Posts by Nancy Gomez26

Betty Murphy3 said:Too damn right. It's the same story everywhere—nobody actually wants a war, and in the beginning, most people aren't ready for the reality of it. But sacrifice has a way of shifting things; it builds morale and creates a level of readiness you didn't have before. Once that initial shock wears off, the smoke and the rubble don't scare you anymore—you just start looking for the person responsible. The enemy knows exactly what they've destroyed, but there's a psychological component here that can't be ignored. War psychology is a brutal thing—whoever masters it first usually walks away with the win.

An aggressor rarely feels at home when invading someone else's territory; there is no comfort in occupying land where you aren't wanted. Those watching their childhood homes go up in flames... they have a motivation that no amount of training can replicate.

Jack Kelly5 said:That sounds like something you'd tell a toddler. If Russia ever decides to push toward the Baltic, I have a feeling NATO and the USA might just end up sitting on their hands... and staying right where they are.

If NATO fails to act, then that treaty is nothing more than expensive scrap paper.
The USA and the EU understand perfectly well that credibility depends on one thing: honoring commitments without hesitation. NATO functions as a system that demands total commitment from every player, yet in return, it provides far more collective strength than any single nation could muster alone. It’s up to Putin to weigh those consequences. My sense is that once he's finished in Ukraine, he won't even be dreaming of occupying Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia; he'll be too busy trying to hold onto power in the Kremlin.

William Anderson5 said:NATO might stay on the sidelines, but are you really certain the Americans won't move into Western Ukraine to establish a buffer zone if the situation spirals out of control?

There's just no way the US allows Russia to get close enough to their border to start running military exercises right on their doorstep in a couple of years...

That's highly unlikely. It’s much simpler, cheaper, and safer to maintain an independent, friendly Ukraine as a shield between themselves and the Russian Federation. If Ukraine somehow manages to drive the occupiers out of its territory—Poland wins regardless. They end up with a reliable ally sitting right on their eastern border.

Samuel Jones8 said:At the end of the day, Putin needs to be held accountable, and I don't just mean for the lives of Ukrainians, but for all those young Russian kids he's basically throwing into the meat grinder just to satisfy his own twisted ambitions.

Precisely. However, that's an internal reckoning that only the Russians can truly settle among themselves.

neonbison6 said:Now this is what I call real resistance against the occupiers! In this video, you can see Ukrainian citizens using Molotov cocktails to push back the Russians.

It’s essentially the warm welcome one gives to uninvited guests.

Tyler Jones6 said:Poland has essentially gone all-in on Ukraine—it seems they’re one of the few nations that truly understands that what happens there is actually a defense of multiple countries against a future invasion by a manic Putin. Their truck convoys are already rolling with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry.

Kudos to Poland; frankly, some other countries should be embarrassed by their hesitation and perhaps try taking a page out of Poland's book.

For Poland, a sovereign Ukraine is a matter of vital national security. If their assessment is that this administration can hold its own against Russia, then sending aid is simply the logical conclusion. (In my view, their decision to provide help serves as a barometer for the actual situation on the ground). Past conflicts belong in history books; we are watching a new era of history being written in real-time.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:So, Kazakhstan basically told Russia to kick rocks when it came to recognizing the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk. It’s a pretty wild move considering how tight they usually are with Moscow, and it's definitely something that's got Putin scratching his head.

Whoa, okay, didn't see that one coming.

It’s either a minor gesture or nothing at all. Kazakhstan is preoccupied with its own domestic headaches right now. Besides, if they maintain this veneer of 'neutrality' regarding the conflict, it provides a convenient bypass for sanctions. It’s essentially a performance for the cameras—a way to ensure Kazakhstan stays off the sanction lists.

velvetmason14 said:Unfortunately, I tend to agree that this is the closest version of the truth.

The West and the Ukrainians seem more focused on Twitter and information warfare while the Russians continue their advance. They really should have prepared for all of this much more seriously. It looks like they were convinced right up until the last second that Putin was just bluffing.

Interesting read:
ECONOMIST WARNS / Everyone is avoiding the one sanction that might actually work, the EU is weakening, inflation is climbing, and politicians are just hiding behind slogans.

The West warned an invasion was coming, but I didn't buy it. (Why would you trust the same crowd that went looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and found absolutely nothing?) But this time, they were right. Defying all rational logic, he attacked, and he clearly has a specific agenda. It appears his goal is a rapid regime change in Kyiv, thinking that will be enough. He still hasn't grasped that the will of the people actually matters. Does he honestly think he can hold a country under occupation for years? That would economically bankrupt Russia.

gentleharbor3 said:I think Zelenskyy will survive,
and all this pathetic sentimentality will age poorly in some Sean Penn documentary.
I highly doubt he's some local hero charging tanks with nothing.
He spends more time on Twitter than your average armchair general,
but information warfare is still a critical part of combat,
so credit where it's due regarding keeping Ukrainian morale up!
He handles that perfectly.

Zelenskyy's role, at least for now, isn't to personally charge a tank. There are plenty of others tasked with that specific job. And it is certain that this war, much like any other, will produce its own set of heroes.

Rachel Barrett8 said:Germany even sent over helmets.

Why not just send 200 Leopard 2 tanks and be done with it?

They’ve already deployed far more tanks than those meager 200 you're asking for.

Rachel Barrett8 said:Spot on.
Out of everyone in NATO, it seems like only Turkey is actually pushing for real action and providing actual support to Ukraine.

So much for the "West."
They'll turn their backs on you before you even realize what happened.

While Turkey calls for decisive moves, Poland is out there actually shipping munitions and weapons.

