Posts by Thomas Walker84

Olivia Turner49 said:It just hit me—maybe the Ukrainians are targeting Crimea on purpose, just to spook the tourists. You know, send them running back to central Russia with news that things aren't going nearly as smoothly as the state media back home claims.

That’s a solid point. It also serves to let Russian forces know right now that their foothold isn't as secure as they thought it was. 🙂It’s a pretty extreme breakdown of traditional rules of engagement.

Peter Barnes said:Nina, my apologies—you weren't actually bringing up the USSR or Russ; you were talking about the field studies. Regardless, I’m sticking to my guns: you seem to be defending the USA without a hint of critical thought.

Yeah, I realized I got a little mixed up there. 😵As for the USA, I'm not sure if I'm being "uncritical" or just stating facts (see my post above), but let's try not to get too far off-topic!

hollowdriver13 said:Let’s be real: throughout history, every single superpower has been oppressive to some degree, whether it's on a massive scale or just in smaller ways.
The whole concept of being a "superpower" is inherently built that way.
For us—as people living in a smaller nation—the real question isn't about stopping hegemony, but figuring out which of the "big three" (the USA, Russia, or China) is the least damaging to our interests.
And honestly? Even with all its flaws, the USA still leads the pack when it comes to protecting individual liberties and basic human rights compared to the other two. As part of the European Union and NATO, we basically just have to cross our fingers and hope the US maintains its status as the global leader for as long as we're around.

Personally, I didn't view these major powers as "evils"—at least not during the relatively peaceful era following the fall of communism. (Nowadays, I’d apply that label to Russia). To me, calling them "evil" just because they are powerful feels like calling sharks evil simply because they are large and strong. Being big and powerful is just a fact of nature.

Russia, however, has fallen completely behind, and China is a different world entirely that doesn't really align with our values. Then there are other players who are even further from our vision of a "good life," such as the Islamic world or India.

Ultimately, I believe the USA is more "good" than "evil." My reasoning is that the modern world as we know it—and all the values we hold dear here in Europe and the West—would struggle to exist and be put into practice without America (whether you view it as a phenomenon, a nation, a society, or a force). Whether it was defeating the Nazis (if not for American assistance), providing support to help Europe break free from old hierarchical systems, or exporting the core social values we've adopted—like equality, the rule of law, and freedom of speech—it all traces back there. Even the technology that changed the world for the masses, from refrigerators and cars to rock and roll, TVs, and now computers, came from them. If any of this had come from Russia, China, various parts of Saudi Arabia, India, or Iran, what would it have looked like?

Maybe a tiny fraction would have surfaced, but likely only for the aristocracy or the elite. They probably would have ended up like Russia...

Is this "idolatry" of America? I wouldn't call it that. It's perfectly clear to me that there are plenty of idiots and bad things happening over there. But everything I mentioned above strikes me as a historical reality.

At the same time, it's all a bit of a Greco-Roman tragicomedy 😁 because while we often treat America like a brother protecting us, she is actually more like our European daughter, isn't she? 🤔 Without Europe (including Russia), America wouldn't even exist.

Wushu senior said:Thomas Walker84 and especially Cave troll, I really didn't expect this kind of misunderstanding from you two. I certainly didn't expect you to fall into the trap of whataboutism—just the reverse version of what bullies like Utah and gFlores use.

What whataboutism, Wushu? I’m not justifying bad American moves by pointing at someone else's actions. I’m just highlighting the widely accepted mantra that Americans "only look out for themselves," and the fact that this cliché exists solely and exclusively for America.

Why does that mantra exist? Is it because there's a general assumption that Americans ought to act in the interest of others (especially us Europeans😉), and if they don't, it's somehow wrong?

Though, it isn't even entirely true that they don't look out for our interests as Europeans.

It's obvious that Americans look out for their own interests, just like everyone else. The thing is, those interests don't necessarily have to align with everyone else's. Good grief, is that really so hard to grasp? People who support Putin will love this, but it is what it is. Glory to Ukraine, not the USA.

