Posts by boldotter2

Joshua Myers432 said:If they managed to launch the first satellite and put a man in space, they can certainly manage to build a TV, a fridge, or a car that meets 1990s standards. Naturally, most of the bright minds will flee a country like that, but the nation won't just collapse. All these projections about Russia falling apart are being viewed through our (Western) lens, which is fundamentally flawed. It's like North Korea; people have lived there in misery for seventy years, yet they still sing odes to the Great Leader.

North Korea, despite all the sanctions and poverty, is actually doing better now than ever before. It’s tragic, but I guess it’s true. And Russia? They were living much better a year ago than they are today.

Aside from sending the first human and satellite into space during the 20th century, Russia also wiped out their Tsar, his entire family, and his whole army in that same century—so much so that nobody even knows where their graves are anymore. That's something to keep in mind, I suppose.

Between Russia and the rest of the Eastern Bloc under the influence of the USSR, they used to churn out everything from fridges to Lades. Then, their whole social structure just fell apart. Suddenly, they had McDonald's, Levi's, and rock 'n' roll hitting them all at once. That was only one generation ago, maybe.

And of course, there's that old saying: if you had it then, you wouldn't have it now.

If guys like Schroeder, Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Orban, and Farage hadn't spent the last 20 years lining Putin's pockets, maybe Americans wouldn't be footing the bill today. But hey, I guess those kinds of cause-and-effect links are a bit too deep for the average newly registered bot troll to wrap their head around.

If you don't pay the lady, you end up paying the painter. Moving on.

We’re heading toward the biggest hit yet, slowly but surely.

At an EU summit, Kaja Kallas said, “The European Union has $300 billion in frozen Russian assets just sitting there, and it's high time they decide how to use them to help Ukraine.” She also mentioned the need for a special court to handle war crimes and basically called Russian actions the very definition of terrorism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarV...00_billion_in/

Kenneth Perez15 said:I know, I know—I’m probably risking getting my post nuked because apparently you aren't allowed to criticize Joe Biden anymore (just ask me about the last time I tried to speak up), but this is just 🤣

What is with this incredibly petty, obstructionist attitude?

Is Russia going to suddenly shower us with Iranian drones tomorrow?

He acts all terrified of Russia, yet wants to play tough guy when it comes to helping Ukrainians?

Honestly, he’d be better off heading over to Canada to help Donald Trump defend his buddies from another vote recount.

I mean, as the leader of the country, he really should realize it's way cheaper to train Ukrainian soldiers than to deal with refugees, let alone training our own US Army troops.

PS: It's pretty funny how he acts like he's against sending equipment, even though half the US Army inventory was sent to Syria during his time as Prime Minister. 😵

Nancy Gomez26 said:It’s an overt threat. Yet, if we look at the long-term fallout, the Russians are actually the ones losing out most. In the short term, it's the gas consumers who take the hit because sabotage inevitably drives prices up—especially since the pipelines are either majority-owned (Nord Stream 1) or entirely owned (Nord Stream 2) by Russia. This makes them the least likely suspects in any investigation (unless they suddenly decide to act rationally, which is becoming a rare occurrence given their current MO following the setbacks in Ukraine). But this could easily be nothing more than a prelude to further infrastructure attacks. Alternatively, it might serve purely as domestic propaganda for the Russian Federation: a way to say, "Look how they attack us, so we have no choice but to defend ourselves in Ukraine." Since the pipeline is effectively useless anyway, it can be sacrificed. Perhaps they believe threatening with nuclear weapons adds extra weight to their leverage. We will see how things unfold in the coming days and whether we see more strikes on critical infrastructure. Regardless, this will rattle the markets by increasing supply uncertainty, further spiking already high prices. We all know who loses in that scenario, and who finds themselves on the "winning" side—ideologically speaking.

Exactly. It's all about trying to look bigger and scarier than they really are. Like a cranky grizzly bear, I guess.

Total drama queens. Seriously.

