Posts by slyfox43

boldotter2 said:I guess using Reaper/Predator drones would actually be a bigger escalation than just sending F-16s. With them, American operators from the USA could basically be operating under the Ukrainian flag inside Russia. And even if you shoot down a Predator, there's no way to know where that "signal" actually originated. I mean, sure, it comes via satellite, but where it went *to* the satellite is a total mystery.

I mean, maybe the Americans should just send them—screw the Russians—but yeah, it is an escalation. For example, Ukraine could use Hellfires to hit moving trains directly in Russia. You blow up a locomotive right as it hits a bridge and boom, huge damage for a long time. Man, in that scenario, even Moscow is within reach. 😵

So, I think it's such a huge game changer that if they do send them, they might be restricted to operating only within Ukraine's borders, totally unarmed or something...

Forget the Hellfire; I doubt that would do much real damage to a locomotive. A 550-pound JDAM, which they also carry, would be a much more effective tool for the job. 👍

wiredseal7 said:NATO ships can't just flood the Black Sea—Turkey has the Bosphorus closed to all warships under the Montreux Convention.

I'm skeptical about the Growler plan, too. Where they're positioned puts them maybe 400311 miles+ miles from the closest front in Donbas, and jamming intensity drops off fast as you get further away. If we start seeing fighting for Odessa or new battles near Mykolaiv, then maybe it makes sense.

Bulgaria is a NATO member.

Romania is a NATO member.

Turkey is a NATO member.

Which means... NATO ships are already in the Black Sea, and they will continue to be.

Joshua Myers432 said:I know about using explosives, but I've never heard of using gasoline. But hey, give it a shot and let me know how it works out for you. 😁

1. Fill up a fire truck with gasoline.

You can probably handle the rest on your own. 😉

As for peace and prosperity in SJ Africa... I suppose looking at Libya gives us a glimpse of what happens when various tribes actually find common ground. It’s hardly a universal rule, of course, but there isn't much of a precedent for political pluralism in that region.

The Russians are trying to spin the narrative, acting as if they weren't kicked out of the UN Human Rights Council, but rather made a dignified choice to walk away on their own terms. It’s a classic move—whenever they get tossed out into the cold, they immediately start shouting about how they’re leaving because they simply don't care for the company. It reminds me of when American aerospace companies stopped buying rocket engines from them, prompting Washington to pass legislation banning the sale of those engines to Americans altogether.

It’s hard to wrap one's head around the sheer dysfunction of such a state; you almost can't believe what you're seeing, though at this point, even disbelief feels a bit optimistic.

https://twitter.com/SergiyKyslytsya/...24063078510597

rowdyraven112 said:Exactly. Saša Broz is responsible for her father's crimes. Hang her. ☕

So, we're equating freezing assets—which are essentially just Putin's own money—with a death sentence now?

Oh, the tragedy. Those poor, innocent billions belonging to Putin... how cruel and heartless of the West to intervene.

Robert Barrett6 said:Packaging shortages are hitting hard. Since Tetra Pak pulled out, it’s anyone's guess if we’re actually low on milk or if they just don't have any way to box it up.

https://logos44.ru/v-kostrome-zagovo...-opusteli.html

Even basic bearings—the literal foundation for basically everything—are gone.

https://globalmsk.ru/news/id/59096

https://www.business-vector.info/sha...ijskie-138921/

Tires.

https://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/def...arstan-5860926

Microchips for debit cards.

https://abnews.ru/index.php/2022/4/7...astikovyh-kart

They still have white goods, consumer electronics, and stuff like that sitting in warehouses, but if these sanctions drag on, expect shortages in three to four months. Sure, they might be able to cover 60-90% of the domestic market locally, but the real bottleneck is going to be the components needed to actually put things together.

That's precisely what the "special operation Z-anussi" currently underway in Ukraine is meant to address.

Nathan Thomas12 said:Russia imports half of its medicine needs. They’re literally running out of insulin. Eventually, they might scrape by making some generic stuff, but generics aren't the real deal—never are. As for high-end, sophisticated meds? Yeah, forget about it...

Who actually banned pharmaceutical exports to Russia?

