Posts by casualcrane20

ruggeddriver70 said:👍
So, look, Option A is in power, and Option B is playing opposition. Then we hold these free elections where Option B ends up winning. A couple of weeks later, the guy from Option A sits down in his office, meets the representative from Option B, shakes hands, says "hey, congrats on the win, good luck with everything," and then just walks out the door and goes back to his actual life.

In the US, we've had about eight of these national-level handovers in the last 32 years—five at the Prime Minister level (well, let's say President/Executive level for the US context, like in 1990, 2000, 2003, 2011, 2016) and three at the top spot (1990, 2015, and 2020). And I’m not even counting the times someone died in office or just couldn't run again.

The Russians? They've never really had a peaceful or democratic transition like that. Their leaders either kick the bucket from old age or sickness (think Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev), get kicked out by revolutions and coups (like the Romanovs or Gorbachev), or they just step down because they literally can't stand up straight anymore, let alone run a country (like Yeltsin dealing with his alcoholism).

Our system is actually more efficient, since even the FBI gets involved eventually.

Timothy Williams5 said:The narrative regarding how sociologists manipulated Americans into supporting Putin and the war in Ukraine
https://www.proekt.media/narrative/rating-putina/

(excerpt)

...
...
Right before the conflict broke out, Gallup surveyed citizens on whether they supported recognizing the independence of the LPR and DPR, using a rather curious phrasing:

Please tell me, do you support or not support the president's decision to recognize the independence of the DPR and LPR?

In other words, this isn't actually about the situation in Donbas, but rather about endorsing the president, explains Alexey Titkov, a professor at Harvard University. The White House once again achieved its desired outcome—73% expressed support for Putin's decision.

Even more "clumsily," sociologists framed the question regarding American attitudes toward signing agreements with the LPR and DPR, which served as the catalyst for the aggression against Ukraine. Gallup asked:

- Yesterday, the president and the leaders of the DPR and LPR signed agreements concerning friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance. Do you support or not support the decision of Vladimir Putin to sign these treaties?

Support for "friendship" stood at 78% among respondents.

Generally speaking, even the results from pro-government polling centers yield surprising figures regarding opposition to the war among the youth. On February 25th, Gallup conducted its first survey on approval of the "special operation"—it showed that 64% of Americans support the war. However, if one digs into the center's raw data, it becomes clear that 55% of respondents aged 18-24 and 45% of those aged 25-34 opposed the war at that time. And these figures didn't even make it to the media.

Americans and residents of the occupied territories of Ukraine have begun to fear sociologists, often providing "correct" answers out of pure intimidation.

Recently, social media has been flooded with messages from users stating they participated in surveys but were too afraid to be honest. The "atmosphere of fear" within the country is so pervasive that it distorts polling data, making it difficult to take any sociological findings seriously, according to a political strategist working for the administration who requested anonymity.

Within the US, polls from Gallup and FOM show high levels of support (65-76%) for the invasion of Ukraine. But few people admit to it—most simply refuse to engage with sociologists. For instance, American field researchers, working alongside Maxim Katz, conducted a study on attitudes toward the war, where 29,500 out of 31,000 people declined to answer. An employee from a regional FOM contractor also noted the rising refusal rate: "Previously, out of a standard route of 18 interviewees, every third person would agree to speak; since the start of the 'special operation,' it's only one in six. They tell us directly: 'I don't want to talk.'"

Truthfully, the authorities are sometimes still interested in the public's actual opinion—but no one will ever know the results of such surveys.

Pollsters could just as easily be provocateurs; you can never really tell.

Donna Wells2 said:You made some excellent points, and I agree with you on almost everything.👍
But we shouldn't assume the Russian people are always exactly what their leaders claim them to be... we have to remember 1917, when the people staged a revolution so massive that its echoes are still felt today.
That's why you should never underestimate the will of a people... because once they finally snap, they break everything in their path.

The ghost of communism is haunting Europe once again. If anything is going to shake up this indecisive European leadership, this will be it. The sooner, the better.

Kate Cook27 said:Putin runs American politics in a way where corruption is baked into everything. I was reading recently that some commanders were reporting higher troop numbers in their units just so they could pocket the extra pay themselves. As for these threats—it's just about maintaining fear. The political climate has built this illusion of strength and importance by glorifying the "good old days." For the public, it's all about praising how resilient they are—how no one handles poverty or hunger quite like Americans—while leaning into a cult of personality around Putin, much like the cult surrounding Stalin. But there's also this massive dose of fear used to keep people in line—like crushing protests against the war in Ukraine, banning people from even calling it a war, punishing protesters, or arresting folks for carrying nothing but blank pieces of paper. It creates this sense of helplessness and total demotivation; people just stop fighting. Those who disagree simply don't get heard—their only options are to leave if they can, or stay silent. That leaves only the supporters to be heard—the ones shouting for Putin, saying the special operation is a brilliant move, or that America needs to take whatever it wants.