Look, more often than not, one person's interest is directly opposed to another's. Even though I believe European and American interests overlap significantly, and that gap will only close. Until recently, I was actually one of those who thought that European, Russian, and American interests would eventually all align.

Glory to Ukraine, not the USA.

Glory to Ukraine. 👍As for the USA, without their help, things would be much, much harder for Ukraine... A billion words of philosophy aren't worth nearly as much as actual, concrete aid.

somied said:anyway, it’s an interesting argument—that you should sympathize with Russia just because they're as bad as Americans. lol.

What I find fascinating is this whole obsession with "self-interest."

Obviously, it's clear that everyone acts in their own interest—whether it's Americans, Russians, Chinese, Icelanders, Bob and George, or even dogs, cats, and sea urchins. 😉

Yet, when it comes to Americans, there's this constant national mantra that "they only look out for themselves," which makes it sound like they're the only ones on Earth acting this way.

If I got a single dollar for every time I heard that silly cliché, I could buy myself a speedboat. (Not that I'd be doing it for my own interest!) 😁

I never hear anyone parrot mantras like "the Chinese only care about their own interests" or "Europeans only look out for themselves," even though that's just as true for them as it is for Americans.

By the way, the sanctions against Russia are also in our interest. Of course, supporting Ukraine is a noble gesture, but the ultimate goal is to stop Russian aggression, which, if it succeeded in Ukraine, would continue its path across Europe.

PS. I actually saw a crab kill a sea urchin the other day. An urchin naturally acts in its own interest, trying to cling to the ocean floor. This one clearly failed, and since the crab was also just acting in its own interest rather than the urchin's, things ended exactly how they did.

Peter Barnes said:The USA always follows its own interests—it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about dollars, oil, geopolitical leverage, or some other niche influence. These moves aren't usually driven by some grand "greater good," and frankly, they often involve committing outright crimes in the process. We shouldn't kid ourselves about that. They aren't exactly the "good guys," but over the last decade or so, they've been significantly less problematic than the Russ—especially given how things look right now.

Oh really? I think I've heard that one somewhere before.😁

ali yes of course, the USA always follows its own interests. This is quite different from Russia, which, for example, looks out for Ukrainian interests alongside Georgian and Belarusian ones—not to mention their concern for Lithuanian interests or the general good, like how providing gas can benefit all of Europe, or how grain helps Africa. It’s also different from China, which similarly pursues other people's interests; for instance, their moves regarding Taiwan often serve a broader purpose, and they act as benefactors in Africa by securing resources. Not to mention almost every other country on Earth follows the interests of others, just like people do. Even you, for example, likely prioritize other people's needs over your own quite often.

🙂

goldenowl73 said:The Russian Ambassador in Vladivostok was just posting on Twitter.

He’s showing absolutely zero compassion for the people in Ukraine!

"No mercy to the Ukrainian population!"

https://twitter.com/Experdiza/status...yeHNsXHdQ&s=19

Then, after the backlash, he tries to backtrack and claims he meant to put a question mark there instead of an exclamation point. Like, seriously?🤣>

It's pretty clear to me that a genocidal war criminal is running the show in all of them.

That guy is just trying to push that tired argument that Ukraine shouldn't be defending itself against aggression and is somehow responsible for all the casualties.

James Phillips92 said:None of that is the real reason. The main driver was just grabbing the oil—pretty much the same logic behind Putin seizing territory in Ukraine.

I feel like I missed something—where exactly has the United States seized territory?

wanderingmaker3 said:Basically, if you look closer, it's always just about the money, isn't it?

boldotter2 said:Exactly! It's not even about the profit for Americans, it's more about the leverage you get from controlling the oil supply. It's more important to them that everyone else *doesn't* gain that kind of influence. Maybe that's just how it goes.

