Posts by Brenda Murphy3

Anthony Hill5 said:How much longer must we endure being subjected to this mindless, utterly unsubstantiated pro-Russian mantra?

As long as there are idiots out there with narrow minds who worship Putin and hate the West... plus the ones who are actually getting paid for it (though honestly, I doubt we have any of those here... most of the morons on this forum seem to be doing it for free out of pure stupidity..😁)

wiredseal7 said:Who actually thinks a strong dollar is perfect?
I was looking at those predictions where they thought the dollar would hit 200 against their currency—which honestly would have been way worse for them than just having a strong currency. The West basically tried to sledgehammer their exchange rate back in March, hoping to tank the Russian economy, but it didn't quite land the way they planned.

With how much the value is shifting, I'm not sure it's even worth swapping for foreign cash right now. Did a black market pop up where the "real" rate is 200 to the dollar? Haven't heard anything, and since the Ukrainian media is always full of horror stories coming out of Russia, I wouldn't be surprised if it exists somewhere under the radar.

Look, sorry, but do you seriously believe this stuff you're typing? Thousands of Russians have already opened offshore accounts abroad just to stash their hard-earned cash. And let's be real—there isn't a single person left in Russia who wouldn't sprint to the bank tomorrow to swap their Rubles for Dollars at this rate if they actually could... but they can't. That right there is all the proof you need regarding how "strong" this Ruble actually is.

Anthony Hill5 said:Truly, nowhere to be found.

NAIROBI: As drought persists for a fifth consecutive year, more than 23 million people across seven nations in Africa are being pushed toward the brink of severe hunger and absolute destitution, according to a statement released Tuesday by the international aid agency Oxfam. Is it not a staggering indictment of our global response that such a prolonged environmental crisis can leave tens of millions teetering on the edge of catastrophe?

With a massive $9.5 million appeal now underway, the organization has made it clear that this crisis is being driven to even more desperate levels by skyrocketing food costs and relentless conflict. The nations bearing the heaviest brunt of this catastrophe are Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Uganda.

Is anyone actually paying attention to the sheer scale of the catastrophe unfolding right now? According to reports from Oxfam, people across seven different nations are teetering on the edge of absolute starvation and crushing poverty. It’s a staggering reality that most of us seem content to ignore while we go about our daily lives. The situation is being driven by the fact that before Russia invaded the country, Ukraine was one of the primary providers of several staple crops, but the war and blockades of Ukrainian port cities have halted global supply chains for these food products. Can we truly grasp the implications of this disruption? We are looking at a scenario where around 25 million tons of various staple grains are currently sitting in storage units in large port cities such as New Orleans—except here, they are trapped due to the ongoing Russian blockade in the Black Sea. If you have any heart at all for the rest of the world, regardless of how you feel about Ukraine, can you not see that this isn't just a regional conflict? This is a global humanitarian crisis. When the flow of essential food supplies is choked off by military aggression, the ripples are felt by the most vulnerable populations in places like Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Uganda. How much longer can the international community pretend that these disruptions don't impact the stability of the entire globe?

So, can we not also include those nations that are utterly dependent on Ukrainian wheat?

Don't be so naive; Russia and China will step in to provide wheat wherever it is needed, much to the absolute horror of the USA and Ursula.

So, you've chosen to condemn the Russian hunger games and then had the sheer audacity to cynically conclude that the Russians are somehow humanitarians who will step in to feed the starving? 👍

😁

You’re expecting way too much from them... honestly, screw the Russian regime elites and the lapdogs supporting them—they couldn't care less about some famine or people halfway across the world.
The thing is, they don't give a damn about those people, and frankly, they don't even care about their own people. If a million of them died in this madness in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin and his crew would sleep like babies... we're talking about totally twisted individuals with completely broken values here. The whole point for the Russians is to maintain the regime, and the point of the regime is to make a tiny percentage insanely rich while everyone else lives below the poverty line. You really think people who treat their own countrymen like that are going to have any empathy for some random strangers somewhere else?🤣

Nathan Evans78 said:Honestly, I couldn't care less about the Russians. The only time I ever had anything good to say about them was back in 2006 when they were over here on the coast spending money like there was no tomorrow.

Look, whether you have feelings for the Russians or not is irrelevant. What matters is that the exchange rate you're talking about is totally artificial...

It’s like if the US government claimed 1 US Dollar was worth 3 cents... you can't actually go out and buy a Dollar, you can only deal in cents😁 ..