The American way is totally different: Speak softly and carry a big stick.

hiddeneagle98 said:We can only assume he's making the same educated guesses we all are. If the Americans did pull something like this, there's no way they'd orchestrate it so that some former Polish minister could just broadcast that kind of info to the whole world.

Besides, Russ isn't even selling gas through NS1 anymore, and they never really used NS2 for that either. So, they aren't exactly sitting on that branch, nor do they have any hope of ever sitting on it again. The European side has already written off any investment in NS2 as a total loss.

We'll see what happens next, and that should make it pretty obvious who was playing what game. Honestly, I'm worried the Norwegian pipeline might be the next target.

Kate Lewis3 said:Word on the street is that Norway has made it crystal clear: if anyone tries to mess with—or actually succeeds in sabotaging—that pipeline, they’re going to treat it as a full-blown attack and trigger Article 5.

Taking out gas pipelines, comms lines, or satellites counts as an attack on the home country. I guess it doesn't even matter if they're in international waters or way up in space. That's probably why the Russians have been hitting "their own" stuff while staying low-key. It's just cowardly psyops, really.

Nancy Gomez26 said:It strikes me that we will never truly identify the saboteur in this instance, simply because nobody is going to claim responsibility for a job like this. Some analysts suggest we should just wait to see which undersea pipeline—or perhaps an LNG terminal—becomes the next target, using those future hits to point back at the likely culprits. In my view, that is a flawed way to assign blame; the folks over at the Kremlin have been making increasingly irrational moves for quite some time now. If the Kremlin is indeed behind this, there might be a slim, tenuous rationalization for it, but it certainly fits their established pattern of behavior.

The most logical take is that this was basically a threat, like... look what we can do to you...

It definitely wasn't a coincidence that this happened on the exact same day as the opening of the Baltic pipeline.
Plus, let's not forget that almost all global communication, the internet, and pretty much everything else relies on those undersea cables.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out who benefits from showing just how fragile "Western decadence" really is. And generally speaking, who stands to gain from spreading fear?

stormybear25 said:Video: The US military in a small town, USA, located in the Donetsk region
https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/sta...72433974878209

I bet they're probably debating who actually blew up that pipeline right now... 🤣

placidtiger142 said:None of this is true.

It’s weird how people always need a leader because without one, they don't know how to function.

They should have collectively slapped her right there on the spot and told her to go to the trenches herself and bring whatever feminine hygiene products she wants.

Man, I once went through a ton of companies in Germany and quit after four weeks without even having a backup plan, all because they didn't give me any damn tools to work with. Then some manager starts riding my ass about how I only finished a few cabinets in a month, even though they didn't even have the parts in stock.

I quit that same day. He tells me, "But wait, how did you manage to do it when I've been here a month too?"

Like, seriously? The poor guy actually had to go out and buy his own socket set and tool kit... he told me, "It would have been smart to bring your own gear."

And it's the same with these guys. Instead of sitting down on the floor and saying, "We aren't going until we get EVERY piece of equipment a soldier is supposed to have," they're busy making up excuses about where to find supplies.

For real, can you actually send a soldier to war without a helmet, without first aid, without any kind of body armor? Fine, maybe they don't have the latest rifles—hell, almost anything fires—but sending them without a helmet, bandages, or basic meds like morphine and other actual
MustHave
supplies is just straight-up disgusting.

And it's pathetic that they won't rebel.

Every single one will fire three rounds and be at the front lines in three days, wearing indoor slippers and sweatpants...

I feel bad for them, but they’re partially to blame themselves if they agree to this and leave.

Conditions in a gulag might actually be better. I mean, they're still crap, but at least there's fewer flying shrapnel, projectiles, mines, planes, and all that other stuff.

And hunger and cold and crappy clothes are the same everywhere... so honestly, I'd rather take all that just to avoid getting shot.

Give them time. This is just the first stage—denial and disbelief.