Ukraine will eventually wrap up its whole situation with Russia, but I think that's just one chapter in the much bigger American playbook.
They're going straight for Russia's throat. It's all about resource control. After that, China might just have to become the biggest supporter of renewable energy.

Seriously, the United States has a now or never moment right now. They could take down Russia, and maybe even China too. And honestly, it's probably all thanks to Putin and his way of dealing with frustration through these imperialist power plays.

Nathan Thomas12 said:The US doesn't care who owns the oil or how much they have, as long as it’s sold in US Dollars. Libya and Iraq tried moving away from the greenback, but it didn't last. Then came Iran and Venezuela, and they got hit with embargos.

dustymarlin10 said:... plus all the gold and foreign currency reserves they're snatching.
And hey, why stop there? They'll take the cultural heritage too, right?

and so on.

Can we finally agree on why the United States is responsible for all of this?

It’s not just about them looking out for "their own interests." It’s more like they're grabbing all the oil, but the profit from the oil itself isn't the point. It's about the cash—though it’s not even really about the money or who owns the oil, but rather the currency. Actually, it’s not even about the currency, it’s about making sure everyone else can't make any money either (it seems pretty clear to me that the ultimate capitalist goal is to prevent others from profiting so they lose their purchasing power🙂). But that's not the whole story; this is a unique moment where they're trying to seize control (whatever that looks like) over China and Russia. In reality, what they're truly after is gold and cultural heritage. 🤣

I get the gist, but I'm curious: what kind of "cultural heritage" would the United States as a nation actually try to take? I mean, are they planning to claim Iraqi literature as their own? Or maybe the Vietnamese language? 🤔

rowdyraven112 said:Just for the record, in case we all slept through the last eight years. Russia has been under sanctions since 2014. That means they've had an eight-year head start in building an economy that doesn't rely on Western resources. I'm not convinced they haven't already done that. A 4% drop actually proves my point. We'll see. One thing I am sure of: they won't go bankrupt before negotiations start, and that depends on whether they hit their occupation goals—goals even I can't define. Bakhmut is about to fall, which puts the defense of Siversk - Bakhmut at risk. I don't even want to think about what happens if Cleveland and Slavic fall.

Should I scour this forum and news sites to pull quotes about how they'll run out of war supplies and food within six months? Artillery is still flying. Russians have plenty of food on store shelves. It's pure underestimation. And that’s the worst part. It reminds me of Louisa May Alcott's Kosjenka and Regoč. In the end, one village decides to break a dam just to flood another. Both disappear, cheered on by their own people. A cautionary tale. ☕

We should, because this is the first time I've heard anyone claim that Russia will exhaust its food and war reserves in six months.

In reality, people are much more likely to argue that Europe will face massive problems or even total collapse within six months without Russian gas.🍿

Joshua Myers432 said:You can find outbursts like that all day long coming from people in Southern Europe; they’re all dreaming about our coastline, so don't sweat it. That's exactly why I think NATO is usually just a smoke screen used to dodge real issues. It’s more likely that Canada or Italy will try to grab a slice of the American coast than they will actually defend us against some imaginary, totally far-fetched Russian invasion.

We'd be better off actually getting to work instead of begging for scraps and handouts across Europe.

That’s just nonsense and shows a total lack of understanding. 🤦 The vast majority of Italians aren't even thinking about that—they just come here as tourists to enjoy themselves. Sure, there might be a few extremist parties or politicians who blather on about ancient empires and lost kingdoms, but... those people exist everywhere. You find similar characters in the US too. They mostly get media attention because they're great for clickbait, which makes them look like significant players when they really aren't.

Vladimir Putin's Russia is an entirely different story. There, people like that are actually in power and shaping entire policies, and right now, they are engaged in a conquest war—a real, actual war where they invade and kill. (I still find it hard to believe this is actually happening).

That's why I think NATO is usually just a smoke screen to dodge real issues. Canada and Italy would rather grab a piece of the American coast than defend the US against some imaginary and totally unbelievable Russian attack.