Spoiler: Nobody.

wiredseal7 said:So, they're missing medicine, medical supplies, hygiene products, diapers, and even some basic food items.

A total tragicomedy—if you can even call this a success.

It just invites a swarm of speculators who will inevitably flip these goods at massive markups later.

That’s just how solidarity works in the "Russian world."

But then again, I shouldn't be surprised you'd latch onto that like a fly to... 🤣

You could probably do better than that.

Then again, maybe you can't.

Since the invasion kicked off, there have been 398 expulsions of Russian "diplomats," with 385 of those coming from various European nations.

View on twitter

In America—not a single one.

Since that kind of weaponry isn't actually part of the Russian arsenal anyway, they wouldn't have anything left to hand over even if they were feeling particularly generous...

Total concern trolling fail.

The UN has nothing to do with this, and bringing them up here just shows you don't really grasp how international law actually functions.

Russia has already seized tens of billions just by seizing aircraft. They aren't exactly citing legal precedents, of course—they just passed that nationalization law recently and called it a day. But sure, we can pretend it’s all about vital national interests, even if there isn't much flying happening anymore...

I haven't heard a peep about them offering any compensation, not even from their own frozen assets. Have you?

Carl Lee27 said:I’ve got this nagging feeling that, for better or worse, a huge chunk of what we’re seeing is driven by US geopolitics. Honestly, I don't think a lightning-fast end to this war is actually in their best interest. It feels like Ukrainians are being handed just enough gear to keep the Russians pinned down in a defensive crouch, but maybe not quite enough to secure a total victory. Beyond just making sure Russia bleeds, you have to look at the bigger picture—like pulling Germany away from Russian influence and really tightening the bonds within NATO. A quick resolution to the conflict might actually jeopardize those long-term strategic goals.

It seems to me there’s a bit of an anti-American bias creeping into your reasoning—not that I'm judging, but it's worth keeping in mind. Think of it this way: for those cynical calculations you're describing to hold any water, there would have to be a tangible "danger" that this war ends too quickly. Given the current mindset, the institutional structure, and the general state of wartime fervor within Russia, do you honestly believe they would simply accept defeat and pack up, even if their current military capacity were decimated?

Furthermore, looking at the current distribution of forces, how quickly could we realistically expect the Ukrainian Armed Forces to actually defeat the Russians?

And one more thing: does the exhaustion of Russian resources benefit only the US, or does it serve Ukraine's interests as well? Who poses the greater threat to Ukraine? And who is the first target for a Russia that hasn't been depleted? Who feels the most pressure to "prove their strength"?

Try not to fall into the trap of viewing realistic assessments—like the American prediction that this will be a long haul, or even Oleksiy Arestovych's earlier forecast of two or three rounds—as mere wishful thinking. After all, people used that same label when Americans were warning that a war was imminent.

George Robinson43 said:It is just like that video showing how Derepaska and Putin operate; the leadership directly controls massive private firms, and owners follow every single command just to keep their assets—otherwise, they might find themselves permanently retired under a tree in the middle of nowhere.

Well, look at what happened with Exxon.

Ronald Chavez2 said:Sure, because clearly the US wants nothing but the best for Europe and dreams of a world filled with peace, prosperity, and democracy. Aren't you a little embarrassed to be pushing these fairy tales?

1) To put it simply, weakening Russia and ensuring their invasion of Ukraine fails was the priority here. This had nothing to do with some altruistic desire to make life better for Europe; it was about making sure Russia gets bogged down in the Ukrainian mud. Fortunately, that seems to have worked so far.

2) and 3) I don't see what's controversial about diplomatic pressure or organizing conditions so that Europe shifts its energy sources toward the US, allied nations, and democratic strongholds like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Of course, in a situation like this, everyone is going to seize the opportunity to look out for their own interests.

4) Given the potential for escalation, it's only logical to move more NATO troops into Europe. That isn't American benevolence; it's preparing for the inevitable scenario where we end up having to defend America in Europe, as is often the case.

Just as the ideas about "brotherly" Russia and China are delusions, so too are these delusions about a "brotherly" America.

