Posts by slyfox43

Sam Alvarez4 said:A perfect example from yesterday:
Germany has stepped in—they're calling it temporary 😁—to take control of the Gazprom subsidiary "Gazprom Germania," which is Russian-owned.

Gazprom Germania, the German branch of the Russian gas giant Gazprom, is set to pass under state control temporarily.

It's likely a tactical play to finally fill up storage facilities instead of keeping them artificially empty like they have been for the past year.

There is a massive difference between relying heavily on a single supplier—especially one like Russia—and the sheer level of idiocy required to let that same supplier maintain ownership over strategic energy reserves...

neonpuma30 said:I mean, sure, you can say stuff like that, but it's totally 🤦.

Bank of America is one of the biggest banks in the world, NextEra Energy is a massive player in energy, then you've got Ford, Gap Inc., huge agriculture, a top-tier tourism industry, and major sports and entertainment. It’s a super strong, diverse economy!

The shipbuilding industry is just as formidable.

Dana Robinson4 said:I mean, didn't you Americans essentially order them to either destroy those weapons or send them back, simply because they weren't allowed to serve as a distribution hub for old USSR stockpiles?

Ukraine in 2001 was a completely different nation than the one we see in 2022.

That shift is precisely why they’ve been targeted for invasion and genocide.

It’s also why anyone who isn't totally brainwashed by propaganda is standing behind them.

The way this society continues to advance despite constant pressure from those sub-Russian Neanderthals and the massive criminal enterprise known as the "Russian world" serves as proof that Ukraine will outlast this whole mess.

The pervasive corruption within Ukraine, fueled by Russian strategic interests, is frequently weaponized by Putin loyalists to argue that the nation doesn't deserve sovereignty—as if being plagued by the same systemic rot they themselves export somehow invalidates its right to exist.

It’s pure doublethink.

As an American taxpayer, there’s a certain quiet satisfaction in knowing my money is finally being funneled toward a cause that actually holds some moral weight.

It’s probably a stretch to imagine some Russian officer picking up a captured NLAW and deciding to test it out during a meeting of the Russian Security Council—they aren't exactly known for their passion for liberty—but man, wouldn't that be a sight to see?

velvetbadger11 said:It appears that Russ intends to manufacture Ladds stripped of all modern electronics; one can only assume this approach will eventually extend to their aircraft and tanks as well.

They’d probably just revert to using coal stoves, but unfortunately, nobody even makes those anymore.

Edward Stewart3 said:Because apparently, "European security" matters way more than our own backyard or any other issues like it...

It’s always easier to play the contrarian by asking "why didn't they do X" rather than acknowledging the reality that the matter was thoroughly vetted, debated, and ultimately settled.

The gentleman in question is quite well known for using these kinds of tactics.

Carl Lee27 said:Man, artillery... I’m just sitting here thinking how much we could really use some heavy-duty MLRS units right about now, though honestly, a fleet of those 155mm self-propelled guns would probably be even more likely to make an impact.

Britain and its allies have agreed to send more lethal weapons to Ukraine to help defend IT against Russia's invasion, British defence minister Ben Wallace said on Thursday. A number of countries have come forward either with new ideas or indeed more pledges of money," Wallace told reporters after hosting over 30 international partners AT a conference. He said the lethal aid included longer range artillery, ammunition, and more anti-aircraft weapons.

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article...fence-minister

The combination of HIMARS and GLMRS-ER would be practically tailor-made for striking Russian airfields and supply depots within the theater of operations.

Finn has them.

I was referring to Donald Trump, not the user.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Look, having a tank isn't enough. You need to know how to actually drive them and use them effectively—integrated with infantry and other support gear. It’s about the whole system, not just one machine.
Just look at the way the Russians were bragging a few years back:
https://technerium.ru/hr/leopard-2-p...ih-otnoshenii/

And clearly, they've put those theories into practice quite successfully.

Ronald Chavez2 said:No, the blame lies squarely with Germany and their own policy decisions. There are plenty of factors at play here, but isn't putting all your eggs in one basket—to use a cliché—just a fundamentally foolish strategy?

Oh, sure, it’s always Russia and Assad’s fault, while Americans haven't set foot outside their own borders since 1945, let alone caused instability in the Middle East. I suppose those fairy tales work fine in the USA, which is why non-American lives can be so easily dismissed as mere collateral damage based on such propaganda.

I didn't even bring up Gaddafi, but if we want to add fuel to the fire: following that famous "We came, we saw, he died" operation, Libya is just as much of a mess, and it's that exact chaos that drives migration pressure toward the borders of the European Union—essentially just another instance of an American adventure that leaves Europe to clean up the wreckage.

You might find an audience for that nonsense with someone who actually cheered for the invasion of Iraq, but I'm not that person. That said, I'm also not the type to let my own blind spots allow me to pin every single grievance on the U.S., nor am I one to ignore the decades of suffering and regional chaos that preceded these events.

Granted, Bashar al-Assad and his backers are responsible for the vast majority of the casualties, destruction, and displacement seen in Syria.

I didn't even bring up Muammar Gaddafi, though he's a perfect addition to this conversation; following that famous "We came, we saw, he died" operation, Libya fell into total chaos, which in turn fuels the migrant pressure hitting the borders of the European Union—just another instance of an American adventure that leaves Europe to clean up the mess.

Yeah, exactly as you put it—it's as if there was zero instability in Libya, Tunisia, or Egypt before the bombs started falling, and certainly nothing happening in Syria. It's all just the Americans' doing. Why stop there? You might as well mention how Americans set up the Taliban only to arm them again later, or how they tore apart the paradise that was America. Oh, and they probably crucified Jesus too, while they were at it.