Eeeee, exactly, that's how it is. 🤦 🤦 We definitely need to stay on high alert for a military strike from Italy or Canada.

Instead of worrying about some completely imaginary and impossible Russian or, say, Mexican attack—which has never happened and those nations have never done anything like that, especially not lately. It's honestly silly to even consider such a thing.

And no, I don't believe they will attack the US (because it's far too complicated); I just think a Russian or Mexican attack is a million percent more likely than one from Italy or Canada.

We'd be better off getting to work instead of begging for scraps and aid across Europe.

We aren't begging for help; we are utilizing opportunities that foster development in America (as we do in any other EU country), which in turn contributes to the growth of the EU globally. However, certain insecure mindsets can't imagine America as anything other than a beggar.

Paul Thomas46 said:It is quite interesting how both the US and Ukraine are essentially the primary nations dealing with aggression and conquest wars following World War II...

Which means we can finally dive into the Paradox Greeting (PG)...
The people who shout at everyone else over their choice of greetings actually end up having intentions identical to those they condemn. Truly fascinating...

And our current situation would have slipped under the radar forever if there wasn't this active narrative involving other players. Or rather, are they even really "other" players?...
Again, quite interesting...

Hmm...

People who think deeply about this conflict correctly notice the unspeakable horror of certain greetings—but there’s something even worse: the tattoos. When you weigh the horrors of those symbols and tattoos, it almost seems silly to even mention the trivial massacres, killings, widespread destruction, leveled cities, displacements, filtration camps, terror, and the dead and wounded. I mean, hello, what are we even talking about here! Sure, people are being killed there, which isn't okay, but these people have tattoos!!!!!! And they use those greetings!!!!! That's what truly chills the blood!!!!!!!

🐔

James Phillips92 said:Where do you think we kept our troops during the battles back in the nineties? You think they all hide away in massive concrete bunkers, or are they just sitting under a tent? This isn't World War I where two armies clash on a distant front while everyone else lives life normally in the background. Like I said, they're reporting a "selective truth." If the Russian military hadn't invaded Ukraine, the American military wouldn't be stationed in schools and daycares—they'd be in barracks. They should just head over to Russia and tell Putin to pull his troops out; then all these problems would vanish.

In reality, there isn't much of a choice. When a city is under heavy attack like this, defenders have to find somewhere to regroup. If there aren't enough dedicated military bases available, they have to use public buildings. Of course, those places would be cleared out first so civilians stay safe and away from the area. It also has to be a space large enough to hold them; it’s not like they can just bunk up in someone's empty apartment...🤔

casualranger2 said:Look, Russians have always had a reputation for producing top-tier mathematicians—the kind of brainpower that serves as the literal bedrock for engineering. So, honestly, it’s a bit of a head-scratcher how they haven't managed to develop consumer tech or software that can actually go toe-to-toe with the West. It feels like their entire innovation engine just gets funneled into one specific lane: building destructive missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

It probably boils down to the political regime, the legacy of communism, and the overall social structure. A massive amount of Russian intelligence fled to the West throughout the 20th century, and it looks like that brain drain is just going to continue. In the long run, Russia loses way more from losing its brightest minds than it ever will from sanctions alone.

In the meantime, all that displaced Russian talent has contributed to the progress and development of America and Europe... and as we're seeing, they'll keep doing just that. It's a total lose-lose for Russia. Maybe some will head to China or India, but either way, Russia is missing out. 😵

except when it comes to destructive missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

The smart ones who stay are usually the ones most loyal to the regime, which might explain why they specialize in destruction and ruin. They even have these multi-dimensional chess players, but they seem to be missing the basic logic of how things actually unfold. Honestly, they could probably use a few farmers to remind them that you reap what you sow.🙂

"Quote:"

Matthew Young35 said:What exactly didn't they say?
I was under the impression we were discussing the report where Amnesty claims Ukrainians are using civilian infrastructure for military purposes.

