Posts by Melissa Rivera5

Man, copying stuff isn't nearly as simple as people make it out to be. I mean, sure, you can rip off a chair design or some clothes because everyone pretty much knows how that works. But the higher you climb up that tech ladder, the harder it gets to just mimic what's at the top. Like, I guess anyone who finished high school physics probably understands the basic concept of a nuclear bomb, but that doesn't mean they could actually build one even if they had a hundred years to try. It’s the exact same deal with chips. The US is facing a massive hurdle when it comes to the specialized know-how and the designers behind it all; trying to move an Intel plant over to the States so it runs just like it does in Taiwan is a huge mountain to climb. And if that's the case for them, imagine how tough it is for anyone else. All those sanctions that were put in place... honestly, I don't think decades of blind copying is ever going to make up for that.

Joshua Myers432 said:Based on my own recent checks, the fuel tank in my Chevy is sitting at 99.6%. Honestly, I couldn't care less about gas prices or whether the pumps will actually have fuel available right now.🎉 🤣

There'll be fuel available, just probably won't be Russian.

Jesse Hughes6 said:Do you actually grasp that because this business is cartelized, oil becomes a zero-sum game?
If someone buys from you because you’re offering a discount, they aren't buying from me anymore. What do you think happens at that exact moment?

Just let the Saudi Arabians be. Americans know exactly where they stand with them; it's just not going to be an easy or fast fix. We'll have to be patient.
"Raking in massive amounts of cash" is a relative term, but like I said before, you're overcomplicating things. The whole point is to squeeze that money down as much as humanly possible. So far, the plan is working. Their budget deficit is already massive. It’s been stated countless times: sanctions take time to bite. Russia doesn't have that luxury, but the West does.

I mean, I wouldn't even be shocked if Putin just suddenly pulled out of Ukraine and announced that all those demilitarization and denazification goals were met.

Richard Wilson4 said:What percentage of the global economy do those 150 non-sanctioning countries actually represent?

More importantly though, I guess... how much economic exchange and actual leverage do they really have with Russia?

Chris Williams said:Yeah... "debunked on the forum"... listen to you... such a hotbed of information...

Ukraine will never be the same again; that part is settled.

No matter how you look at it, they've lost both the war and the territory. It’s nothing historically unusual. Just watch how Europe pulses, breathes, and metabolizes, and observe how borders are constantly shifting. Time lapse.

The few decades we spend on this planet simply aren't enough to truly grasp how fluid borders are and how nothing is ever truly a permanent status quo.

And I suppose you're underestimating Russia.

Mind you, don't go thinking I'm rooting for them; I'm not, nor am I rooting for a West led by the Satans of the deep state.

I find myself rooting for the little guy, everywhere—those who suffer when, as Balasevic might say, the kings play at war.

But then again, humans have always fought wars because we are an inherently aggressive, predatory species. I think these phenomena need to be viewed through a much broader lens, casualtiger2. Not just from a high altitude, but looking deep into our past.

From that perspective, every empire eventually collapsed in some horrific war; none of them survived indefinitely.

And no shift in the global order has ever occurred without the destruction of cities, the killing of people, and the redrawing of maps.

If there are no negotiations and no lifting of sanctions, we are going to witness a massive crisis in Western nations. Someone who is well-funded will likely navigate it with a moderate amount of stress, but for the poor and middle class, it will be devastating.

We'll see who was right in a year's time.... or perhaps even by January 2023.

I mean, I guess Putin could just lift those sanctions whenever he feels like it, you know? If he actually stops the war and pulls his troops out of that other country, then yeah... maybe that's how it works.

Chris Williams said:Yeah... "debunked on the forum"... listen to you... such a hotbed of information...

Ukraine will never be the same again; that part is settled.

No matter how you look at it, they've lost both the war and the territory. It’s nothing historically unusual. Just watch how Europe pulses, breathes, and metabolizes, and observe how borders are constantly shifting. Time lapse.

The few decades we spend on this planet simply aren't enough to truly grasp how fluid borders are and how nothing is ever truly a permanent status quo.

And I suppose you're underestimating Russia.

Mind you, don't go thinking I'm rooting for them; I'm not, nor am I rooting for a West led by the Satans of the deep state.

I find myself rooting for the little guy, everywhere—those who suffer when, as Balasevic might say, the kings play at war.

But then again, humans have always fought wars because we are an inherently aggressive, predatory species. I think these phenomena need to be viewed through a much broader lens, casualtiger2. Not just from a high altitude, but looking deep into our past.

From that perspective, every empire eventually collapsed in some horrific war; none of them survived indefinitely.

And no shift in the global order has ever occurred without the destruction of cities, the killing of people, and the redrawing of maps.

