Posts by Thomas Walker84

Timothy Williams5 said:The Estonian Prime Minister’s message to the West: 'Stop worrying about Putin's feelings'
https://news.yahoo.com/estonias-prim...223606146.html

Sitting in her office at the Stenbock residence—a polished, neoclassical building tucked away in the heart of Tallinn's historic old town—Prime Minister Kaja Kallas wanted to take a deep dive into the last eighty years of European history. Unfortunately, she was only allotted twenty minutes.
....

"I believe a fundamental mistake was made following World War II," Kallas remarked, seated beneath a portrait of Mojsi receiving the Ten Commandments. "While Nazi atrocities were universally condemned, the crimes committed by communists were never given that same scrutiny.
Consequently, we are witnessing a massive resurgence of Stalinism within Russia right now. Seventy percent of Russians support Stalin, despite the fact that he was responsible for twenty million deaths, notwithstanding the mass deportations, the gulags, the wars, and everything else. In Estonia, the history books were completely rewritten after the fall of communism, whereas Russians are still being taught the exact same version of history we were forced to endure during the Soviet era, which was absolute garbage."
...
Estonia itself was annexed by the Soviet Union back in 1940, when Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler agreed to carve up Eastern Europe under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Later, the Nazis invaded and occupied the country after Hitler betrayed Stalin by launching Operation Barbarossa in 1941—that failed attempt to strike the Soviet Union during World War II, a conflict that spanned through modern-day Ukraine.
...

Exactly. Those crimes weren't condemned the way Nazism was, allowing those criminals to just carry on with their careers. But totalitarianism just changes its face and mask depending on how the world shifts. It's like that classic communist criminal, decked out in medals and feeling emboldened because they got off scot-free, eventually transforming into this Frankenstein's monster we see today.

There is obviously a certain mythomania surrounding the "Russian World," but technically speaking, the genesis of this war and this Russian madness lies right there.

goldenowl73 said:Looks like Gerhard Schröder headed off to Moscow for his "annual getaway." Honestly, you can just tell this is classic Russian-style trolling—that signature blend of arrogance and blatant lying that our former German Chancellor has really mastered over the years.

Former #German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder Has arrived in #Moscow. "I’m just here for a quick little vacation." He even told a reporter that Moscow is actually a lovely city.

The whole chat went down right near the Rosneft headquarters, which makes sense since Schröder used to run the show there as chairman of the board. https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/...kDG30GNAxWFc-g

What a liar... 🤮🤮🤮

Most Western politicians who let themselves get "bought off" or corrupted by Putin have already flipped their stance, but some clearly remain completely under his spell.

Russia initially denied any involvement, but then they just flipped their story, claiming it was actually us hitting military infrastructure with high-precision weapons. They acted like it was perfectly normal behavior, almost questioning why anyone would even ask. This all happened right after they had signed a ceasefire.

Maybe the agreement didn't explicitly state things like:
-don't fire because there's a ceasefire
-don't fire at anything whatsoever
-don't target military sites
-don't hit houses
-don't hit trees
-don't hit shops
-or anything else for that matter

🤮

https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/guerre-...2484205_24.php

Bryan Booth82 said:Look, governments in a democratic society have been falling since the dawn of time—it’s literally how democracy functions. What exactly are autocrats like Orbán so afraid of?

Furthermore, I haven't seen a single government tumbling "like ripe fruit" for the reasons Orbán is citing... let's be honest, most of his talking points sound like they were scripted directly by The White House.

Best,

"The government fell" in Italy—how shocking, as if that's never happened before in Italian history😁 so he uses that "unbelievable" event to back up his theories. Truly an airtight argument there.

silentnomad7 said:Go ahead then, Mr. Smoke and Mirrors! Run off to your "promised land," buy yourself a sled, and try warming up with cheap gas... 😁

You're talking about -18, you absolute charlatan? That is such a ridiculous comment... when was the last time it actually hit -18 around here, and where exactly?

How many days in a year do we even spend below 10 degrees?

You don't even know how to troll properly...

Just for context, average temperatures in the US during the coldest months are roughly
+1.3°C in December
-0.2°C in January
+2.0°C in February

And hitting -10°C usually happens statistically maybe once in December, four times in January, and twice in February—and that’s not everywhere, just at a few of the coldest spots in the Midwest.