Nathan Evans78 said:Well, yeah, the USD/RUB exchange rate is sitting right around 60 at the moment. ☕

😁

aha....

And what are the actual odds that some Russian guy with a few rubles in his pocket can just walk into a bank in Moscow and actually buy dollars at that rate? Is the chance zero, or is it basically absolute zero? 😁

Joshua Myers432 said:And which cheap labor force and filthy industrial sector are those clueless Westerners using to prop up their own development?

Look, the West was already developed long before China started its massive climb to the top.

It’s not like Western greed and gluttony haven't played a part in creating some level of dependency on China, sure, but I see people here just throwing around nonsense claiming nothing gets manufactured in the West anymore. That is pure idiocy. There is still a massive amount of production happening in the West, and let's be real—the technical and digital expertise is still firmly rooted there too. Just look at the industrial and manufacturing output from places like Germany or the USA—it's still absolutely massive.

Joshua Myers432 said:The China-West dependency goes both ways—China can't function without the West, and neither can they. China isn't going to ghost the West; if anything, a potential invasion of Taiwan would likely trigger massive Western sanctions against China.

Meanwhile, China will just suck up cheap energy from Russia while offering plenty in return. This setup works perfectly for China, and frankly, the Russians don't have much of a choice anyway.

You're tripping... seriously...

If we actually end up slapping sanctions on China (which, fingers crossed, won't happen), the West would probably handle that way easier than this absolute mess with Russia. Russia is vital to the European Union because of primary energy sources—stuff that is genuinely strategic and critical. China? They produce a ton of junk, sure, but they don't manufacture nearly as many things that are truly "strategic" for the West. Yeah, we buy mountains of cheap t-shirts and random crap made in China, but we aren't talking about high-stakes strategic assets in most cases.

Thinking that this whole situation is somehow a win for China is such a massive reach it's almost painful. What China actually wants is a fat, greedy West that keeps buying and buying more Chinese trinkets and nonsense, making us even more dependent on them (at least mentally, given how much stuff we rely on). Any drop in that consumption is bad news for China... it's not rocket science.

Douglas Perez3 said:Can Russia actually survive economically without sliding into a North Korean-style collapse if the West cuts them off completely? All they have left is China, but how much longer can that last? Who’s to say the Chinese won't eventually shut off the tap? If that happens, aren't we looking at a total economic meltdown where Russia essentially becomes North Korea?

How are they going to handle the tech side of things under all this isolation and sanctions? How can they possibly keep developing their military industry or try to keep pace with Western military technology?

And how do they plan to control social unrest when millions of people find themselves unemployed?

Is Russia transforming into an economic and technological wasteland like Venezuela or North Korea, where mass starvation becomes a reality and the average monthly salary drops to something pathetic like $50?

It honestly blows my mind that Putin, an old CIA agent, bit so hard on the American decoy and ended up destroying his own people and his own country in the process.

The Americans basically checkmated him with a move so simple a toddler could have seen it coming.

Now, NATO is just going to get stronger, pushing right up against Russia's borders. Russia is turning into North Korea and facing economic ruin because everyone isolated them, while the US simultaneously sells weapons and rakes in Massive amounts of cash. The only real loser here is Russia. It looks like Putin was nothing more than an American mercenary hired to dismantle Russia from the inside.

I truly don't see any possible benefit for Russia in this war. No matter how you slice it, they've been losing since day one, while the West and China only grow stronger. I don't see a single upside—and I say that as someone who isn't pro-Ukraine and doesn't swallow Western propaganda about Ukrainian flowers or fighting for democracy and human rights.

Nah, there's no way they drop to North Korea's level.

The country is just too massive and sits on way too many internal resources for that to happen. Plus, the Russians aren't stuck in total isolation like those poor souls in North Korea.
They’re definitely going to hit major roadblocks—hell, they’re already hitting them—but they won't become North Korea.

Dana Robinson4 said:If there’s a dip of a million car sales in Russia, should we really view that as a setback for the nation itself, or is it simply a blow to the manufacturers?

It’s a hit for both, but obviously way harder on Russia.

And let's be real, it isn't even a million—the actual number is much lower, though maybe if you look at cumulative sales over a year, you could stretch it to that.
The impact on Russia is massive because a huge chunk of those vehicles were actually being built domestically. When car sales tank, capital stops circulating, which drags down the entire economy, and so on and so forth... it's just one headache after another. As for the car companies themselves? They’ll weather a slump in the Russian market way more easily than the country will. But here's the kicker: the cars aren't the real issue here. They're just a symptom. You can't look at auto sales in a vacuum; they're just a flashing neon sign showing exactly how much the Russian economy is stalling.