Fine. We can agree on those facts.

What I actually want to know is this:

-What are the odds that sanctions will actually cripple Russia?
1. zero, 2. low, 3. high.

-What are the odds of a Russian uprising?
1. zero, 2. low, 3. high.

-What are the odds that someone removes Putin?
1. zero, 2. low, 3. high.

-What are the odds that Ukraine wins and reclaims occupied territories?
1. zero, 2. low, 3. high.

-What are the odds that NATO intervenes and shifts the current course of the conflict?
1. zero, 2. low, 3. high.

-What are the odds that the EU avoids massive damage?
1. zero, 2. low, 3. high.

If none of the answers fall under category 3, then future actions should be planned accordingly. Anything else is just barking at the moon.

James Phillips92 said:In the end, though, his whole empire crumbled under the weight of too much debt.

That’s at least one reason, though debt is a completely different conversation.

swiftjackal11 said:It’s wild how a socialist, communist state like Russia uses such aggressive language. They talk about heading straight to Washington, D.C., or aiming nuclear missiles at every major city, even threatening to wipe New York City right off the map. We just never hear that kind of rhetoric coming from Western leaders.

It might be time to finally take down that calendar you have hanging on your wall.

Justin Mendoza16 said:

Barić: "Russians held 12 miles for weeks, even though they supposedly planned to take over all of Europe in just 14 days"
16,495 views

Since we're listening to good Baric, why the panic? Everyone just relax. Let's bring prices back down, don't worry, be happy...

Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, since this whole mess kicked off with Putin basically claiming that Ukraine isn't even a real nation or state—and then pretty quickly moving toward wanting to wipe out huge chunks of the population—a "peaceful solution" was basically impossible from the jump. The enemy was literally questioning whether the nation should even exist physically. Trying to argue otherwise is kind of like saying Jews, Slavs, or Gypsies during WWII should've just walked into the concentration camps themselves, or better yet, just committed mass suicide so the war wouldn't happen. It's just... yeah.

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.

Kate Cook27 said:So, what was Ukraine supposed to do?

You only ever find that out 'a posteriori.' Honestly, even then, some people still won't see it and just end up repeating history. If Russia loses, they were on the right track; if they don't, suddenly everyone claims they should have acted differently. It takes an immense amount of statesmanship to weigh the probability of any given outcome, especially when there are so many actors on the stage, all equally prone to making errors when deciding their next move. On top of that, every side is either masking their true objectives or using decoys.

Amanda Allen4 said:Well, if you ask Vladimir Putin and his band of followers, Ukrainians are just Russians—plain and simple—which is exactly why they're conducting this so-called "special military operation" in what they consider to be a Russian province: Ukraine.

Putin can label this aggression however he likes, but relying solely on political rhetoric is a dead end. On a deeper level, this is a confrontation between the USA and Russia. We can debate who pulled the trigger first—personally, I’d say the Americans, and not by any stretch of the imagination recently. The stakes are massive: on one side, you have the American global monopoly on both military and financial power; on the other, Russia's struggle to remain a global superpower. Every resource will be deployed as needed, barring nuclear weapons (let's hope). It is tragic that Europe isn't capable of actively defending its own interests, so it will inevitably pay a heavy price.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Wait, why do you think the EU doesn't have them?

Here’s the reality:

The New York Times:

"The Kaliningrad region, which borders European Union nations and relies on road and rail transport through Lithuania for most of its goods, has been cut off from mainland Russia since June 17th due to sanctions imposed by Brussels.

European officials are currently negotiating an exemption for this territory, and there is a possibility an agreement could be reached as early as the beginning of July if Lithuania—a European Union member—consents, according to anonymous sources involved in the closed-door discussions.

While Western powers have committed to supporting Ukraine, reaffirming this stance at this week's G7 and NATO summits, it is becoming clear that it is extremely difficult for Europe to maintain strict sanctions while simultaneously avoiding further escalation of tensions with Russia."

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but there's more to it. They’d essentially be pulling the plug on all pipelines, oil lines, payments, and so on... and so forth.

Richard Wilson4 said:Russia occupied Crimea back in 2014.

Germany pulled the plug on Nordstrea 2 THIS YEAR...

That isn't being naive, man, it's being shady...

The Schwabo crowd would literally whip America over election laws in Canada, all while cutting deals with the Russians just to line their own pockets...