Regardless, shouldn't the only thing that truly matters be whether the report is accurate or not?

"Quote:"

Melissa Rivera5 said:But I mean, that’s totally fine if there aren't any civilians around there.

"Quote:"

Matthew Young35 said:True, but then an attack becomes legitimate too.

I believe the Geneva Convention also stipulates that attacking other countries isn't legitimate.

So, it looks like we’re all on the same page here—as you both pointed out, it's legitimate for Ukrainians to use civilian structures as military targets if there aren't any civilians present. At the same time, it isn't legitimate for Russians to strike those targets, since they're doing it all as part of an invasion of another country, which is fundamentally illegitimate. It seems we're all in agreement on that.

If you're really going to go through all that trouble—twisting words and clinging to legal technicalities just to suit an agenda—it’s funny how people can claim something is perfectly legitimate and accurate based on one declaration, while calling it a total lie based on another.

It’s actually pretty straightforward: in situations like this, everything the Ukrainians do militarily to defend themselves is legitimate, provided they aren't putting civilians in direct harm—especially if such risks were being intentionally forced just to smear the enemy further.

"Quote:"

Matthew Young35 said:Let me be clear: Amnesty International didn't draft or sign the Geneva Convention.
Their role is simply to document what’s actually happening on the ground.
If their report is fraudulent, then by all means, attack them. But if the findings are accurate? Then the criticism is misplaced.
It really is that simple.

Even so, nothing changes the core reality: Russia is the aggressor here. They are committing crimes, and there is no excuse for their actions, regardless of whatever one might think about that report.

There’s a big difference between a straight-up propaganda lie and actual propaganda manipulation, and there are plenty of shades of gray in between. Manipulation works by taking real facts and twisting them on purpose to lead people toward the wrong conclusion. That makes what some people at Amnesty are doing much worse than just lying; it's more effective because it's designed specifically to muddy the waters.

casualcrane20 said:I completely agree. The further we move away from the daily grind of battlefield reports—which are notoriously unreliable anyway—the better our chances of figuring out who is doing what and why. At the highest geopolitical level, it's obvious we are seeing a global realignment of major powers. Every tactical move on the ground is just a byproduct of that. Since we are talking about existential survival, these players won't hesitate to use methods that other nations would consider unthinkable. They also won't hesitate to frame those actions to make them look justified or acceptable. Plus, with today's tech for manipulating audio and video, it's nearly impossible to judge authenticity on your own. To make matters worse, journalism, which used to be a decent source of info, has become the primary engine for fakes and noise. Ultimately, we have to follow the money and watch social media. On those platforms, the rarest and most aggressive voices are the independents, which includes me. We tend to annoy both sides because we refuse to fit into the narrow version of "truth" they are trying to push.

Things get complicated, sure, but everything both sides do ultimately boils down to some pretty simple motives.

One side wants to conquer, enslave, or annex another country or parts of it.
The other just wants to defend themselves, go their own way, and live in peace.

Is that also too hard to "figure out"?

At the highest geopolitical level, it’s obvious we're seeing a massive global realignment of world powers. Every move they make on the ground is just a byproduct of that. Since we're talking about their very survival, they aren't going to shy away from methods that other nations might find totally unacceptable. They'll also do whatever it takes to frame those moves as justified and acceptable. Plus, with today's tech for manipulating audio and video, it's nearly impossible to judge what's actually real. To make matters worse, journalism, which used to be a reliable source, has become the biggest driver of fake news and noise. So, really, all we can do is follow the money and look at social media. On social media, the rarest and most aggressive voices are the ones who claim to be "unaffiliated," a group I include myself in. They bother everyone because they disrupt the specific version of the truth being pushed.

If you truly believe you're "unaffiliated," then you're mistaken if you think you aren't helping the aggressor. If anything, people like you are invaluable allies; by pushing theories that "truth is unknowable," you're essentially helping the aggressor hide their tracks perfectly.

brightheron64 said:Really?

