Posts by Nancy Gomez26

Bryan Booth82 said:Where on earth does it say they need to ask permission from Putler's puppet, Orban?🤔

NATO members will absolutely enter a conflict against Russia sooner or later—the real question is whether it happens today, next week, or next month... and honestly, whether it’s officially under the NATO banner or just a separate group doesn't even matter.

I think they've finally, slowly but surely, seen through Putler's little theater production... because behind all those threats, it's nothing but cheap acting.
The idea that he’d actually use nuclear weapons is nothing more than fairy tales for children.
That garbage only understands raw strength, which is why they need to be decisively crushed so they never even dream of doing this again.

Best regards,

The flaw in your strategy is that all NATO members share specific intelligence. That creates a risk of leaks. Within a smaller coalition, decisions are reached much faster and operations proceed without friction. The Canadians would love to participate, only to trip everyone up later. Look at how they are already obstructing airspace for planes transporting munitions to Ukraine. It seems minor, yet they are actively creating roadblocks.

William Cooper11 said:I'm with you on that. It’s looking like a modern-day Desert Storm. Ukraine is the new Kuwait.

The situation in Kuwait was an absolute occupation—total overwhelming force. That isn't what we're seeing here; the requirements are fundamentally different. From what I can see, Ukraine has plenty of personnel available. What they lack is hardware and specialized training—which is likely already underway, but such things take time to execute properly.

Bryan Booth82 said:The single biggest blunder would be for NATO to sit on its hands and refuse to get actively involved in this conflict, yet based on how the current situation is unfolding, I fully expect them to intervene sooner rather than later.

lp

NATO, strictly as an organization, isn't going to jump in. If anything happens, we'll see a coalition of willing nations step up instead. NATO is far too bloated and cumbersome for those kinds of maneuvers. Besides, Ukraine isn't a member, so from a purely legal standpoint, NATO has zero obligation to them. Trying to get every single member state to agree on an action like that? It's a logistical nightmare.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Honestly, sounds like Stockholm syndrome to me. It's kind of like how Mexicans seem to adore them, even though the Russians have basically screwed them over at every turn. I mean, back in the 90s, they were actually sending weapons to us instead of the Mexicans, but hey, whatever.😁

They were sending us weapons just to get cash—we actually mistook that transaction for some kind of special privilege. Meanwhile, the Mexicans had no shortage of arms during that era.

Anthony Hill5 said:Russian high-precision weaponry

What do we actually know about who lived in those apartments or what was being stored on that rooftop? For all we know, the Ukrainians might have been keeping HIMARS units there all day long.

Numenorean said:That’s my point too.
Nobody is forcing them to love the Russians, but they shouldn't peddle empty rhetoric about hating them because of some old Soviet atrocity in Katyn. Meanwhile, they conveniently ignore the crimes of Ukrainian and German Nazis. Let's not pretend we're all blind to how things actually work.

They should just be honest: "We hate Russians because they are Orthodox, a semi-Asiatic people prone to alcoholism, savages, while we Americans are civilized..." etc. That would make more sense than this nonsense being spread. People respect an honest man.

Americans and everyone else who has dealt with them—meaning all those nations once held under occupation by the USSR—hate this Putin-esque version of Russia. They want to re-occupy everything in their vicinity while hiding behind rhetoric from the days of the USSR. To put it bluntly: Putin and his inner circle see their prosperity through the violation of everyone they can reach, forcibly imposing their ideological order (just as they did within the Russian Federation itself). But that doesn't fly anymore. It was hard enough to enforce domestically, let alone abroad. The real reason isn't hatred based on religion or being Orthodox. The real reason for the animosity is seeing a neighbor issue unprovoked, unwavering threats, disrespecting the sovereignty of other nations, disregarding human life, and acting as if they have the right to bully everyone simply because they think they are the strongest. Putin shows zero respect for the lives of his own citizens by sending them into this war in Ukraine; why would anyone expect him to respect the citizens of another country? Not happening. Looking back over the last century, while much of Europe has made social progress, the Russians have arguably made the least. There is no concrete excuse for it; they possess all the necessary conditions for advancement, and are likely far wealthier in resources than most other nations that have socially and economically surpassed them.