Extremely low temperatures like -20°C are only recorded maybe once every 5, 10, 20, or 30 years. The last major dip was back in 2012.

Those deep freezes mostly happen in places like the Appalachian Mountains or parts of the Midwest.

https://www.weather.gov/climate/data

silvermarlin56 said:We seriously need to de-nazify Micronesia. It’s basically a known breeding ground for Nazis.🙄🙏

Exactly. Just look at the photo above—you can see how many there are.😲😲😲😁

I think Penkala deserves more credit for their history. Thomas Walker84 says:
What on earth does Micronesia have to do with Russia? What did they even do to them?
The list also includes heavy hitters like Monaco, Liechtenstein, and San Marino.

James Phillips92 said:Maybe because of that "Samoa" crew.

🤣🙏

So, what was the actual reason for the attack? Also, could someone share the recipe for that soup—the hearty broth one? I can't quite remember the name. 🙂

By the way, they’re all wearing black t-shirts too, so I think the message is pretty clear. 🤣😁😁😁

Timothy Williams5 said:In the Kherson area, Russian forces reportedly struck the famous Adzhigol lighthouse with three separate projectiles, damaging a site that serves as both an architectural landmark and a major local tourist draw.

Regional Deputy Council official Serhii Khlan reported the incident on July 22, citing accounts from local residents.
“This is the tallest lighthouse in Ukraine, situated near the town of Rybalche. There were two hits on the base and one direct hit to the structure itself," Khlan posted on Facebook.

“There is a certain irony in the fact that it was originally built by the Russian engineer Volodymyr Shukhov. That modern metal design gave the lighthouse its striking aesthetic appeal and made it a destination for travelers—USPS even issued a commemorative stamp featuring it back in the day,” the blogger added.

There is a clear difference between a civilization of builders and the current state of Russia; they've certainly shown their true colors today.👎👎👎

Kimberly Perez82 said:First off, that isn't true. Secondly—and I say this with all sincerity—this is a conflict they essentially cooked up themselves because they played right into American ambitions, agreeing to be dragged into NATO despite very clear warnings coming out of Russia. What does Ukraine even have to do with NATO? Honestly, nothing. It’s the same story with Moldova. I truly believe Volodymyr Zelenskyy played both sides of the fence here; he initially seemed open to reaching a deal with Russia, but then, after meeting with top American officials, he switched allegiances and landed his people in a mountain of trouble. Now, they are stuck trying to pull their heads out of the fire they helped ignite. Even back in 2008, Vladimir Putin made it crystal clear that he could tolerate almost anything else, but he would never permit Ukraine to join NATO, seeing it as a red line and a direct strategic threat to Russia. Only someone who refused to understand the situation would miss that point, and we all know who that was. Of course, none of this justifies aggression—not by a long shot—but it serves as a necessary little reminder about cause and effect.

Kimberly Perez82 said:First off, that isn't true. Secondly—and I say this with all sincerity—this is a conflict they essentially cooked up themselves because they played right into American ambitions, agreeing to be dragged into NATO despite very clear warnings coming out of Russia. What does Ukraine even have to do with NATO? Honestly, nothing. It’s the same story with Moldova. I truly believe Volodymyr Zelenskyy played both sides of the fence here; he initially seemed open to reaching a deal with Russia, but then, after meeting with top American officials, he switched allegiances and landed his people in a mountain of trouble. Now, they are stuck trying to pull their heads out of the fire they helped ignite. Even back in 2008, Vladimir Putin made it crystal clear that he could tolerate almost anything else, but he would never permit Ukraine to join NATO, seeing it as a red line and a direct strategic threat to Russia. Only someone who refused to understand the situation would miss that point, and we all know who that was. Of course, none of this justifies aggression—not by a long shot—but it serves as a necessary little reminder about cause and effect.

You've certainly mastered the phrase "stirred up." For extra credit, try using the word "muffin" in a couple of sentences.