If there are no negotiations and no lifting of sanctions, we are going to witness a massive crisis in Western nations. Someone who is well-funded will likely navigate it with a moderate amount of stress, but for the poor and middle class, it will be devastating.

We'll see who was right in a year's time.... or perhaps even by January 2023.

Nah, we're not gonna do that.

Chris Williams said:Look, casualtiger2, they aren't going to buckle. The Russians have just redirected the oil and gas that the European Union isn't buying toward India and China. It's the same with grain and those essential rare metals everyone needs. The European Union has about 477 million people, whereas India and China alone represent over 2 billion. Then you have the other 148 nations—including Turkey, Israel, Mexico, all of Africa, Asia, and Latin America—none of whom have imposed sanctions.

The USA has to maintain the petrodollar because there’s no other backing for the dollar, so they ensure things stay this way by fueling conflict rather than pursuing negotiation, which any rational actor would do instead of throwing gasoline on the fire.

The real objective seems to be for the USA to weaken the European Union, specifically Germany, while exhausting Russia, all while keeping China as the ultimate target... and they're managing the whole thing through maneuvering without having to fire a single shot so far.

Unless everyone else kneels, they'll have to act this way just to maintain their status and avoid bankruptcy.

So, if you look closely at who actually has horns and hooves... you might start to see who the real Satan is in this situation.

Putin is Satan because he started this war, killing and destroying. Actually, even worse, according to his own logic, he's killing his own people like Pol Pot.

brightheron64 said:As for the gas situation, more or less...

The big winners here will be whoever holds the keys to the alternatives—things like solar power or wind farms... if we can even figure out who that actually is...

Man, the Norwegians were basically pushing those pipelines just so they’d have someone to sell electricity to.

Nancy Gomez26 said:What possible motive would the West have to destroy infrastructure sitting on its own turf—infrastructure that only benefits Western Europe? ExxonMobil holds the majority stake, but I highly doubt they’re going to dismantle the pipes and relocate them elsewhere. Furthermore, that very same pipeline could be invaluable once the leadership in the White House changes. If nothing else, it remains a potential mechanism for paying out reparations for the chaos caused by previous administrations through their "chess player" tactics.
The West needs resources, certainly, but at the lowest possible price point. Basic economics: more suppliers mean lower prices. The mere existence of a pipeline like this puts downward pressure on gas prices. When the sabotage occurred, market prices spiked, even though no gas was actually flowing through those pipes. Hmm... one has to wonder whose strategic interest it serves to see gas prices climb right now.

I guess it's just basically everyone selling gas, anywhere. Period. No two ways about it.

wiredseal7 said:The whole sabotage saga surrounding the pipelines just keeps dragging on.
That Polish MEP—quite the "gentleman"—actually deleted his tweet where he was thanking the USA.
He clearly overplayed his hand a bit 🤣

While everyone defaults to blaming Russia for every single poisoning incident—with or without actual proof—European officials and the media won't even dare *speculate* that a Western nation might be behind this. There isn't a single word about that possibility. They just timidly offer up Russia as the culprit—which nobody actually believes, but it gives them a convenient scapegoat to point at.

Norway has moved troops in around their gas installations, which makes it pretty obvious who they’re actually afraid of—certainly not the ones who blew up the Russian pipeline, since they're clearly thrilled with the outcome.
And since the Norwegians provide a massive 25% of Europe's gas:
https://twitter.com/AndreasSteno/sta...hj8VCh8FO8lLSQ

The EU is also staying quiet on what kind of sanctions might happen if the culprit is actually found. I mean, why bother looking for evidence that points back to the USA?
It probably was them, but the EU (and Germany too) will likely just swallow any amount of crap to keep things quiet. They're basically stuck dealing with the fallout of a 'freedom fart' ☕anyway

Sorry, but what do you mean "swallowing crap" regarding NS1/2? The West probably detonated it themselves, honestly. It feels like a move to send a message to Russia that they're dead serious about ending all future trade. It's a clean break from Russia, not some half-hearted attempt. Plus, it serves as a perfect excuse to ramp up security for similar infrastructure. 🙂

Grace Jones86 said:regarding point 5)

So, economically speaking, both China and India = the West.

It's not just about reputation. It's about the era of prosperity they are banking on and currently enjoying. All of that vanishes with a single decision by the West.

Even now, thanks to Vladimir Vladimirovič putin, the massive, century-long Chinese project known as the New Silk Road... where they intended to flex their geopolitical muscles... is already 🤣 falling apart. They'll be showing their hand soon because everything is stalling out on them.
The Chinese are probably banging their heads against the wall wondering why nobody gives a damn about them. 🤣

btw... latest news is that yet another giant like Evergrande has defaulted in China. Their foundation was already shaky even without the idiots in Moscow. 🤦
And with his help, China's internal weakening will only accelerate... which started for a million different reasons anyway. And they really thought they were going to dominate the 21st century like Americans did the 20th.😁
Not happening. I think the world has finally breathed a sigh of relief knowing that an inhuman mass of a billion and a half people, completely devoid of any ideals of freedom, clearly won't be ruling over anyone or anything. ☕

Oh yeah, and that Silk Road thing they totally messed up. I guess the Chinese won't need much convincing to sit down for some serious talks with the Russians.