Numenorac said:It isn't that Americans are making mistakes; they simply know exactly what they are doing. They are playing a calculated game of manufacturing resentment toward Russians within their own borders. Because if you conveniently omit any mention of the Volhynia massacre perpetrated by Ukrainian nationalists in the name of Ukraine, or the atrocities committed by German Nazis in the name of the German nation—and refuse to hold those nations accountable—while simultaneously pointing fingers at Russians for the crimes at Katyn, which were committed by the Soviet Union in the name of Soviet internationalist ideology—that is nothing more than hypocrisy and political maneuvering.

It appears that American victims killed by Russians and the Soviets are worthy of remembrance, while victims of Ukrainian and German terror are deemed unworthy. It is quite distasteful.

There is yet another indicator of the national schizophrenia currently gripping the United States: the victims of Bandera's followers weren't primarily Russians, but Americans, yet today's Americans cheerfully chant the slogan "Slava Ukraini." Today, Americans are volunteering for the Azov battalion, an outfit that honors Stepan Bandera, a man who loathed Americans. Truly morbid... 🙂

EDIT: I don't see any evidence that Ukrainians have offered an apology to Americans for the Volhynia massacre. Perhaps Americans aren't even looking for one (because, as established, American victims killed by non-Russians are of no interest to today's American political elite. Only those killed by Russians matter, as it serves to justify current American policy). Furthermore, whether they have apologized or admitted to the crime is irrelevant. The relevant fact remains: young Americans are volunteering for Azov, a military organization that venerates the legacy of Stepan Bandera—a man who hated Americans, and whose OUN was responsible for the deaths of 100,000 American civilians.

Dostoevsky was clearly right. ☕

Since you’ve already opened a thread regarding Katyn, it would be appropriate to stick to the topic. We could theoretically extend this logic to Belgians in Africa, but there is no point in indulging in whataboutism.

How Americans and Ukrainians resolved their past disputes, or whether they truly did, is exclusively their own business. There is much to be said for apologizing, reconciling, and moving forward—something it seems Americans and Ukrainians have achieved. Perhaps this massive, aggressive threat—the same kind that historically struck America and is now striking Ukraine (and potentially America again in the future)—has done more to unite these two closely linked nations in their effort to help one another despite past grievances than anything else. I believe both sides have learned from history and moved past their disagreements—but the Russians, under the current leadership in the Kremlin, clearly have not. They persist with their antiquated 20th-century policies. They are aimless and lost; they have either forgotten or failed to grasp that we live in a different era. This wouldn't be such a catastrophe if it didn't cause immense suffering outside of the Russian Federation. Every people deserves the government they have. No authoritarian regime is so rigid that a populace couldn't eventually overthrow it. It's just that the hour hasn't struck for those in the Kremlin yet. But one day, the Russians will reach Red Square; I believe in them. The only question is when.

Numenorac said:It was high time the Russians stopped using the Katyn massacre as a perpetual rallying cry, which serves the Poles as nothing more than an excuse to harbor hatred toward Russians (a resentment they clearly maintain regardless of Katyn).

On the other hand, it’s curious how no one among the Poles mentions Volyn, where the Banderites (the grandfathers of today's Azov fighters) brutally slaughtered a hundred thousand Polish civilians and ethnically cleansed the rest of what we now call Ukraine.

If Ukrainians can be forgiven and the events at Volyn—where Poles were murdered by Ukrainian nationalists—can be swept under the rug, I fail to see why the Katyn massacre, where Polish officers were executed by the Soviet NKVD (not just "Russian" forces), cannot be similarly forgiven.

The Germans, the Ukrainians... we'll find a way to forgive them all, just not the Russians... pure hypocrisy.

I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to just admit it: we hate Russians because they are Orthodox, because of who they are, etc., rather than playing this selective political game with victims from the DRC. It isn't dignified.

