Posts by Melissa Rivera5

Let's be real here, no matter how this all plays out, it’s pretty obvious now that you can only deal with Russ through raw power. Even Belarus didn't recognize the Luhansk or Donetsk People's Republics; honestly, the only country that did was one that felt forced because they were basically staring down a coup if they didn't🙂 Simply wonderful🙂

William Anderson5 said:You conveniently left out the fact that for those eight years, the fighting was hitting Ukrainian positions and cities far more often than Lansing or Pittsburgh.

Yeah, I mean, how they talk about it... like Donetsk and Lansing should've been totally leveled and the people there just eaten alive by cannibals or something. But honestly? The cities are basically fine. Electricity, water, gas—everything's still running.

hollowdriver13 said:So yeah, the latest word is that we just can't expect any kind of friendly relationship with Russia anymore. That’s why they’re ramping up readiness levels—shifting from 40k troops to 300k for a quick response.

Up until recently, Russia and NATO actually had this partnership aimed at peace. People used to look at Russia as a decent neighbor and a civilized nation, rather than what it's showing itself to be: an imperialist autocracy.

Even with everything involving Crimea and the sanctions, the general vibe was still that all these disagreements would eventually get smoothed over through diplomacy.

NATO was literally created to defend against the USSR during the Cold War, then later it shifted toward the Russian Federation, and people were starting to wonder if it even mattered anymore. Well, clearly it does. Look, we can be as much of pacifists as we want, but Putler brought serious war back to Europe with those super childish threats about nuclear arsenals. It's honestly wild how some people here can call the Russian Federation a moral giant, defend this aggression, or call for the West to collapse and all that other nonsense.

hollowdriver13 said:

Honestly, we probably just needed to sit back for a few more years and watch NATO fall apart on its own from all the constant bickering between members, eventually becoming this leaderless, aimless group that doesn't even know why it exists anymore.

But I guess there is a specific reason, though—defending against Russia. Since Putin pretty much proved he isn't exactly an angel.🙂>

Donna Wells2 said:Those Swedes love to lecture everyone else about human rights, acting like they’re the ultimate benchmark for freedom and democracy.
But now? Just like that, they’re going to hand over the Kurds to whatever fate comes their way just to satisfy an agreement with Turkey.
Honestly... hats off to you, Sweden... the supposed guardians of civil liberties and human rights, turning their backs on those very principles at the first opportunity.
It is hypocrisy at its absolute finest!

Exactly.

The saddest part is how all this is coming straight out of Roscosmos. As much as we love poking fun at Americans, I just can't imagine the head of NASA spewing stuff like this. It honestly just shows how deeply unhinged the crew over in Russia is right now.

William Anderson5 said:From where I’m sitting, that Russian steamroller has completely stalled out. Their offensive has basically been stuck circling Lisičanski and Severodonetsk for a month, with some minor movement near Kharkiv. On the rest of the front, the Russians have just flatlined.
Russia is actually feeling the human cost much more heavily than the Americans are. There are plenty of Americans who are ready and willing to fight, whereas I highly doubt the young guys in Russian cities are just sitting around waiting for Mother Russia to send them off to the front. As time goes on, the Russian advance slows down while massive amounts of weaponry keep arriving for the Americans. You have to consider that what we see in the news is only a fraction of what's actually being delivered to the Americans—there's a lot more on the way. I don't doubt for a second that the Americans have been training for complex systems since day one; they just don't broadcast it, which means they'll be fully equipped before anyone realizes it...

Maybe someone in The Kremlin finally got a brain cell working and realized that if they bleed too much in Ukraine, they won't have anything left to defend other fronts. I guess you just can't lose 30k soldiers—plus probably another 30k from the professional military who are totally sidelined—and expect things to go well if they ever have to face NATO, who hasn't lost a single soldier. At that point, they're looking at either total surrender or a global nuclear holocaust.

Though, I bet Xi Jinping gave Putin a subtle hint that if they're the ones to launch nuclear weapons first, then "China" might just side with the West.