Just give them time to "mature." Wait until the first batch heads to Ukraine and reports back. Or when the guys coming home from UA share what they actually saw. In a few months, I bet you'll see them starting armed revolutions all over the military bases.

Gregory Ramos3 said:Man, I’d probably pull the trigger even if nobody touched Russia. 🤷

You guys are seriously overthinking this whole nuclear thing... and let's be real, there isn't much any of us can actually do about it anyway. Just go grab a coffee, hang out with your buddies, or find something else that actually makes you happy.. This constant paranoia and fear of some massive nuclear apocalypse is just getting way too toxic for my liking. 😉

Just for context...

1962 was the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis.... And it was also the year when the world saw a massive amount of nuclear testing, like 140 tests or so. So, we had the threat of nuclear war alongside 140 random detonations, it's just crazy! 😵

At the exact same time, 1962 was also the year The Beatles blew up and Beatlemania kicked off. It's the year Robert Zimmerman changed his name to Bob Dylan and put out his first album. Over in New York City, some new kids named Mick, Keith, and Brian are meeting up to start their own band too.

I guess I wonder how many people today actually remember that first part, versus all this other stuff?

Matthew Young35 said:In other words, are you trying to say that a potential nuclear war is just smoke and mirrors, and would cause fewer problems than Chernobyl?

You are living in a total fantasy land.

Wait, so you think Putin is actually going to launch missiles at the US? Is that really what you're implying?

That’s the only way you get into a nuclear war.

Except the Russian Federation doesn't even have the doctrine or the laws to justify doing something like that.

Are you seriously suggesting that some guy who’s too terrified to even mobilize his own army—preferring to just annex someone else's land instead—is suddenly going to toss out all his own country's rules and launch an unprovoked nuclear strike against the strongest nuclear power on Earth? Like, how, for heaven's sake, HOW does he think he can pull that off???
He's just a little guy who can't even control his own military when it comes to 31 milesMoscow.
I mean, sure, he can give an order, just like he gave the order "everyone head to Ukraine". But the real question is, can he actually handle the fallout?

The fallout from mobilizing would just break his army and maybe trigger a civil war. A nuclear order? That would be an instant bullet to the brain. And honestly, that's probably the best-case scenario.

---------------------------------

But okay, let's get serious for a second. The only real nuclear escalation we might see is if Putin bypasses protocol and pulls off a limited air or missile strike somewhere in Ukraine. At worst, hitting Kyiv.

Even then, he gains absolutely nothing. He'd just get the satisfaction of watching a Ukrainian defense point get wiped out, and that's it.

After that, because of the mess he just made, every single spy in every intelligence agency worldwide—including everyone except maybe North Korea and Syria, plus China and even Russia itself—every single field agent would get one order: eliminate Putin at any cost; the end justifies the means. And not just him, but his whole inner circle: Lavrov, Peskov, Zakharov, all the propagandists, the ideologues, the generals—basically anyone standing next to him.

Do you honestly think any of them—not Putin, but the people I just listed—think they can spend the rest of their lives living like rats in a hole? Wouldn't they much rather go back to their yachts and villas in Dubai, London, or Opatija?

And do you think Xi Jinping is just going to sit there while the global economy falls apart, losing Western profits and dealing with unrest in China, all because of some tiny guy's militant outbursts? No way. He already got snubbed by Kazakhstan.
Do you really think the CIA, MI6, Mossad, and Ukrainian services don't have enough assets in place to trigger total chaos across Russia in just a few days if they ever get the green light?
Look at Iran—they had a massive uprising and only sold a few drones. Think about that.

Anyone who is genuinely terrified of nuclear war should realize one thing: those Russian creeps in power are even more scared of it than you are. They aren't worried about you; they're worried about themselves.

