriers tomorrow and kick Americans out of the Pacific Ocean. 🤦 They might build ten ships and slap an "aircraft carrier" label on them, but the US has a century of expertise and institutional knowledge on this. We're looking at a gap that won't be closed for at least another twenty years.

I believe the Chinese could relatively easily construct ten aircraft carriers. It would take time, certainly, but they would eventually figure it out. What they lack is the jet engine capable of operating from such a platform. That is why they don't have the planes. They have engines, but they are limited by incredibly thin resources; materials science and precision manufacturing remain their Achilles' heel. They are weak there. Currently, they have no need for more than one carrier, as that single vessel likely serves only as a floating laboratory to develop functional procedures for when they finally possess a reliable engine and airframe. This ties back to their attempts to acquire Ukrainian engine technology. The Chinese are nowhere near having a functional aircraft carrier. I fail to see why they even bother; for them, it is nothing but a drain on both capital and time.

Jessica Peterson2 said:According to the early reports surfacing on Telegram, we're looking at at least 11 fatalities and roughly 40 people wounded.

What’s the current status over in Kazakhstan? Has the media frenzy against Tokayev finally died down, or is that circus still running?

George Robinson43 said:Given how the Putin bots over on Rossiya 1 are constantly hyping up new special operations—like strikes on the Baltic, sabotaging oil infrastructure in the Netherlands, or even the total disappearance of the United Kingdom—I suspect this deployment of 300,000 is merely the opening act!

The whole point of these announcements is purely psychological. It’s a tactic to stretch NATO forces thin and squeeze the flow of weapons to Ukraine. That is their sole purpose. They have no actual intention of launching an attack based on these threats. If they truly plan to strike, they won't give us a warning; they will simply hit someone or somewhere when we least expect it.

William Cooper11 said:Ukraine wouldn't even be in this position if the West hadn't started sending military aid. We’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out. Personally, I could see a Western military intervention involving maybe 100,000 to 150,000 troops—a coalition of the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, the UK, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia—backed by US air power. That should be more than enough to push Russian forces out of Ukraine, though Crimea might stay out of reach.

Relying on air power is a double-edged sword. The Russians would simply strike back from Belarusian or Russian territory. That essentially mandates the immediate neutralization of those launch sites, which constitutes an attack on the Russian Federation itself. Once you cross that line, you're effectively opening the door to World War III; neutralizing those systems happens the moment their positions are compromised.
If an intervention were to occur, it absolutely must include Crimea. Crimea has become a matter of principle, and there is no room for compromise there. Giving in to the aggressor regarding Crimea today is nothing more than an invitation for Russia to launch the next conflict once they recover and regroup. That is precisely what we are trying to prevent through preemptive action. If we fail to stop them now, we might as well give up entirely.

When you draft legislation with enough cunning, nothing is technically illegal. It isn’t "confiscation"—it's merely "temporary management." Think about it. That is what constitutes state sovereignty. It is the exact same logic Russia used when they decided to stop paying those leasing companies for their aircraft. And what can the West actually do about it right now? Very little. But this will come back to haunt them later, once someone eventually tries to secure credit, a lease, or any other financial arrangement again. They might face the seizure of a few small planes here and there, perhaps. Similarly, investors from Russia will think twice before putting capital into Canada in the future. Every one of these decisions carries long-term consequences that eventually come due—usually at the expense of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the original cause.