Sam Alvarez4 said:I stopped reading right after that because the phrasing was just so ugly. Honestly, I've never seen anything more crude or primitive...

There are young people among the Russians too—conscripts who never even got a say about going to Ukraine. They're there simply because they have no choice.

The paranoid autocrat in the Kremlin and his followers are one thing. But those young conscripts, whose lives mean absolutely nothing to the Kremlin? That's a whole different story...

In that case, let those draftees on this "intervention" in Ukraine just lay down their weapons. I doubt the Ukrainians will hold it against them.

Laura Scott7 said:Give me a break. Hitler actually sent over an ultimatum to the Poles just a few days prior—basically "surrender or it's war"—and they stood their ground because the British were backing them up, refusing to blink. Does that sound familiar to anyone else out there?

Even if they had conceded everything, it wouldn't have delayed the onset of WWII. Instead, the Americans fought bravely, holding out as long as possible on both fronts—and history will remember that.
On the other hand, how does history remember someone like Chamberlain?

urbanotter said:It will probably happen sooner rather than later.

It isn't really surprising when you take a look at the massive gap in military strength.

And honestly, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that even the Ukrainians themselves aren't exactly eager to lose their lives just to serve someone else's interests.
Now they're talking about mobilizing people over 70,
though I can't help but wonder if this is just more media hype designed to grab headlines.

Self-reliance, independence, sovereignty, the freedom of their own nation—those are *their* interests, not "someone else's."

Douglas Davis4 said:At any rate... Russia is heading into reverse in the long run.
But honestly, what can you even expect from people who care more about feeling powerful than actually being free? They just project that insecurity onto the rest of the world.
They’ve always had this deep-seated, latent need to feel "great," regardless of how much suffering they cause others in the process.
That’s why this isn't just about Ukraine.

It isn't just "others" who suffer—they are tearing themselves apart too. Do you really think the Russian military isn't paying the price in lives?

Betty Murphy3 said:Back at the start of our own war, the Mexicans seized far more territory from us—an entire third of our country was under occupation—and yet, nobody blinked. These are just the opening salvos of a conflict that could, unfortunately, drag on for a long time. Of course, Ukrainians will lose ground in some places and gain it in others, much like we did during our struggle. You don't win a war in a single battle. The reality is that the Russians are on foreign soil now, and they’ve made a massive miscalculation if they think they can simply swallow a nation with this kind of population.

The truth? Ukrainians don't possess the same sense of moral imperative that we had, and certainly, not every Ukrainian is as motivated as we were back in the 1990s—though there are enough who are.

That little man has convinced himself he's invincible, likely riding high on his "successes" in Syria and similar episodes. But Ukraine isn't Afghanistan or Georgia. The Russians have completely lost their minds; whatever they're doing is going to cost them dearly, no matter how you look at it. Putin has unleashed an evil that will haunt him as much as it haunts the Ukrainians. And I doubt Russian mothers will be particularly pleased when this war begins to stretch out indefinitely.

The difference is that the Ukrainians actually have a structured, armed military—whereas we were building ours from scratch while the bullets were already flying.

William Anderson5 said:Oh, I see. So an invasion is perfectly acceptable then. Thanks for pointing that out; plenty of us were under the mistaken impression that invading a country was actually a crime. Apparently, the Ukrainians just lack the proper paperwork, and suddenly everything is fine.

Actually, they do have a document with all the necessary signatures—it just lacks a notary's seal. Having learned from that particular blunder, MOST made sure to have their documentation notarized.

hollowwalker24 said:Russia’s sense of NATO ‘betrayal’—and why it actually matters right now

The idea that The Soviet union was tricked back in '89-'90 is pretty much the core of why Russia is clashing with the West today

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-matters-today

Basically, this is why Putin is so livid—back in '90, the U.S. Secretary of State allegedly promised Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand any further east than Germany. It felt like a total bait-and-switch

Some older analysis too, I guess:

Why Crisis is The West ’

Fault The liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...s-west-s-fault

Full text here:

https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-conte...-Crisis-Is.pdf

[/I]

If we follow Putin's logic—that because of Maidan, Ukraine is essentially a different state and the Budapest Memorandum no longer applies—then he should logically apply that same reasoning to the verbal assurances allegedly given to the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. That was a state that no longer exists. He would be invoking promises made to the USSR while simultaneously stripping Ukraine (the very same state) of its right to choose its own leadership.🕺

urbanotter said:Honestly, Zelenskyy is such a comedian; it’s a good thing he didn't suggest Kyiv as the meeting spot.

Proposing Minsk is a joke, especially when you have attacks coming into Ukraine from Belarus. Warsaw might not be the perfect fix right now, but it's certainly more realistic than Minsk. In the end, we'll likely see Budapest, Turkey, or some other neutral third party—assuming a meeting even happens. This push for a summit seems rushed; it feels like someone isn't performing particularly well on the ground.

Justin Kern67 said:To be perfectly honest, until a few days ago, I hadn't even heard of SWIFT and have no idea how it could actually affect an economy. However, I discovered that back in 2012, during certain sanctions, Iran was cut off from SWIFT, and I see no evidence that it hindered them—if anything, it did the opposite.

When you get cut off from Swift, a nation—and every single business operating within its borders—loses the ability to move money electronically. That’s when the desperate measures start: barter systems, shadow trade, all that. But those workarounds aren't free. It gets expensive for anyone trying to play by those rules. Oil isn't selling for $100 a barrel anymore; it's worth significantly less when you have to move it through the cracks. You end up dealing in cash, where money tends to vanish into the pockets of countless middlemen. You can't just buy goods through standard channels; you need intermediaries, which adds another layer of cost. For a country, it’s a massive, systemic handicap.