Rachel Barrett8 said:For those of us who are genuinely terrified of a nuclear catastrophe, there’s a growing feeling that we need to find a way to force Putin to the negotiating table. We have to compel him to actually seek peace, don't we? If we want to avoid the worst-case scenario, shouldn't we be pushing for negotiations at any cost?
Putin isn't interested in sitting down at the negotiating table because he feels untouchable. Now, don't get me wrong—he’s certainly not showing any real strength on the battlefield in Ukraine. Thank God for that, really, since they're just firing blindly in every direction over there. But his real power? It's all happening back home. That's where the core of the problem lies.
It’s pretty wild when you look at the numbers, isn't it? Just because of that massive demand for cheap Russian energy, the EU managed to rake in more profit in just six months than they did during the entire previous year. How does that even happen?

Honestly, bravo. This is exactly how you think if you actually want to get things done. This is how you apply real pressure to a dictator, instead of the complete mess we're dealing with right now. It’s just a total disaster.
If they had just banned the wealthy elites in Russia from leaving the country, things would be looking very different right now. Can you imagine? If those people couldn't just fly off to escape the chaos, they’d actually start worrying about their own kids and families. Once they realized their own lives were on the line, the whole trajectory of the country would have shifted completely. Wouldn't that have changed everything?

So, you drop $9,000 just to make sure your kid gets safely out of the country, while everyone else left behind gets pushed straight into a war zone? And then you have the nerve to sit there and argue that the conflict is actually justified? It’s honestly relentless. It never ends, does it?

If we had shipyards scattered across the US, we would have been forced to pour massive investments into LNG tankers by now. Wouldn't we?
If they had been building that pipeline toward those African states from the start—and if they’d actually worked at the same lightning speed as Nord Stream 2—it would probably be halfway finished by now. Wouldn't it?
Do you ever see politicians like that?
ili
Energy companies are starting to pull back from their positions in Greece, and honestly, it’s making you wonder what exactly is shifting behind the scenes. It looks like several big players are rethinking their investments there, moving away from certain sectors that used to seem like sure bets. Why the sudden change of heart? You have to look at the broader landscape. The energy market in Europe is incredibly volatile right now, and even though Greece has been a strategic hub for a while, the math just isn't adding up for everyone anymore. Is it about shifting regulations, or are these companies just playing it safe because they can't predict where prices will land next month? It feels like a calculated retreat. When major corporations start pulling out of a specific region, it usually means they’ve spotted a storm on the horizon that the rest of us might be missing. They aren't necessarily running away in a panic, but they are definitely stepping back to reassess. It makes you think: if the giants are pivoting, what does that mean for the smaller players left holding the bag?

So, how exactly is everyone supposed to get their hands on cheap oil when every single country in the EU is basically running a side hustle with Russia? It’s become the new normal, hasn't it? They're all cutting deals behind the scenes, and we're just meant to act like it's business as usual. Honestly, does anyone really believe this kind of maneuvering is going to do anything to stop Putin?
So, they’re just going to keep transferring oil from tanker to tanker, and we're supposed to call that "policy"? I honestly don't know. Are we even counting Greece and Turkey as part of the "West" anymore? I mean, sure, they're in NATO, but that doesn't tell the whole story. That’s exactly why I said there isn't one unified "Western" strategy aimed at actually neutralizing the aggression against Ukraine. If we can't get on the same page, how are we ever going to be effective?

First off, maybe stop getting your news from Russian troll sites? It might actually help with that nuclear anxiety you've got going on.

And hey, if you're feeling a bit twitchy about it, here are some facts to show why a nuclear strike—even if it happened—really just means the end of Putin and Russia:

- For 40 years, the world has been dodging a nuclear catastrophe. In that same window, we got The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, the pill, the economic boom in Europe, the moon landing, and pretty much everything else that defined the second half of the 20th century. Basically, our whole modern civilization was built right alongside that fear.

- During that exact same timeframe, nearly 2,000 nuclear bombs were detonated globally. Some in war, most in peace, many above ground, leaving behind direct radiation and long-term pollution. The South Pacific, Nevada, and New Land all took a massive dose of Becquerel. Even John Wayne died from radiation exposure.