Michael Davis9 said:Exactly!

There is no such thing as "have to."

When it comes to Russia using limited nuclear weapons, NATO and the West essentially have three paths to choose from:
1) A direct strike on Russia -> a clash between nuclear superpowers -> total nuclear holocaust.
2) Total economic and diplomatic isolation of Russia. We’re talking about a scenario where anyone buying a single grain of wheat or a molecule of gas from them is treated with the same level of isolation as Russia itself. It's possible that China and India might agree to stay on the Western side of that divide, though it's unlikely they'd go much further than that. Either way, the world would definitely enter a new era of intense bloc-based division, likely without any non-aligned nations left in the middle.
3) Doing absolutely nothing.

To me, Option 2 seems like the most probable and logical route. Option 1 carries a terrible risk-to-reward ratio for the West, and Option 3 is just too weak to be viable.

That logic only holds water IF the territory being targeted isn't covered by a nuclear umbrella—whether that's their own or through a military alliance.
Plus, I highly doubt Putin is quite deranged enough to start dropping nukes on major capitals across Asia...

I mean, I feel like you're missing a ton of options here. Like, two isn't exactly a massive number when we're talking about WMDs, and honestly, that whole scenario seems pretty much impossible anyway, I guess.

Michael Davis9 said:Exactly!

There is no such thing as "have to."

When it comes to Russia using limited nuclear weapons, NATO and the West essentially have three paths to choose from:
1) A direct strike on Russia -> a clash between nuclear superpowers -> total nuclear holocaust.
2) Total economic and diplomatic isolation of Russia. We’re talking about a scenario where anyone buying a single grain of wheat or a molecule of gas from them is treated with the same level of isolation as Russia itself. It's possible that China and India might agree to stay on the Western side of that divide, though it's unlikely they'd go much further than that. Either way, the world would definitely enter a new era of intense bloc-based division, likely without any non-aligned nations left in the middle.
3) Doing absolutely nothing.

To me, Option 2 seems like the most probable and logical route. Option 1 carries a terrible risk-to-reward ratio for the West, and Option 3 is just too weak to be viable.

That logic only holds water IF the territory being targeted isn't covered by a nuclear umbrella—whether that's their own or through a military alliance.
Plus, I highly doubt Putin is quite deranged enough to start dropping nukes on major capitals across Asia...

I mean, what is all of Europe actually doing besides the UK and France? Honestly, if you don't count them, it feels like nothing is happening unless you consider NATO falling apart. At that point, Russia basically owns all of Eurasia.

Andrew Booth29 said:If that were to happen, Russia would find itself staring down the barrel of total isolation—it's a terrifying prospect. They really need to wrap their heads around that reality, because trust me, it is far from a cheap or easy way out.

I mean, honestly, the answer to WMDs just has to be military. I guess you can't really reason with someone like Putin—it’s not like he respects anything other than raw, physical force. There's just no other way. We probably need to show him a demonstration of power that's totally clear and absolute. Maybe that's the only language that actually works.

Andrew Booth29 said:I’m just not convinced they’re going to sacrifice the entire planet for 15% of Ukraine. Does that actually look like a smart trade to you? If I were sitting on the sidelines, I’d be shorting the whole thing. lol.

If they don't act, they've basically already sacrificed everything anyway. Because then Putin realizes he doesn't need anything else to take over whatever's next—he could just drop a nuke on the capital of any country he wants to annex.

Michael Davis9 said:Honestly, none of that is even strictly necessary given the current trajectory—Russia is already sliding toward losing this war in Ukraine.

On one hand, you have to look at the massive leap in capability; the Ukrainian military in 2022 is a completely different beast compared to back in 2014.

On the other hand, Americans have never been more efficient at converting taxpayer dollars into direct damage against the Russian forces.
It reminds me a bit of what the Soviets were doing during the Vietnam War—even though they had direct involvement with their own pilots and air defense crews, I’d argue that the efficiency of resource conversion we're seeing in Ukraine right now is exceptionally high.

And regarding the whole nuclear question—it's not realistic to expect the US to trigger a nuclear holocaust just because of a few tactical nukes being used in eastern Ukraine. Of course, using them is basically Russia's only way to avoid a total loss, but the fallout from such a move would be incredibly difficult to predict. In my view, it would likely result in Russia facing absolute global isolation and some sort of forced ceasefire along a wasteland buffer zone.