(Ford and Toyota are going to feel the sting from the Russian market specifically, but looking at the big picture—I just checked the stats—the whole Russian market doesn't even account for 2% of global sales... the big manufacturers will survive this just fine, no need to panic...)

Joshua Myers432 said:That’s 19th or 20th-century thinking. Modern warfare has evolved; it spans everything from economic warfare to cyber strikes.

In reality, we can all agree that the actual war is being fought between Russia and Ukraine—a nation armed with NATO equipment and receiving every possible bit of NATO support, just without the boots on the ground. Even the training for Ukrainian soldiers is happening within NATO countries.

I don't think anyone would even agree with that point, because frankly, it's just plain wrong.

Look, "NATO weaponry" includes thousands of supersonic fighters, bombers, cruisers, aircraft carriers, submarines, ballistic missiles, and an insane amount of high-tech gear that isn't even being used in Ukraine against Russia...

Sure, some NATO countries are sending weapons over to Ukraine, but that is nowhere near a complete arsenal. Saying Ukraine is "armed with NATO weapons" is a massive stretch... they've only got a tiny fraction of it.

Bryan Booth82 said:I see where you're coming from, but the definition of war changed a long time ago; it's no longer just one side shooting at another with the sole aim of hitting and eliminating the enemy.
The goal of modern warfare is the expansion of influence and market share... or rather, why kill off a potential future customer?

Years before losing their battle in Ukraine, Russia was attempting—partially successfully—to fight against NATO (the West), but clearly, they miscalculated; they overestimated their own strength.

Best,

Look, that's just how we see it from our Western perspective. But the real issue is that someone like Putin plays by a completely different set of rules and uses a totally different math when it comes to values... and you can see that playing out clearly in Ukraine.

Gerald Torres84 said:For Russia, this is a special military operation, whereas for the European Union and NATO, it’s essentially just a massive logistical support mission. 🙂

But look...😁

even that isn't technically accurate if you actually think about it.

Russia is obviously at war—whatever fancy little name they come up with for it is nothing more than pure propaganda. NATO, on the other hand, isn't sending weapons directly; they’re having specific NATO member states do the heavy lifting... and there is a massive distinction there. Most people either can't see it, refuse to acknowledge it, or they just straight-up ignore it and keep doing their own thing regardless.

Joshua Myers432 said:There are different kinds of wars. Not every conflict is a fight to the death. Even so, this NATO-Russia tension escalates to a new level every single year.

Sure, you can argue that there are various kinds of conflicts, and people love to play semantics by saying not every skirmish is a "war"... but you can't flip that logic around. A war is a war. We all know what actual warfare looks like, period.

Right now? This isn't a war between Russia and the US—that's just a straight-up fact.

Bryan Booth82 said:Call it whatever you want, but as a member of NATO, we *are* at war with Russia, and this has been going on for years now.
The aggression against Ukraine is just one part of that war; I’d argue it’s a turning point, because for the first time in this conflict, the Russians are losing control entirely. This whole invasion is a sign that they might actually lose a war against NATO.
Best,

Wrong.

Let's call a spade a spade here. War literally means armed conflict. There isn't a single NATO soldier, or anyone under NATO command, fighting in Ukraine. Period. There is zero direct application of military power from the NATO alliance or its member states against Russian forces in Ukraine.
Until that happens, we aren't in a war. That is a straight-up fact. You can call it a localized conflict, a series of political and logistical games, or even subversion, but it sure as hell isn't a war... not even close.

And all this talk about winning or losing the war? It's just empty noise. There is no universe where Russia wins a conventional war against NATO. Hell, Russia couldn't win a war against just the European countries without the USA involved.
So, I really have no idea what you're talking about.

NATO is holding back from jumping into the fray solely because the hotheads in the White House are being cautious... because if it were known that the regime in Russia wouldn't resort to nukes, the war in Ukraine would be over in a heartbeat.

Joshua Myers432 said:We are already at war with Russia. It’s just that nobody bothered to tell you.

That's like me asking you: how would you jump off a thirty-story skyscraper without a parachute and expect to walk away fine? You wouldn't... there is no way.

Look, no, we aren't in a war with Russia, because if we were, it would mean NATO is in direct conflict with them. And if that were actually true, there are really only two ways this plays out:

1) The Russians would be wiped out of all of Ukraine within a few weeks, and Putin would have been kicked out by his own people.