- We also had the Chernobyl disaster, which polluted the planet way more than all those 2,000 detonations combined. And then there was Fukushima.

- That Soviet thermonuclear "Tsar" bomb, the most powerful weapon ever, left a crater measuring 19 miles. A radius of 19 miles is basically the minimum exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, surrounding the sarcophagus and that famous "Red Forest," where radiation still leaks from the melted reactor core today. The actual exclusion zone is way, way bigger than that.

The distance of 19 miles is the exclusion zone around the Fukushima plant, and that’s going to stick around for a very, very long time.

The distance from 19 miles is roughly the straight-line distance between Krško and Washington, D.C.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just regular Japanese cities. Trinity and Los Alamos are basically tourist attractions now.

My point in one sentence: For someone living in, say, Washington, D.C., an unthinkable danger would probably be a major accident at the Krško plant rather than the detonation of the strongest atomic bomb ever over Karlovac.
So, I guess you should look at what's actually more likely to happen.

From the perspective of Ukraine, things are even crazier. Their capital is literally 31 miles downstream from Chernobyl.

rowdyraven112 said:The guy said one bomb wouldn't even matter for the world. We're getting closer to understanding why Putin will pull the nuclear trigger. ☕
Add Zaharov's claim that "people have to realize Russia cannot lose this" and you've got all the variables and the solution to the equation.
When will it happen? Where in Ukraine? Hard to say. But my guess? It’ll be a few days after the Americans announce something like, "Putin is dropping a nuke on this specific date." ☕

Personally, I find it fascinating how most people on these forums think America and NATO are going to retaliate in kind and risk the total annihilation of Northern Hemisphere civilization. Give me one good reason why. Just one.☕

If Putin uses a nuke, he’s tossing all the written and unwritten rules of modern warfare right out the window. If that happens, the USA might just respond by throwing out all the rules of engagement entirely.

That doesn't necessarily have to mean a full-blown nuclear war, either. It could be anything—a bomb under a toilet seat, a perfectly placed sniper shot, poisoning families, or even Novichok in someone's tea. I guess those who handle this stuff have plenty of creative ways to take out whoever needs taking out.

Putin said:I'm honestly more worried about potential radiation and all the fallout that comes with using nuclear weapons.

Since 1945, about 2,000 nuclear bombs have been detonated globally. And that's not even counting at least three major nuclear plant disasters. We haven't seen a nuclear winter yet, either.

I guess one strike from Putin wouldn't change much for the world. But for Putin? It would definitely mean the end.

Jessica Peterson2 said:A senator representing Crimea has actually proposed shortening the list of medical conditions that qualify someone for a military service exemption in the Russian Senate.
Just picture it: an army where, alongside the usual suspects like cannibals and predators, you’ll also find soldiers missing limbs or battling blood cancer and terminal AIDS.🤦
AIDS

One thing is for sure—I guess the kids of high-ranking politicians will still find some way to be "too sick" to serve. It’s always like that in every war, in every country, I suppose.

Timothy Nelson5 said:For the first wave, I imagine Putin will scrape together some old T-62 tanks and those ancient towed artillery pieces, maybe even requisitioning trucks from local logistics companies... hell, they might even manage to give every soldier a rifle...

Then for the second wave, they'll likely just hand out rifles, ammo, a few grenades, and maybe some RPGs...

By the third wave, it might just be ammunition. They'll probably have to scavenge for rifles from the fallen on the front lines just to keep going...

🕺

In the third wave, you'll find a Springfield Armory in Los Angeles within 7 days.🐔

gentlerider7 said:I mean, look, it was the Cold War, right? Even if things didn't actually get "hot" over in Europe back then, everyone pretty much knew exactly where one side's backyard ended and the other's began. It was all about those clearly defined spheres of influence.

Well, there was World War II too. People were making all these compromises with Hitler throughout the 1930s, and yeah, that turned out pretty badly. I guess the absolute worst compromise from that whole era had to be Stalin.