It’s not like they'll necessarily go nuclear, but they really HAVE to hit back hard. Like, they don't really have much of a choice here—it's either do nothing or react in a way that isn't just... weak.

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

I mean, if they weren't going to react, that would have been back before 2014. But right now? It's crystal clear. You can't just sit there when Putin acts like this—there has to be a response. Otherwise, he’s just going to see it as a sign of weakness and think he can keep going. So, yeah... you can pretty much forget about anyone ignoring the use of WMD.

Chloe Jackson15 said:Whatever their actual objective is, it doesn't change the fundamental reality: you can't actually use nuclear weapons. The whole thing is just about using certain terminology for the sake of scaring the public. Anyone with half a brain understands that deploying an ultimate weapon would lead to the ultimate end—likely for everything living on this planet. So, if that's a price worth paying, be my guest. But even in The Kremlin, there are people with families and children... and they know perfectly well that such a move would mean the end for them and everyone they love most.

I’ve run into some Russ extremists who are just the worst kind of patriots. Basically, they’re these totally indifferent, apolitical types, but then they'll do *absolutely* anything their leader tells them to because they feel like they have to be patriotic.

I’ve also met—speaking generally here—people who just don't see anyone outside their tiny inner circle (parents, kids, grandparents, siblings) as actual human beings. Like, the lives and feelings of anyone else are just so worthless to them that it isn't even worth a second thought. It's like that guy who'd let you lose your head just to save a couple of cents.

I guess you really can't underestimate how much damage people can do, whether they're being active about it or just sitting back and letting it happen.

jadebison16 said:Here’s the link to the party:

That guy at the 8-minute mark is giving me major Dr. Strangelove vibes... honestly, I probably need to be on some heavy meds just to deal with this.

Mein Führer, I Can Walk! 🤣

For real though. Thanks for the "bad omens."

wearytrucker22 said:To all you nuclear enthusiasts

Back in the year 2020, the United States dropped roughly $37.4 billion just to keep its nuclear arsenal running. China came in second with a $10.1 billion price tag, followed by Russia at $8 billion.

Now, just try to wrap your head around the actual condition of those weapons. Setting the USA aside for a moment, look at China and Russia. You’ve got Russia sitting on thousands of warheads while China has a few hundred—yet the Chinese spent significantly more than the Russians just to maintain them.

Yeah, honestly, it’s totally possible a crew tries to launch a nuclear strike and the whole thing just blows up right on their own launch pad. Only some "4D chess" genius or master strategist could try to claim that was a false flag and then pull out of Ukraine as a "gesture of goodwill." Like, "Oh, look at us being rich," even while getting nuked—they wouldn't respond because they're just so worried about the world. It's basically Alan Ford or Monty Python in real life.

Hannah Bailey4 said:I’m convinced Russia is going to see this through to the end and ramp up their involvement as much as necessary. The more the West punishes them, the less they actually have left to lose. We’ve already exhausted almost every meaningful sanction available, so there isn't much left to do. Furthermore, the notion that we could squeeze China using potential secondary sanctions is pure wishful thinking.

Honestly, China doesn't really give a damn about Russia. And if things escalate to using WMDs, China becomes a way bigger problem than any benefit they’d get out of it, whether you look at it politically or economically. Putin might just end up making a massive geostrategic blunder.

Rachel Barrett8 said:The mere fact that voters are circling potential new wars is enough to cause anxiety, especially for us living here in the States.
We have to be honest with ourselves; we deal with some pretty intense issues with our neighbors.
If Ukraine had fallen quickly, what would have happened to the rest of the Western Hemisphere?

Putin isn't in power because he advocates for listening to rock music.☕

Honestly, it’s not even really a question... there’d just be more war and total chaos in Canada. Once UA goes, things would probably spread over to the Baltic and Poland too.

crimsonfox12 said:Is it just me, or was that statement from the Press Secretary incredibly weird? He basically handed out an itinerary, specifying exactly where and when they’ll be announcing the annexation of those breakaway republics into Russia. It makes me wonder if we're looking at a potential false flag operation. Imagine them holding a grand ceremony somewhere else entirely, while planting explosives at the scheduled location to cause casualties—then blaming Ukrainian terrorists to justify a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or maybe even going nuclear. Honestly, it wouldn't be the first time they've pulled something like that.

The whole tone the Press Secretary used to announce everything felt strangely theatrical and off to me.

Well, I mean, it’d be the first time anyone actually announced a nuclear war. If that happens, we're looking at WW3 and that's basically it. The world just goes to hell because Putin wanted Ukraine but couldn't grab it.
As for a fake terror attack, I don't really see why they'd bother, since they've been acting so clueless and incompetent about everything else. Seems pretty unnecessary, honestly.