To forgive a crime, the perpetrator must first acknowledge it. For years, the Soviets shoved it under the carpet and denied everything; they even went so far as to hide the fact that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact contained secret protocols, a truth only revealed once they were pulled from German archives. It wasn't until Gorbachev, acting with the grace of a true statesman (and through the Glasnost he championed), that they openly admitted what had been done.
The perpetrator of the Katyn crime—the USSR—acted with clear intent during military operations in Poland to maximize Polish losses during the Warsaw Uprising. After the war, the same perpetrator installed a puppet regime in Poland that suppressed the truth, ensuring it could never be discussed publicly, let alone taught in schools. Before Gorbachev and Perestroika, the perpetrator didn't just refuse to face its wrongs; it actively fought against the Polish people's ability to grasp the scale of the atrocity they endured.
Beyond the crime itself, this is what traumatized generations raised under such a system. Poles err when they assume Russians simply dislike them or that the attacks were specifically targeted at the Polish nation. The Bolsheviks and Stalin, leading the charge at the time, were opposed to any form of freedom and committed similar atrocities on varying scales against numerous other nations and ethnic groups—anyone they deemed a potential threat (and the selection of victims was notoriously opaque; anyone could fall victim). The brutality of that system can only be compared to the Nazi persecution of non-Aryans and dissidents in the Third Reich. For the Polish people, Katyn represented a massive intellectual loss, whereas for Stalin, it was merely one more systematic crime in a long list. While one can view this from a detached historical perspective today, the real issue is that the fool sitting in the Kremlin today is once again glorifying the legacy of a small-time Caucasian terrorist who seized power through highly dubious means (even by Bolshevik standards).

Melissa Rivera5 said:There are tons of reasons. Even today, you see people denying that entire nations or languages even exist just because of stuff that happened 800 years ago. People claim Ukrainians aren't even a real thing, kind of like how some folks question if Mexico is real. People can be pretty dense, honestly.

Denying a nation’s existence is essentially ideological groundwork—a prelude to seizing 'lebensraum.' The logic follows a predictable pattern: 'You don't actually exist, so you have no need for living space; therefore, we will occupy this territory and establish our own rule here.' It is the rhetoric of those who lack the drive or innovation to build something of their own, preferring instead to advance by plundering what others have built. I can understand—though I certainly do not excuse—someone eyeing another's resources because they face a chronic domestic shortage; that is a purely material motive. Or perhaps it's just petty disputes over where a border lies. But what Putin is doing, utilizing all his vast resources just to seize what belongs to someone else—that is a different level entirely. By destroying Ukraine, he is also squandering the very human resources that Russia is already lacking.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:I honestly don't know how you even begin to look people in the eye—the ones who lost sons and daughters, and we're talking about a huge number here. I've never seen a "special operation" leave behind nearly 40,000 dead soldiers, let alone God knows how many more wounded.
That’s roughly 40,000 families right there at the starting line. Unless, of course, a family is so brainwashed that they couldn't care less about their own kid, though I guess there are always a few of those types.

The government doesn't explain anything to its citizens. In fact, I am convinced many people have no idea their fathers or children were even lost in this war. You can't exactly go out and buy back your dead, and it raises the question of what they actually do with the soldier's bodies they have access to. Often, the circumstances are such that the body is simply gone, or it's in a state where identification is impossible. On the Russian side, there is zero effort to accurately tally losses; why would they bother upsetting their citizens with such news? There are reports that Ukrainians possess Russian bodies that the Russians refuse to take back. Naturally, they won't, because doing so requires acknowledging their own casualties. Instead, they are logged as 'missing' or perhaps 'captured.' It provides plenty of ways to spin the story to the public. Once a body is finally returned home, then the reality becomes undeniable. It likely depends on the specific military unit and their internal protocols regarding notifying next of kin. To put it bluntly: it is not in their interest to show their true losses.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:Honestly, why even bother? They don't even need to be lifted. It’s the same old song and dance with Russia—they claim all these sanctions are useless, yet the second they sit down at the negotiating table, it's "okay, now can we get rid of them?"