The guy talking about delusions is asking me if I feel embarrassed for writing what I wrote above.

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is having to quote such arbitrary, baseless nonsense.

And no, I never mentioned a "brotherly America," but right now, given the circumstances, the USA acting in its own self-interest happens to align perfectly with Europe's interests. In doing so, it helps Europe weather the storm and correct the massive strategic blunders made during the post-Cold War era—errors that most of Europe is only now belatedly realizing and admitting.

It's not as if the USA didn't make its own share of massive strategic mistakes during that same period. Some European friends tried to talk sense into them, but unfortunately, they couldn't.

If the interests of China and Russia can partially overlap—at least in their own estimation, something you've never challenged (even though China is currently encouraging its ally to double down on a huge strategic error)—then it stands to reason that the interests of Europe and the USA might also align on certain specific issues. If the mere thought of that idea disturbs you, maybe see a doctor and get a prescription; I can't help you there.

Larry Fox5 said:And what does a private company or some personal assets have to do with damages the government might end up owing? Seriously...

If we're calling Gazprom a private enterprise, then I must be Santa Claus.

Larry Fox5 said:A quick little head start.

The essence remains unchanged.

It’s far more compelling to look at how a similar maneuver might play out in another advanced democracy, perhaps using slightly strained legal gymnastics to frame it as some sort of necessary compensation for whatever happened first.

Even if things get a little tight, we’ll still manage to pull together for our first scouting trip.

You mentioned earlier that they really ought to focus on securing ownership.

I am.

The situation remains steady, much like a slow-moving tide that eventually reshapes the entire shoreline without making any sudden noise.

It really comes down to management, doesn't it?

Because that is simply how things stand. It feels somewhat heavy, doesn't it? Like watching a slow sunset over a quiet landscape, where the light just gradually fades until everything becomes a bit more somber. I’m sticking to that. I have no intention of lying; I have certain standards to maintain.

Ownership issues need to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, likely involving some form of compensation—though, of course, any such settlement remains subject to current legal sanctions. Looking back, this was a situation that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. But then again, I wasn't consulted, so what can you do?

The conversation seems to have hit a bit of a lull, hasn't it? It’s almost like watching a slow-moving river settle after a heavy rain—quiet, steady, and waiting for the next current to move things along.

All things considered, it seems we both share the same intuition regarding the ultimate trajectory of this situation—a slow, systematic erosion of private ownership. Without any compensation whatsoever..

A quick bit of pioneering work.

To get ahead of this: I firmly believe any compensation payouts should be funneled into an escrow account first. From there, the funds ought to be distributed among everyone harmed by the Russian Federation based on the legal proceedings—we shouldn't be playing games by pretending Gazprom is some private entity. If there happens to be anything left over, though looking at the situation in Ukraine, that seems like a slim possibility, the surplus should simply be returned to Russia once sanctions are lifted and assets are unfrozen.

We certainly wouldn't want to reach a point where we find ourselves prioritizing the legal protections of mass murderers, rapists, and kidnappers over the actual rights and dignity of their victims.

Look, we care about the law—it’s perfectly reasonable not to just seize their property because this isn't some damn 1945 scenario where you nationalize everyone's stuff under a communist regime. There isn't a single court in existence where that kind of theft would fly... at least not in Western democracies.
It isn't an act of theft when you're simply collecting on a court-ordered judgment against a party's holdings.

The necessary conditions for that aren't present at the moment, though that doesn't mean they won't be eventually.

wiredseal7 said:In the EU-US, you’re seeing this happen more and more—just seizing things without even bothering to compensate the former owners.

[No text provided to rewrite]

You didn't mention the nationalization of Venezuela's entire private oil industry in the same breath as the "expropriation of Citgo"—for reasons that should be obvious to anyone paying attention. Does that ever get old for you?

Why bother bringing up Venezuela and Hugo Chávez? We all know that was just straight-up communist-style expropriation in a developing nation—basically a textbook case. It’s way more interesting to look at a similar move made in another advanced democracy, where they use some pretty stretched legal gymnastics to try and frame it as "compensation" for the first mess. And even if they hadn't pulled that stunt, would Juan Guaidó have stood a chance? 🙄

[No content provided to rewrite.]