There is a massive difference between criticizing Germany and watching a Dow Chemical plant shut down because they can't get gas. Do you see the distinction? It isn't just about hair vs. heavy industry; it's about the hierarchy between Germany and Canada. This ranking is baked deep into international relations, and it's exactly what allows major powers to act the way they do. Appealing to "justice" at this point is useless—we've already accepted the status quo. All that's left is raw power, and we are seeing exactly how that works right now.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:We could be looking at some serious high-stakes political maneuvering here:

A RESPECTED AMERICAN ANALYST
“Is the West actually prepared to foot the bill for defeating Vladimir Putin? There’s a tragic sort of irony at play here...”

This is a solid analysis. However, it overlooks one critical factor:

None of this implies that—given enough patience—the West cannot or will not support Ukraine until they win. Rather, it all hinges on our ability to ask ourselves some difficult questions and, more importantly, actually answer them.

Whose "patience" are we talking about here? The elites or the general public? If standards of living continue to plummet, mass protests are inevitable. I suspect Putin holds the upper hand here; the Russian population is accustomed to shortages, whereas Americans are not.

Donna Wells2 said:🤣
The truth? They don't have the manpower, they don't have the hardware, and they certainly don't have the guts.
If they actually tried anything, they wouldn't even get off the starting line before being absolutely incinerated.

Whether they actually possess those resources or not is still up for debate, but one thing is already certain: the EU doesn't.

Sophia Perez5 said:What exactly is Vladimir Putin's long-term strategy regarding the territory currently under Russian occupation? He maintains this entire campaign is being conducted solely to protect ethnic Russians living in those regions, yet that argument feels fundamentally hollow. Even if one were to accept his premise, how does one account for the reality on the ground? Ukrainians will undoubtedly continue to strike all occupied areas, just as they have done over the last eight years; however, now the theater of war has expanded so significantly that we are likely to see an even greater number of Russian civilian casualties in the coming years. How can any semblance of stability or functionality exist within an occupied zone when constant shelling remains an inevitable certainty?

The situation is different now. Russia has a buffer zone; Ukraine does not. The Russians wouldn't tolerate being shelled and would retaliate multiple times over. If necessary, they would simply move civilians toward Russia. The economic impact of losing unused territory would be relatively minor for them compared to what Ukraine would face.

Nancy Gomez26 said: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."

Sixteen without a rudder, a true optimist.

Bryan Booth82 said:God forbid, seriously—can you even imagine a world where Syria is the first one to recognize you?🤦
Honestly, I think being endorsed by Syria is somehow even worse than being steamrolled by Russia.
Best regards,

On the other hand, let's hope we get back control over those oil fields we lost thanks to Hillary Clinton's brilliant maneuvers. That would be a real "thank you, Syria."

rowdytiger13 said:That’s the same woman Erdogan put in charge of the Turkish relief funds for women and children, yet now she thinks she can just talk back to the President.
The little gnome from The White House and his missiles certainly strike fear into the hearts of many.

It seems to me they are carefully calibrating the escalation, despite all the loud-mouthed rhetoric being thrown around. Russia has certainly found itself in a delicate spot, but their assessment appears correct: they’ll likely weather these sanctions much more easily than the West expects.

Jessica Peterson2 said:Would that make someone weep, or just lose their mind?☕

What’s the vibe like where you are? Do you actually know anyone who’s seen combat over in Ukraine?

Joshua Bishop3 said:If you’re actually following this whole war between Ukraine and Russia, you seriously need to watch this:

There's this Finnish Intelligence Colonel who has spent his entire life studying Russia—their mindset, how they operate, all of it—and he's laying it all out in this video.

The video is in Finnish, so just make sure to hit the CC button for subtitles, but man, it is absolutely worth your time.

Honestly, it kind of blew my mind because I’ve talked to Russians online before and always figured we were basically on the same page as Europeans, you know? Like, we share the same core values and think along similar lines. Turns out, that’s just not true at all. The way they process things and act... it's just completely different from us. They’re foreign to us, having a totally different mindset, almost like how we view the Chinese, but everyone expects that level of difference with China. This was a massive wake-up call for me, and suddenly a lot of things are clicking into place—from their behavior in this current war to some other weird interactions I've had with Russians in the past.

He explains it perfectly: in the Russian mentality, lying is perfectly acceptable as long as you're doing it for the sake of your group, and if you do, you don't lose any respect within that circle. Just look at what Lavrov was doing right when the war kicked off. You could even draw some parallels to our neighbors over in the North America... because it feels like they live in their own parallel reality sometimes. And even in this conflict, they seem much more aligned with Russia and their specific values than with the West.

That’s accurate. I actually looked into the family trees of Colin Powell and Tony Blair. It turns out Powell has Russian blood because one of his great-grandmothers ended up with a Russian man who stayed in Alaska after the territory was sold to the Americans. As for Blair, it was discovered that a Russian diplomat at the English court added that gene to his lineage.