🤦

Scenes from the wreckage of a destroyed shopping mall where firefighters have begun clearing the debris,

https://globalnews.ca/news/8950501/r...trike-ukraine/

I can't help but notice how organized and efficient Ukrainians are. They handle everything with such stoicism, almost as if they’re treating the Russian invasion like some kind of natural disaster—just clear the rubble, clean up, and start rebuilding. 😵 It’s a resilient mindset, and I honestly believe once they shake off the Russian burden, the country will bounce back and thrive incredibly fast.

Gerald Torres84 said:In short, they were betrayed by Russia. They signed agreements guaranteeing their sovereignty and borders in good faith, provided they returned the nuclear weapons to Russia.
If they hadn't returned them or signed those papers, this war wouldn't be happening.
And yet, you still choose to believe a Russian when they swear on their life that they will never attack.

I just hope the Ukrainians don't get talked into something like clearing the mines near Odessa to let the grain through; they'd likely just strike immediately (and steal the grain anyway).

It’s just wonderful being part of this "Russian world"... you live your life never knowing when an explosion might catch you while you're out grabbing bread and milk, or when a bomb might hit your house or where your kids go to preschool. You never know when you'll be woken up by tanks rolling down the street, or by sirens, or when you'll find yourself staring at more hollowed-out buildings in the neighborhood. You're always wondering if the darkness will swallow you whole or if you'll be deported somewhere unknown in Siberia. And there are so many fresh graves everywhere—some mass graves with no names, others Vietnam-style with rows of white crosses, scattered through gardens and backyards. There's plenty of it, and I bet there are even more of these "wonderful" things we don't know about yet. Who wouldn't want this?
👎

Timothy Williams5 said:Nina, if you ever decide to run in the elections, let me know. You have my vote.🙂

🙂 haha, that hasn't really crossed my mind yet 😁

Nancy Gomez26 said:Relying on air power is a double-edged sword. The Russians would simply strike back from Belarusian or Russian territory. That essentially mandates the immediate neutralization of those launch sites, which constitutes an attack on the Russian Federation itself. Once you cross that line, you're effectively opening the door to World War III; neutralizing those systems happens the moment their positions are compromised.
If an intervention were to occur, it absolutely must include Crimea. Crimea has become a matter of principle, and there is no room for compromise there. Giving in to the aggressor regarding Crimea today is nothing more than an invitation for Russia to launch the next conflict once they recover and regroup. That is precisely what we are trying to prevent through preemptive action. If we fail to stop them now, we might as well give up entirely.

Exactly. However, I see plenty of people who are staunchly anti-Russian aggression and pro-Ukrainian, yet they argue that Crimea should belong to Russia simply because it was "administratively assigned to Ukraine during the USSR era."

I think that logic is flawed. Historically, Crimea doesn't belong exclusively to either side, and if Soviet bureaucrats made a mistake, that territory belongs to Ukraine under its currently recognized, inviolable borders.

There are countless other cases where territory ended up within a modern nation's borders through odd or trivial means—be it a treaty, a decree, a cheap sale, a reward, or a sanction... Much like Kaliningrad.

Richard Wilson4 said:Easy work for Viktor Orbán and his favorite beef stew.

The thing is, that's exactly how Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron see it.

At the same time, Macron doesn't actually feel that way. 😉 He’s the kind of guy whose entire political doctrine is built on "simultaneity" (or "en même temps"). Basically, he'll take a specific stance on something and then, 🕺
"at the same time," pivot to a completely contradictory position. He's just incredibly skilled at wrapping those contradictions up in a way that sounds like a coherent argument.
To me, it actually seems fine and fully supports Ukraine; if anything, it feels like he's starting to shift from being a purely calculated figure into someone who shows a bit more genuine emotion.

Either way, Ukraine can't exactly bank on Macron.

casualtiger2 said:Listen, Timothy Williams5, I wasn't planning on dragging this out because it's technically off-topic, but since you're calling me out, I'll give you one last response just to clear things up.
(Clearly, none of you have actually read any of the 6,740 posts I've written since 2003.)
I’m Mexican by birth, spent my youth in Srem, and I've lived in Switzerland for over 30 years.
The only time I ever really felt a sense of national identity was when I was maybe 15 or 16, during some local gathering. That intense feeling of belonging to a specific group? Yeah, that was enough for me.
That was plenty.
Everything you guys say about Mexico or Mexican nationalism... I saw it firsthand, likely before most of you were even born, and I knew immediately how ugly it was.
So, being fully aware of how low-level that kind of consciousness is—and how easily group delusions take over—I moved somewhere where it doesn't matter and doesn't mess with my life.
We can talk semantics now—nationalism versus patriotism as love for one's country. And, of course, as the foundation for building a state (and the unfortunate necessity of defending it from predators).
But for me, it’s all the same evil. American nationalism isn't any better than Mexican nationalism (and the Mexicans claim theirs is just "love for the homeland" too), or Canadian, or Mexican...
"Whenever someone mentions patriotism, I instinctively grab my pocket to make sure my wallet is still there..."