Besides, we’re talking about "control" right now—not actual ownership.

First you were talking about ownership, now it’s all about management—funny how that works. At the end of the day, I think we both see where this is heading—it's just a slow slide toward seizing assets without paying a dime.

A quick little head start.

The essence remains unchanged.

It’s far more compelling to look at how a similar maneuver might play out in another advanced democracy, perhaps using slightly strained legal gymnastics to frame it as some sort of necessary compensation for whatever happened first.

Even if things get a little tight, we’ll still manage to pull together for our first scouting trip.

You mentioned earlier that they really ought to focus on securing ownership.

I am.

The situation remains steady, much like a slow-moving tide that eventually reshapes the entire shoreline without making any sudden noise.

It really comes down to management, doesn't it?

Because that is simply how things stand. It feels somewhat heavy, doesn't it? Like watching a slow sunset over a quiet landscape, where the light just gradually fades until everything becomes a bit more somber. I’m sticking to that. I have no intention of lying; I have certain standards to maintain.

Ownership issues need to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, likely involving some form of compensation—though, of course, any such settlement remains subject to current legal sanctions. Looking back, this was a situation that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. But then again, I wasn't consulted, so what can you do?

The conversation seems to have hit a bit of a lull, hasn't it? It’s almost like watching a slow-moving river settle after a heavy rain—quiet, steady, and waiting for the next current to move things along.

All things considered, it seems we both share the same intuition regarding the ultimate trajectory of this situation—a slow, systematic erosion of private ownership. Without any compensation whatsoever..

A quick bit of pioneering work.

To get ahead of this: I firmly believe any compensation payouts should be funneled into an escrow account first. From there, the funds ought to be distributed among everyone harmed by the Russian Federation based on the legal proceedings—we shouldn't be playing games by pretending Gazprom is some private entity. If there happens to be anything left over, though looking at the situation in Ukraine, that seems like a slim possibility, the surplus should simply be returned to Russia once sanctions are lifted and assets are unfrozen.

We certainly wouldn't want to reach a point where we find ourselves prioritizing the legal protections of mass murderers, rapists, and kidnappers over the actual rights and dignity of their victims.

Does anyone ever get tired of hearing the same crowd drone on about how US and Russian interests are perfectly aligned in their desire to weaken Europe? I wonder if there’s any actual evidence in how the US has behaved over the last year to support that claim. According to them, the US is undermining Europe by:

1) sharing intelligence that provides early warnings regarding potential Russian aggression,

2) applying intense diplomatic pressure to ensure sanction packages are coordinated,

3) coordinating alternative energy suppliers FOR EUROPE—some of which happen to be American—to shield the continent from Russian retaliation and leverage, ultimately placing Europe in a much stronger negotiating position,

4) deploying significant additional forces to the most vulnerable NATO members,

and so on,

and so on,

and so on.

Are they really working to destabilize Europe with the same fervor that Russia uses for its "denazification of Ukraine" campaign? 🙄

Honestly, reading this kind of nonsense is exhausting. It’s no different than those endless, hollow ramblings about the "brotherhood" of China and Russia while they simultaneously accept massive amounts of aid from the EU and the USA—the very same entities they constantly insult. It's the exact same garbage, through and through.

wiredseal7 said:Solving a lack of strategic reserves (infrastructure) through seizures? Just the American way... reminds me of what happened with Citgo.

Maybe they should try building something themselves for a change.
They've even got those hidden pockets up in northern Germany—so there's your solution for gas and oil.

Sure, you can keep whining here about those "ideologically driven interpretations of the truth," but let's be real—whether you call it nationalization or "eminent domain" in the US, that legal principle exists in every organized society. And naturally, it always comes with compensation for the former owner and a legitimate need to serve a critical public interest.

You didn't mention the nationalization of Venezuela's entire private oil industry in the same breath as the "expropriation of Citgo," which happened for... well, reasons that are obvious to me, if not to you. Doesn't that ever get tiring?

In any case, what we're looking at right now is "management," not outright ownership.