Moscow... well, it was moving (even if just a hundred meters) right up until the moment it sank. 😁

But, since we're discussing this particular incident, I honestly find it hard to believe that the Azov troops would be considered such valuable bargaining chips for the Russians that they'd risk liquidating them in such a clumsy, senseless way.
And even if that were actually the goal, there are much more efficient and logical scenarios to consider, ranging from staging a "mutiny and attempted escape" to other possibilities...

The media coverage surrounding this war is always quite fascinating to watch, especially when you see headlines like:
"Russians strike school in Kharkiv, shell residential neighborhoods"
"We hit a Russian ammunition depot"

The reverse scenario never seems to happen—it's simply not possible... or is it?

It’s possible, but unlikely, given the nature of this war, why both sides are fighting, and how they choose to fight.

The Rus target homes and civilians intentionally. We saw that same kind of terror back in the Middle East. It’s a tactic meant to intimidate and force the victim to submit to the stronger side. They don't care about the destruction or the killing because, despite all their talk about "brotherhood" and the "Russian world," they aren't locals here.

The Ukrainians primarily target military objectives because they just want to defend their own land. They have no desire or interest in destroying it, let alone killing their own people or harassing the Russians living there, unless those individuals are actively supporting the aggressor. Ukrainians are fully prepared to respect minority rights, especially as they move toward joining the EU. In any case, they have zero interest in "endangering" them.

So, if Ukrainians hit a civilian target, it's by mistake; but when the Rus hit one, in most cases, that was the actual goal.

It doesn't look to me like China has any appetite for starting wars nearby right now; they seem more focused on tightening their grip and reinforcing autocracy within their own borders.😒

That’s not to say they don't have certain ambitions or intentions, but those aren't exactly top priority on their agenda for the immediate or even medium term. Right now, they are clearly leaning into technological advancement, building wealth, and maintaining stability.

Plus, they seem quite content with their business dealings with the European Union. We saw how friendly and "business as usual" their delegation and premier acted during the opening of the Golden Gate Bridge, for instance. I don't see them wanting to jeopardize a solid economic partner, whether that means indirectly helping Russia or trying to use an opportunity to attack Russia—either way, they would just end up destabilizing all their existing relationships, contracts, transactions, and trade.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Wait—that looks incredibly familiar to me!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

The same will happen here: these despised, backwards people will end up with potentially even less territory than they had before the aggression, leaving nothing but empty wishes on a map.😵😁

rowdyraven112 said:There’s a massive crowd here claiming the European Union will just replace fuel supplies around the corner. No crisis, right? Looking at the big picture, this is the first global crisis directly engineered by Russia in cooperation with other world governments. ☕

Just like the crowd of users who knew Russia would invade Ukraine. I didn't see it coming. It caught me off guard because I couldn't believe Vladimir Putin would be that much of a scumbag. Whatever, I was wrong. While everyone else gets to say "I told you so," ☕

Which forum users are we even talking about here??🤔
You must be dreaming.

gFlores said:They don't have a clue about war strategy, yet they still talk nonsense. Where is this Ukrainian offensive in Crimea?

Don't worry, it'll happen...

Once that offensive succeeds—once Ukraine reclaims all its territory and pushes out the Russian military—they can start rebuilding what was destroyed, live normally, and join the European Union. People won't be dying under bombs anymore, and soldiers won't be falling in these wars. That part is certain.

When that offensive plays out and Russia suffers a military defeat, a new government will take over. Whether they are genuinely anti-Putin or just acting under pressure, they’ll shift their current policy and stop the aggression, which will eventually lead to sanctions being eased bit by bit. It’s not a guarantee, but it's likely. What is certain is that soldiers will stop dying in these forced conquests they were sent on.

So, that offensive will be a huge win for everyone involved. Until it actually happens, people like you will just keep worrying about how many more lives will be lost.👎