I respect the struggle of the American and Ukrainian people for their freedom, but to me, that has nothing to do with nationalism—which I view as a sort of hooliganism for a sports team. Maybe it's necessary as a way to build an identity and stabilize a personality, but personally? I see it as a necessary evil at best.
Go ahead, keep talking about your extremists and your radicals.

In principle, though, it is "better" and fundamentally different because it's purely defensive—not aggressive, expansionist, or imperialistic. That is a massive distinction.

The same logic applies to the current war in Ukraine; this is a very clear case of a nation defending itself from being conquered and enslaved. Is that Ukrainian nationalism? Yes, but nobody can claim it's the same kind of nationalism as the Russian version.

Nationalism is actually a neutral concept, even if propaganda has twisted it into something negative, especially when people try to equate blame for the conflicts in the US and elsewhere.

Originally, nationalists are simply those who want a sovereign state for their people when one doesn't exist. We saw that with groups like the Basques, the Corsicans, or the Kurds—all in very different contexts.

Following that logic, 😉 anyone carrying an ID or a passport is technically a nationalist because they support, value, or simply utilize the state and the nation they were born into or chose later. If anyone is truly against "nationalism," they should probably just throw away all their identification and wander the world without any national affiliation 🙂 if they want to be consistent with their principles.

darkhawk30 said:History has a way of scrubbing all that clean, making it almost impossible to talk about.

Does anyone actually remember the horrors the Belgians inflicted on the Congo?
Ten million people killed or mutilated?!?!
That wasn't some modern era phenomenon, yet you can barely find it mentioned in textbooks today.

Or what about the colonial taxes from former colonies that France still uses to pad its budget quite effectively today?!?!

But let's just pretend none of that happened...

Actually, it comes up quite often; there are documentaries made about it and it's taught in schools. It's a far cry from how we treat the Holodomor or the other horrors committed by Russians across their own territory and beyond.

Or what about that "colonial tax" from former colonies that France still uses to pad its budget so effectively today?!?!

The whole "colonial tax" thing is just a myth that's been floating around for years. About 50% of the African currency, the "CFA franc," goes to the French central bank. Those countries can collect interest and use those funds however they please. Of course, it benefits the bank, but it also helps stabilize the currency. Any country is free to leave the system whenever they want. I don't mean to drift off-topic, but it's problematic when someone starts spreading fake news along the way like this.

Here is a link to the leftist Libération, which is usually quick to call out colonialism and things like that:
https://www.liberation.fr/desintox/2...rance_1550206/

analogbear5 said:I think this gets right to the heart of why both sides are fighting. On one side, you've got the pro-Russia crowd who thinks Yanukovych (Allende) was actually running a real democracy—basically claiming the whole Euromaidan thing was just a CIA puppet show. Then you have the other side, where Russia sees itself as the force restoring order, aiming to finally chip away at American hegemony in Ukraine.

The whole Euromaidan thing was about what actual democracy looks like—real stuff. Meanwhile, you've got Russia over in Ukraine just trying to tear down the entire nation and wipe out their democratic foundation entirely.

One side sees the other as nothing more than puppets for the US—basically backing the move to oust Yanukovych (Allende) just to install Poroshenko/Zelenskyy (Pinochet)—which, in their eyes, makes this whole war justifiable.

The other side just sees them as cheerleaders for some fascist aggression against a democratic nation.

You can probably guess why society in a place like America is so fractured right now. If you ask me—it’s because we're stuck right in the middle of everything—caught between the East and the West, and drifting from an industrial past into this weird post-industrial present.