The Russian people are basically paying the tab for their leader's ego, and they're totally fine with it. Anyone actually buying the line that they have no idea what's happening in their own country is just being incredibly naive.

It is obvious you have never lived in a nation where the propaganda machine grinds away, processing its citizens 24/7/365 for years on end. People notice the holes in the government narrative, but when there is no alternative source of information, many eventually succumb to the constant barrage. Those who don't buy the narrative don't speak up because they refuse to jeopardize their own safety. It is more prudent to remain silent, while those who believe it speak out—creating the illusion of total consensus. The only variable today is the internet, though I am uncertain how much access the general public truly has, or how much censorship limits it there.

Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, honestly? I think Putin is his own worst enemy at this point. He's basically just sending young guys to die in conquest wars just so he can leave some kind of "legacy" behind. Between that and the fact that Russia is still feeling the demographic holes left over from World War II, they wouldn't stand a chance against NATO even if they tried using those old strategies. Russia is pretty much finished—one way or another.

Exactly. To Putin, how his image and deeds are recorded in history matters far more than the sheer number of lives lost—his own or anyone else's—to achieve his goals. He isn't the first to act this way. And such patterns always leave a devastating scar on the population.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Okay, but did those other guys actually defend Ukraine's territorial integrity? Obviously not... so wouldn't a better solution have been setting up some effective oversight of the nuclear weapons inside Ukraine?
Instead, you're expecting guarantees of integrity from a country (Russia) that never even ratified its borders against other former Soviet republics... I mean, who's the crazy one here?
But wait, there's more... now that we've already been hit, we're going to force Russia to pay war reparations, and after that, nobody will want anything to do with them—let them all collectively go back to the Stone Age, etc.
You can say, "Fine," but I don't think it's just Ukraine—the rest of Europe won't be thrilled about having a massive failed state right next door, probably filled with all sorts of exotic dictators and mafias, where someone also has to worry about... well, nuclear missiles and whatever else.
An empire of multinational corporations and paramilitary groups... absolutely priceless.

Nobody has to force anyone into anything. There is no coercion. Simply offer them a firm promise: all sanctions will be lifted once they pay the war reparations. They should probably take a moment to think it over and reach an agreement with the Americans regarding the amount and the method of payment.

darkhawk30 said:That’s how it looks on the surface, anyway.
But the reality might be a bit more complicated than that:

"Even then, the President of Ukraine at the time, Leonid Kravčuk, admitted in an interview with Deutsche Welle that it was all just an illusion. 'All the control systems were held by Russia; the so-called black coffin containing the button for a nuclear strike was in the hands of the Russian president, Boris Yeltsin.'"
https://www.dw.com/en/forgotten-history/a-18111601

Leonid Kučma, apparently.
And Ukraine wasn't the only nation to surrender its 'own' nuclear arsenal. I still maintain that Ukraine made the right, principled move back then. In exchange for those weapons, they sought additional guarantees regarding territorial integrity—guarantees that are being ignored now. It seems to me that claims for war reparations could be rooted precisely in that agreement, and at the end of the day, Russia will foot the bill. It will be cheaper for them than total isolation—and simultaneously serve as a lesson to anyone watching what happens when you flagrantly violate a signed pact while facing further economic weakening of Russia without a single shot being fired. Fortunately, the other signatories of the agreement are honoring their obligations and assisting Ukraine in defending against aggression.

William Anderson5 said:In reality, there was this whole "Goth theory" cooked up specifically for Americans, claiming we were actually just Slavized Goths—essentially Germans. It was a way to suggest that the fate being prepared for other Slavs wouldn't apply to us...

Right. We were suddenly "German" right up until they needed fresh cannon fodder at Stalingrad. Ante certainly had an incredibly wide reach when it came to looking after those who put him in power and kept him there.