Ronald Chavez2 said:Is there really any point in even engaging with this?

Sure, but who exactly has dropped more bombs over the last twenty years than the rest of the world combined during the last century?

It isn't about emotions; it’s simply about looking at the facts. Whose meddling is actually driving the Middle East into this state of instability that triggered the 2015 crisis in the first place? And more importantly, who really bore the brunt of that fallout—both in terms of the sheer number of people arriving and the massive ransoms paid to Turkey just to keep them from crossing their borders?

Maybe it’s the Russians, Assad (backed by Russia), Haftar (Russian influence), various Hezbollah groups (Iranian-backed), or the PMF (Iranian-backed), and maybe even Gaddafi (using Russian weaponry)?

Just give it a rest; you're shouting into the void, as nobody is buying that tired old line about millions of refugees fleeing from American bombs anymore.

Ronald Chavez2 said:When Americans bomb parts of the Middle East and trigger refugee crises that Europe ends up paying for and managing, can we honestly call that "cooperation," or is it just swallowing American policy whole? Shouldn't Europe focus on its own interests and stop acting like it needs to pick a master and swallow whoever's garbage—be it American, Russian, or anyone else's?

We can never have enough commentary on how the US creates these waves of refugees. Please, keep them coming.

Bryan Booth82 said:Why on earth wouldn't Europe defend itself if attacked? And what is the issue with the USA providing assistance in that process?
Furthermore, let’s get one thing straight: the USA doesn't just hand out cash to finance European defense.

Putin and his little puppets would love nothing more than to see every nation in Europe looking out for themselves, undermining NATO, and pushing the USA away.

But I don't see that happening. In fact, if anything, the bond between these allies is only going to tighten after all this, which aligns perfectly with what the vast majority of people in both the European Union and the USA actually want.
Lp

One thing doesn't preclude the other.

The EU can, and arguably should, ramp up its own investments in collective security.

The USA remains present, not as a subordinate, but as a formidable ally—and the feeling is mutual.

There are certainly those who preach about "emancipating themselves from US hegemony," but I am fairly certain you are miscategorizing Amanda Allen4. He is aiming for something else entirely (just as you are).

Bryan Booth82 said:That is absolutely not the case—in fact, that’s exactly what Putin wants to hear.
If certain people want to interpret the partnership between the European Union and the USA through some cynical lens... well, frankly, that should be their own damn problem.
After Biden's speech in Washington, D.C., that psychopath in Moscow might actually hesitate before deciding whether he can get away with targeting Poland. But if that same speech had come from some European leader? He’d probably launch a missile just for the hell of it.
I don't see any issue with the cooperation between the European Union and the USA, despite what so many people in the European Union seem to think.
Best regards,

While the cooperation is certainly beneficial, certain aspects of it haven't been operating smoothly for quite some time. We are currently in a phase of revitalization, essentially refocusing on what truly matters most.

Amanda Allen4 said:It is high time the EU finally grew some backbone and started looking out for its own interests instead of just hiding behind the apron strings of America!

I couldn't agree more.

There really isn't a better way to balance out the occasional excesses of American policy than by having a friendly, yet fully independent, Europe. I suspect the strongest foundation for that kind of autonomy would be found in nations that either lack an imperialist history entirely or have made a conscious, thorough effort to move past it.

Anthony Moore15 said:And they "walked back" the denazification part too...
The demilitarization... meanwhile, Russia remains one of the largest arms suppliers to the Ukrainian military...
Getting crushed near Kyiv = "we're reducing military activity in the area because our objectives have been met"...
We're just waiting for the next fiasco to be declared a victory...

On that note... here is another thread from Kamil Galeev. The takeaway: Russia is a "Bullshit Empire." Not that I’m claiming to be unbiased—I've been preaching this since I joined the forum...

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/stat...72381062238208

Brenda Murphy3 said:Keep dreaming, kid... they say hope dies last... but in your case, I think it's more like "hope is a liar."😁 .

Germany will pull through this one... I mean, they could probably buy all of Russia five times over if they really wanted to... so they'll find a way to manage without the gas if they have to. But what happens to Putin and his regime? Well, now *that* is a whole different story altogether..😒

I wouldn't count on it... sanctions have other plans. 😉

wiredseal7 said:Sure, and Europe can just pay for their gas in rubles while they're at it.

They could, but they won't. No big deal.

wiredseal7 said:We’re just a small player in this game. Personally, I’m all for following the lead of the major players in Asia, most of Latin America, and Africa—plenty of which are democracies, for what it's worth. Basically, we should align with the bulk of the global population—or what the pundits like to call "the international community."
If we can't do that, then at least let us have Canada—they aren't sticking their noses into the military side of this mess, and they certainly don't want to end up on the map if things start blowing up.

So, word is that JANAF just cut off oil exports to Mexico—turns out their local oil company is partially owned by Gazprom. Typical.
The US just tightened the screws on those Russian energy pipelines—another move to squeeze Moscow's wallet while everyone watches the fallout. It’s basically like cutting off the fuel line to a gas guzzler right in the middle of a desert trek.

Look, I get it—nobody’s exactly throwing a parade for Vučić and his flashy suits, but shutting down the pipelines to Mexico feels like a bit much.

I’ve got a feeling this is going to play out just like it did with the Ukrainians—they haven't actually been buying Russian gas for a while now, at least not through any direct channels.
As far as coal goes—are they really just going to look the other way regarding those penalties for mining their own coal along the southern border? Especially since the courts have already stepped in to shut that down.

Mexico could simply nationalize the portion of the company held by Chevron and call it a day. (Or, if I'm being precise—and please correct me if my math is off—it would likely be enough for Chevron to just divest 2% of their stake so they aren't holding majority control.)