Matthew Young35 said:I agree.
I was merely offering an example of what a compromise might look like.
To be honest, I'm not sure what any other kind of compromise could even look like at this stage.
Without some form of compromise, we're looking at a war of attrition until one side wins, carrying the terrifying risk of escalating into World War III.

Either way, it's a grim situation.

Europe lived through something similar—actually, much worse—for over 50 years. Everything the European Union represents today came about despite the actions of Nazi Germany and the USSR. We have everything we have because we didn't settle for "compromises."

The landings in Normandy, the burning of Dresden, and the reunification of Germany weren't "compromises." The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR certainly wasn't either.

Matthew Young35 said:Let’s assume you're right for a moment.
Do you honestly think that's any better?
The world exists in a incredibly fragile balance.
Suppose an A-bomba hits Taiwan. Just forget about car manufacturing, smartphones, or computers ever again... there wouldn't be any chips coming out of those Taiwanese factories. Sure, someone else might eventually step up to fill the void, but in the meantime? The industry is already struggling with chip shortages as it is. If production stops entirely, we aren't just talking about a recession; we're talking about an industrial apocalypse.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine if Russia and China start throwing A-bombas around—what if one drifts toward Australia or Japan, much like that drone did over Washington, D.C.?
Think about the atmospheric impact from millions of tons of radioactive dust.
I recall reading some estimates regarding a "minor" nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan. The projections suggested it would plunge the Earth into a mini ice age, leading to over a billion deaths from starvation.
A conflict between China and Russia would be significantly more devastating than anything seen between India and Pakistan.

Any sort of nuclear conflict is essentially the end of civilization.
Perhaps not the end of the human race, but certainly the end of our civilization as we know it.

Finally, a word to the optimists who believe NATO could somehow dismantle Russia in a nuclear exchange without receiving a devastating response in kind. Even if that were true, billions would still perish globally from famine. The sheer volume of radioactive material and fallout in the atmosphere would trigger a mini ice age, causing global food production to collapse completely.

Look, I know nuclear weapons are scary, but we've already dealt with contamination before. Back in the 50s and 60s, the world didn't suddenly slide into a new ice age. For instance, those American thermonuclear tests in the 50s leaked radiation across half the Pacific—even reaching Japan, where they actually found traces while cleaning up Fukushima. And that Soviet Tsar bomb? That 50-megaton beast probably contaminated the whole planet.

There have been about 2,000 nuclear tests globally, and a huge chunk of them were atmospheric. I guess we’re pretty small targets, and honestly, we've already survived a bit of a nuclear war in terms of fallout.

Kate Cook27 said:Regarding a potential nuclear strike—I can't quite recall if it was before the Kherson offensive or the Kharkiv one—but the US Department of Defense mentioned they actually have a plan for a nuclear scenario. Basically, they're accounting for it. How likely is it, though? Honestly, I’d say minimal. We should probably only start worrying once the constant talk about nuclear strikes on various countries finally stops on the news.

It feels like everything is trending toward mobilization right now. Someone shared an article about Dugin recently—definitely worth a read. It doesn't focus on nuclear war, but rather on the necessity of the state shifting into a full wartime footing. That's why I suspect we'll see a mobilization announcement soon, whether it's total or partial, it doesn't really matter at this point. They've even introduced new laws preventing soldiers from refusing to fight. Once they "hold their referendums" to make those regions part of Russia, the soldiers won't have any choice left. Of course, they know nobody internationally will recognize those votes—it's all just for their own domestic narrative.
So, in my view, the referendums and mobilization will happen in tandem, because that way, they can frame it as a war within Russia itself.

http://www.twitter.com/Liveuamap/sta...CwqffWv9ErAAAA

http://www.twitter.com/Liveuamap/sta...DQ3eDeutErAAAA

http://www.twitter.com/Liveuamap/sta...DT9cviv9ErAAAA

Just looks like prep work for some kind of mobilization.

Putin is basically making the exact same mistakes as the Romanovs did a century ago. 😵