Kimberly Perez82 said:Well, if we’re going by that logic, then why on earth shouldn't Cuba be allowed to set up Russian missile bases on their own soil? I mean, if everything is just "internal business," then fine. But let's not walk around here with these double standards—it really doesn't sit right with me. If I recall my history correctly, that whole first missile crisis was sparked specifically because of how the USA was moving its own missile bases closer to the USSR. It's all connected.

What does any of that even have to do with this? Honestly, nothing at all.

Kimberly Perez82 said:With all due respect, that isn't the truth, though you might be acting a bit naive there. Putin has never explicitly stated a desire to annex all of Ukraine; his stated goal was merely to prevent them from joining NATO. As the conflict escalated, they seized certain pro-Russian areas to cripple how Ukraine functions, but no one is claiming they intend to occupy the entire nation—you just can't do that with only 200,000 soldiers. We really need to look at this realistically, because drawing the wrong conclusions leads to the wrong solutions. And what is the West doing? They are just fueling the fire, led by Zelenskyy, who refuses to entertain any kind of compromise.

Actually, he totally did. Just a couple of days ago, he mentioned that if Ukraine keeps going down this path, they're going to lose their sovereignty altogether.🙂

Kimberly Perez82 said:Well, damn, talk about bad luck. It's just how it goes—it's like how Cubans wanted Soviet communism and things didn't pan out that way either. Honestly, it’s just naive to expect any nuclear superpower to sit idly by while someone else plays games right on their doorstep. Just look at how aggressive China gets whenever anyone touches their backyard. All of this is completely predictable, and we have to respect that reality, whether we're talking about the USA, Russia, or China. Besides, Ukrainian politics hasn't been exactly innocent, not since that coup happened. Of course, you have to feel for the people, but unfortunately, it's always the citizens who end up paying the price.

Ukrainian politics is an internal matter for them. That's not some valid excuse for Kremlin-backed Nazis to invade and annex parts of a sovereign nation and threaten something as horrific as a holocaust.

placidtiger142 said:Honestly, I’m terrified this whole thing is just gonna spiral even harder.

Word on the street is things are heating up over in Belarus—massive military movement. Plus, they’re prepping over 300k troops for a push. And don't forget, winter is right around the corner, and it looks like it's gonna be a long, brutal one.

If gas prices, inflation, and the cost of living keep spiking like this, people across Europe are gonna flip. Support for the US and NATO jumping into the fight could skyrocket because, let's be real, Westerners love their comfort. They'll eventually be like, "Yeah, fine, let's just send NATO in, wrap this up in two or three months, and get everything back to normal."

But here's the thing—even NATO can't just "fast-track" a war. It’ll probably end before NATO even steps in. Because if they do? If NATO gets involved, Russia goes full general mobilization, and then we're looking at a war that drags on for years. That’s when Europe truly falls into the absolute shit.

I mean, obviously, I hope none of this actually happens. I’m praying some kind of peace deal gets struck and this whole mess wraps up before the year is out...

Sent from my iPhone 13 via Reddit

Every single time someone jumped into a war thinking, "Yeah, this will be over in no time," it ended up dragging on for years and cost millions of lives.

electricsurfer47 said:He was talking about the Russians, look at the quote. If they've already burned through so much gear in Ukraine, do they really want to send over the tiny bit of decent stuff they have left?

My bad, sorry

electricsurfer47 said:I mean, I probably can, but what’s the point of giving them all this gear? All they're gonna get out of it is a one-way ticket to a grave or a prisoner-of-war camp.

What are you even rambling about? You think 300k professional NATO soldiers would be deployed without any equipment? I guess you're getting them mixed up with the Russians and sending guys out in half-broken gear.

Jessica Peterson2 said:Precisely. If you actually look at the footage, there are hardly any cars parked in front of the center, and most of the people supposedly rushing to save victims are men.