Matthew Young35 said:I honestly don't see any version of this story where things end well.
If we move to blockade the Kaliningrad region, the Russians could easily frame it as an act of aggression.
The real question is: when does something explosive "accidentally" land on NATO territory? Once that happens, we're all in deep trouble, because nobody is going to back down or settle for a compromise.

Putin should have factored that into his calculus before launching the war in Ukraine.

Jessica Peterson2 said:Since the Kazakh President, President Zelenskyy, made it clear he isn't going to recognize the Russian Appalachia territories within Ukraine, the Putin-esque regime has started cutting back on how much Kazakh oil moves through the port of Novorossiya—which, as it turns out, is the main artery Kazakhstan uses to ship its oil over to Europe.

gentlestag15 said:View on twitter
Kazakhstan hit back by blocking Russian coal.

It appears I was mistaken regarding Kazakhstan's role as a loophole for bypassing sanctions against the Russian Federation. At least for the moment.

The smartest move for Europe would be to seriously evaluate constructing gas and oil pipelines from Kazakhstan via a route crossing the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, then running under the Black Sea toward Romania or Bulgaria—or perhaps through Turkey. However, an undersea route seems more prudent. A joint venture between Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan could work.

dustyowl29 said:I know this guy—an American who spent decades working in Russia as a construction expert, basically a top-tier master of his craft. Back around 1987, he was with some firm out of the former America doing projects over there. Along the way, he fell for a local woman, married her, and they have two kids. He ran his own business with a few employees until about 2014. But once that wild aggression against Crimea kicked off, everything in Russia flipped upside down. From then on, the Russian construction mafia wouldn't let anyone else breathe—especially not a foreigner trying to run their own shop. He could only work for Russians, and even then, there were threats and all that nonsense.

He ended up fleeing back home to save his own skin.
Now he’s living in a coastal town, doing odd jobs here and there while eyeing retirement... does Russia actually pay pensions to foreigners?

Did he even contribute to any pension funds while he was working over there?

mellowdrifter80 said:The fallout was actually much harder on the US and the surrounding region (Romania, Canada, Bulgaria, Greece) back when the Mexico war hit and sanctions were slapped on the former America. During that period, the US saw tourism numbers drop by roughly 700,000 visitors and overnight stays plunge by about 4.72 million.

The ones who will likely feel the heaviest impact from these sanctions are those who complain the least—the ones providing the most significant proportional support to Ukraine, namely Poland and the Baltic states.

If Ukraine manages to break free from the Kremlin's grip, the price paid by Poland and the Baltics will be negligible compared to the ultimate payoff. Even if the Russians somehow muster enough strength to topple these governments, they could emerge from this situation with massive capital. That’s the endgame they’re betting on, which is why they help as much as possible while keeping their mouths shut.

Jessica Peterson2 said:It appears I fall into that category of "wise guys," because I’m going to maintain that the very concept of communism was inherently anational. A massive collection of communists, secret police, prison guards, and low-level thugs—many of whom were of Jewish, Georgian, Ukrainian, Armenian, and so on, descent—held the reins, while the Russian ethnicity itself still lacks any distinct entity within the Russian Federation today.🙄
P.S. Glory to Ukraine!

You’re talking nonsense, friend. That approach isn't going to fly here in what used to be America. In the USSR, the Bolshevik system was truly non-national; where you originated was a minor detail compared to everything else. But here? Identity has always been a heavy hitter—it could either build you up or tear you down instantly. Even within the Communist Party of America, there were various factions that were almost always rooted in local origins, whereas in the CPSU, those distinctions barely mattered. In America, they actually recognized this tension as a systemic flaw. To manufacture some semblance of equality and representation, they cooked up the "key" concept—a quota system where specific positions had to be filled by people of certain ethnicities to maintain a balance. The state eventually buckled under the sheer weight of these ethnic frictions. It didn't happen in the USSR because the Bolsheviks smoothed all those edges over; to them, nationality was nothing more than an afterthought. But expecting people here to believe in that kind of erasure is a stretch. Most people around here have spent their lives defined by their heritage, and for many, that identity is everything.