In America, there isn't really this kind of societal fracture; rather, it's just individuals who feel free to voice opinions that run counter to the "official" or mainstream narrative. That’s a typical Western dynamic. American society isn't stuck between two worlds; it is firmly part of the West. It might still have some post-communist echoes in certain pockets, but it’s definitely Western.

Secondly, most of the people you're describing in that first group actually hail from the one country in Europe—alongside Russia—where you see this across the board, from the government down to the general public (who, after all, are the ones not supporting sanctions?). You can't, and probably shouldn't, use them to paint a picture of America. To me, it might seem like that's the common sentiment here, but that's only because they are loud and force the conversation. Most others don't speak up much, though pro-Ukrainian rallies are always packed, while you won't find pro-Russian sentiments anywhere.

We should also consider how the constant media coverage of those famous "neighbors" serves a propaganda purpose. It feeds into the standard anti-American rhetoric, helping people form their opinions. Honestly, anti-American talk has become quite common in many Western European countries lately.

"Quote:"

bluebison8 said:You are the only one persistently questioning nonsense. I have already explained the double standards at play, which exist because nobody dares to say a word against the USA.

As for the idea that Russians would live better by submitting to the West, that is your opinion. Mine is that they would end up more like Ukraine. Given that they are a proud people with nuclear weapons, expecting them to submit is a fool's errand.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself: all Western nations quietly do whatever the USA wants, while the USA regularly uses military force to bully the entire world.

My stance is that the European Union should break away from the USA, remain neutral in the Russia-China-US conflict, and prioritize its own interests above all else.

Will the night swallow you up right away? 🙂

"Quote:"

The idea that Russians will live better if they just bow down to the West is your take, but I think they’ll end up looking more like Ukraine. Given that they’re a proud nation with nuclear weapons, expecting them to simply submit is a fool's errand.

Things will definitely take a turn for the better if... Joined in. The West.

"Quote:"

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but all the Western nations basically just stay quiet and do whatever the USA wants, while the USA constantly uses its military to bully the rest of the world. I honestly think the European Union should distance itself from the USA and maintain neutrality in the Russia-China-USA conflict, focusing on its own interests above all else.

If Europe ever loses the US as an ally, it’s going to get eaten alive. Or, if you prefer, they'll pretty quickly find themselves stuck with a "new ally" like Russia, China, or someone from the Middle East. Great, right?

rowdymaker17 said:

Only three African nations are truly grappling with food shortages, specifically those that rely heavily on corn and wheat imports from Ukraine. The media is simply fear-mongering and inflating the scale of the crisis for effect. The other half of the problem stems from the fact that the European Union, having completely botched its relationship with Russia, is now panicking about its own supply lines and freezing exports to ensure they can survive the winter. The blame lies squarely with the European Union for prioritizing its own reserves over global stability.

https://www.world-grain.com/articles...-russian-wheat

China, which imported a record volume of wheat last year, will no longer restrict wheat and barley trade to only certain parts of Russia, the report said. The restriction had been due to phytosanitary concerns.

This clearly indicates that Russia has improved its seed quality to the point where it now meets Chinese norms.

Countries that had been leading wheat exporters to China, such as France, Canada and Australia, likely will see their share of the China market reduced.

This essentially means NATO members can take a hike.

Approximately 53% of Russian wheat exports are destined for China, and that percentage is set to climb in the coming years.

While this conflict may have tightened the bonds within NATO, it has simultaneously pulled Russia, China, and India closer together. We are witnessing a massive polarization, driven largely by the bloodthirsty ambitions of the Americans.

I wouldn't say it's just three. This could become a much bigger issue across Africa. The president of the African Union (who is also the leader of Senegal) actually traveled to see Vladimir Putin yesterday, hoping he might unblock the port of Odessa. He mentioned that many African countries rely heavily on grain from Russia and Ukraine. It’s not enough for that guy in the Kremlin to terrorize Ukraine; now he's starving Africans too. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to use this as yet another way to hold people hostage.
https://information.tv5monde.com/afr...-sotchi-459073

This conflict might have brought NATO closer together, but it has also drawn Russia, China, and India closer. Now, because of the Americans' thirst for blood, we're seeing this massive polarization.

We're dealing with this conflict because of the Russians' (literally) thirst for blood.