The conclusion seems pretty clear: this whole thing is nothing more than a staged hoax, much like that previous fabrication in Buca.🤦

Yeah, sure, because the Russians are just hitting military targets and cleaning up Nazis... everything else was just an accident, right? I guess.😁 😵😵😵😵

Nathan Evans78 said:So, according to your theory, they’re just sitting there collecting dust? If that's the case, why was Kennedy walking on eggshells during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Look, sure, leaders can pull back before things get out of hand, but if we see Russian boots stepping into the EU, who’s to say they won't simultaneously decide to launch something from a silo? I mean, if we're already heading toward SBKBB, why take the risk?

That’s not even really my theory, man—that’s just how MAD works. Mutually Assured Destruction, you know? If anyone starts throwing nukes, they're getting hit right back in a second or third strike, and then everyone's dead. Like, let's say Putin pulls off a massive attack on the UK. If that actually works, British subs would just launch their entire arsenal at Moscow, St. Petersburg, and all the other big strategic spots. You'd be looking at maybe 30 million Russians dead within 24 hours with all the major cities basically leveled... and there wouldn't be anyone left to take revenge on. 🙂 So, who wins? Honestly, nobody.

Nathan Evans78 said:Honestly, I highly doubt Lavrov, Zaharov, and the rest of that gang were the ones who actually cooked up deterrence theory.

Billions of dollars have been poured into nuclear weapons development specifically to prevent the exact scenario you're describing—so that, according to your logic, we don't end up with millions of soldiers stuck on the Baltic in 2022 or 2023 fighting trench warfare like it was 1945. You certainly have an interesting perspective on things. 🤣

The whole point of nuclear weapons is so they DON'T get used, mostly out of fear of what happens if they do.

Nathan Evans78 said:How does the narrative shift so abruptly? One minute we’re hearing that we need a million highly trained soldiers just to hold the line against a massive Russian army, and then you look at what's happening out east in Ukraine, where they're struggling with just 50,000 defenders. It feels inconsistent. Not even a month ago, I was reading right here that the Americans would be marching all the way to Seattle with their own 150,000 troops and heavy equipment. 🍿

I guess it's just easier to deter than it is to actually save someone 🙂

Terry Green3 said:If NATO pulls a move like that between May 5th and 12th, we’re heading straight for an open conflict. Nobody is going to foot that bill—it’s just common sense. So, I'd say it's unlikely.

Are Turks and Greeks really going to send their brigades while they’re still at each other's throats?
The Britons might, but Johnson is fighting for his political life in Parliament right now.
Macron? Unlikely, not after those recent election results.
The Germans won't be sending mass numbers, given their history.
The Italians... well...
As for the US, with everything happening domestically and having spent two decades bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, sending a massive new contingent overseas is a huge gamble.

The likely scenario? They'll count all the forces from Romania and Poland toward that 300,000 figure, add another 50,000 from various other countries to the current 40,000, and claim they have 300,000 combat-ready troops at any given moment.
We'll see if they actually walk the walk.

Man, you're talking like all these NATO countries only have like a million people total. There's no way 300k is an impossible number.😵😵

Terry Green3 said:The idea of re-militarizing Europe feels like a total pipe dream to me. I look at the TikTok generation—kids who struggle to open a can even when you hand them a can opener—and then I think about them being expected to make up the bulk of those 300,000 or 900,000 troops George Robinson43 mentioned.
It’s just not happening, not even for places like Russia or China. Honestly, I wouldn't bet on an ideologically driven society like Iran either.
We aren't living in the pre-World War II mindset anymore.
And frankly, for all our sakes, I hope we stay this way.

Well, that's why we have the draft, right? To actually teach people stuff. The only difference between now and the post-war era is that we finally realize we can't just mess around; it’s gotta be the real deal this time.

Terry Green3 said:All five, sure, but we’re going to pay a premium for it.
The average grunt back then didn't get to spend their summers vacationing and enjoying life the way we do now.
Someone has to foot the bill for all this.

It doesn't bother me personally, but like I said, these major powers tend to have unstable governments. You have to maintain a balance so you don't end up facing a massive internal meltdown, similar to what the French dealt with right before World War II.
That'll end up costing you even more in the long run.

Keeping an army ready actually costs less than rebuilding entire countries or fighting an active war. If anyone's against it, they can go write a letter to Putin and those other Kremlin Nazis.