2) The Russian regime would have already dropped an A-bomb on us.

So, nope—we aren't in a conflict with Russia. Sending military aid and stuff doesn't mean you're in a war... not even close.

Now, you still gotta push back against the Russians whenever you have to... sure, the standard of living might dip in Europe, but Europe can handle that. It's way better than letting idiots like Putin think they can just do whatever they want. That's a much worse long-term problem than dealing with a potential recession for two or three years (which probably won't even happen) or paying more at the pump.

Things aren't actually that complicated... it really just comes down to which side you're on.😁 .

Kenneth Cruz67 said:But why on earth wouldn't Finland want to, or be able to, or even be allowed to have nuclear weapons? And who exactly gets to decide which rules or criteria would prohibit them from doing so?

I mean, wouldn't it be better for them to just have a bomb and remain neutral rather than joining NATO? 😉

Look, if Finland and the Americans there were thinking along the lines of "hey, let's get an A-bomb," they wouldn't be Finland anymore—they'd basically be some backward wasteland. That whole cultural makeup is a huge deal in certain circles.

If you don't get why a totally normal country wouldn't want to dump massive resources into something like an A-bomb, then you probably don't understand those countries at all. Something like that would only ever happen in some seriously extreme, once-in-a-lifetime nightmare scenarios.

Countries like Finland aren't even part of this equation, and honestly, talking about it is just crazy. Now, certain Islamic theocracies, political autocracies, or dictatorships? Those *are* a problem. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to have them... even if we had to take them out preemptively... because that's a much smaller, more acceptable price to pay than letting those kinds of regimes become a threat to the entire world later on.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, I guess the only real obstacles left are political and economic ones. But honestly, if you ask me, I really believe we’re going to see more and more smaller nations deciding to pull out of the non-proliferation treaties just to start working on their own little atomic projects.

International law has always felt like a bit of a joke to me, if I'm being honest. I truly think the only way to actually protect yourself—whether you're dealing with massive, ruthless superpowers or just small, stubborn nations—is to have your own bomb.

And who exactly is going to let those smaller countries pull that off?

Look, if we're talking about countries with actual standards—you know, places like Austria or Finland—they wouldn't even dream of developing an A-bomb. They aren't interested. Now, if you're talking about theocratic regimes or dictatorships, 99% of them don't even have the capacity to pull it off. And even if they did get close? People would step in to stop them by any means necessary... and frankly, they'd be totally justified in doing so. Take Iran, for example; they're a huge, powerhouse nation, yet they still haven't pulled it off despite throwing insane amounts of money at it. Smaller countries wouldn't stand a chance.
North Korea is one of those weird outliers for a bunch of reasons (assuming they even have a functional A-bomb... though they clearly need it just to deal with their neighbors a few miles away).

So, what you're saying is pretty much pure fiction... and honestly, thank God it is.

Dana Robinson4 said:Does that mean there aren't any real deterrents against a bomb from Egypt, Venezuela, or the Congo?

Of course there is, 🙂

Look, people can spin this however they want, but honestly? It would be infinitely better if nuclear weapons—assuming they even exist—were held exclusively by Western democracies and nobody else...

I am being dead serious here. In my book, the threat level of a French nuke is basically zero, whereas the danger from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and the rest is massive in comparison. We're talking about a completely different psychological makeup and set of values.

We can go back and forth until we're blue in the face about whether this view is "pro-Western," "racist," or whatever label someone wants to slap on it, but the bottom line is simple: the world is way safer with those nukes in the hands of the regimes I mentioned than with them in the hands of any Western nation. Period. End of story.

wiredseal7 said:That's exactly what's happening right now—they're following the Montreux Convention, which lets them shut the straits to all warships during wartime, a move they've already made.

Admiral Gorskov has already been blocked, so NATO hasn't even had a chance to test the waters yet.

And you seriously think the Turks would try to use force to stop an American carrier?
Would Turkey actually go through with that? Considering the absolute nightmare of consequences that would trigger?

It's just... honestly, it's pretty delusional if you ask me. Why on earth would they even attempt something like that in the first place?

coastalbison6 said:Looks like the folks in Slovakia are stepping up too. When is it our turn in America?
https://twitter.com/Militarylandnet/...82170106580995

You really think America isn't playing a part in this?

Seriously, just go hang out near JFK Airport and watch what military logistics actually looks like on a 24-hour cycle... they've even banned filming everything... I have zero clue exactly what's being shipped out—but believe me, they're working around the clock.