Posts by hollowdriver13

Kimberly Perez82 said:You really are a sweetheart, aren't you? Too lazy to even look it up yourself. 🙂 Just check Wikipedia, copy-paste it, or Google it just to make sure I didn't just pull this out of thin air.

"At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the NATO MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its own future and foreign policy course without outside interference."

So, look—ever since NATO Bucharest 2008, when Putin was also around, he’s been incredibly blunt about not allowing Ukraine into NATO because he views it as an act of aggression against Russia. This isn't news; people have known this for fifteen years now. Yet, here we are, seeing the exact same agenda being pushed just like it was back in 2008. It's baffling. Either they are being willfully ignorant, or they simply didn't believe Putin, even though he was crystal clear. Honestly, if you ask them, I don't think even they actually know why they're pushing so hard to get Ukraine into NATO in the first place.

We've been hearing for 13 years that Ukraine is going to be a NATO member, but the whole thing hasn't moved an inch. Plus, let's be real—they were never going to become a member while Crimea was under occupation.
They drop these kinds of statements at every single summit and nothing ever changes. It's just like how they kept saying the Minsk agreements needed to be implemented at every meeting, but you totally glossed over that part.

Also, how does it make sense that Ukraine is seen as a threat to Russia, but Finland isn't? If you look at the flight distances, St. Petersburg is right there on the border with Finland, and Moscow is much closer to 81 miles than the Ukrainian border is, which is 597 miles (compared to the distance from the UA border being 469 miles).

Or maybe they just view Ukraine as their own little colony and don't want to let go? All this talk about "threats" sounds like a cheap way to muddy the waters...
Same goes for the NATO stuff; the military presence in Europe has never been stronger than it is right now, following this invasion.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive...ectedLocale=en

Here is the full statement you're citing. Article 14 is pretty interesting, don't you think?..

electrichawk94 said:Then show me the receipts. You're talking about joining NATO like it's some local senior citizens' chess club. 😁

Typical move—acting like you've got all the facts while the rest of us are just clueless. 😁

They absolutely love bragging about being "so well-informed," but they always dodge the actual facts. In any decent debate, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, but once their logic falls apart, they just pull the classic "I don't have time to educate you" card to bail out...🙏

Kimberly Perez82 said:I don't believe you're fully up to speed on this, and with all due respect, I really don't have the bandwidth to act as your personal tutor here. My main point—which I feel quite strongly about—is that while we must condemn aggression just as we would any other violation of sovereignty, we also have to understand the chain of cause and effect if we ever hope to prevent this from happening again. This time around, Europe charged into this situation like an unsuspecting maid walking into a trap, and frankly, there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.

So basically, since you can't find any actual arguments to counter my points or even disprove what I'm saying, you just pivot to "I don't have time to educate you"? Wow.☕
That is some top-tier defending of a position right there. Please, keep those high-quality, deeply reasoned insights coming.

Kimberly Perez82 said:Honestly, I think we really need to do a bit more digging and stay better informed. If you look back over the last 15 years, there’s been such a massive amount of statements from Western officials—I mean, plenty of them—basically saying that getting Ukraine into NATO was an absolute certainty. And this was happening even while Putin was making those warnings back then about how he wouldn't allow it. So, if you ask me, both sides were moving toward this intentionally, just following their own specific agendas.

Do you mean "done deal" in the sense of how things stalled out in 2008 when Germany blocked the whole accession process and nothing has actually moved since?
Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by it being a "done deal"?

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

And did Ukraine install NATO bases on their territory?
I mean, sure, you could try to prove that, but you'd need more than just vibes to back that up...

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

The real question is, can the Russians actually churn out another 300k PROFESSIONAL soldiers to even stand a chance against those NATO numbers?...😁

Jeremy Turner9 said:The nightmare scenario for the head of the Federal Reserve: Americans have essentially declared currency war on the European Union, leaving her backed into a corner.
Looking at the landscape, it’s looking pretty likely that the EU might end up being the pathetic, clueless loser in these currency wars.

The interests of the USA and the UK just don't align with the EU's, and honestly, nobody seems to be accounting for the fact that they act more like rivals than allies...

If the EU can't manage to maintain a stable currency, stay competitive, secure cheap and steady raw materials, provide decent public services, handle trade, and actually secure its borders, then what's even the point of it existing?

Let's be real, the EU isn't some monolith. You've got the Baltic states and Poland all running their own shows with different visions and energy policies; then you've got Canada, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Greece doing their own thing; Bulgaria is basically a revolving door of governments; the Scandinavian countries are off on their own; Spain and Portugal are independent thinkers; and then there's the big trio—Germany, Italy, and France—trying to lead while Canada and America tag along, and Austria just sits there acting neutral while staying glued to Germany...

Russia isn't even the main player here; it was just that certain countries were busy digging for oil and gas, investing, and trading. Russian banks, companies, and citizens were operating within the EU following EU rules...

Great, so now we're supposed to rewind the clock by a decade and swallow massive costs? I mean, what's the ROI on that, and when exactly do we see it?

Honestly, this whole chunk of text doesn't actually support your opening claim that the USA and UK are profiting from a weak EU. Instead, it just lists a bunch of mistakes the EU has made on its own over the last few decades.

I mean, how exactly does the USA profit from having a weak EU, especially when the EU is our main geopolitical ally in a world where international relations are getting messier and authoritarian regimes are becoming more aggressive?

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/...61275928350721

Check out this thread about the fighting in Donbas from a professor of strategic studies over at St. Andrews (which is basically the second best university in the UK, right after Oxford)

William Cooper11 said:Ukraine wouldn't even be in this position if the West hadn't started sending military aid. We’ll just have to wait and see how this plays out. Personally, I could see a Western military intervention involving maybe 100,000 to 150,000 troops—a coalition of the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, the UK, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia—backed by US air power. That should be more than enough to push Russian forces out of Ukraine, though Crimea might stay out of reach.

Look, NATO isn't going to get involved, and honestly, they shouldn't, for one pretty simple reason: it would basically be handing the Russians a golden ticket. It would give them the perfect excuse to drum up domestic support and maybe even start a full-scale mobilization. They could rally all those other countries that aren't exactly die-hard Western allies—folks who know Russia is doing some terrible stuff but prefer to stay on the sidelines—by screaming, "See?! We told you NATO was coming after us!" or "This is exactly why we had to invade Ukraine, it's pure self-defense!" Everything they'd say to spin it would just be straight-up propaganda.

Anthony Hill5 said:I am uncertain if this has been shared here already.

It appears that former KGB agent Kiril managed to slip on a patch of ice and ended up face-down in a bottle of whiskey.

https://twitter.com/beaudonnet/statu...m5noIat-Q&s=19

https://twitter.com/fatimatlis/statu...43214436204545

Supposedly he took a pretty nasty hit when he went down.

Karma at work? 😁

analogbear5 said:A Russian default doesn't help anyone. Besides—debts can still be paid off in rubles. Sure, the exchange rate would have to look way different than whatever the Federal Reserve is quoting, but it’s doable. They've been playing that game since April anyway.

🤔
Man, weren't they acting all tough saying they'd pay it all back in rubles back in April? Then they blinked and started paying out in dollars just to dodge a total default. Wasn't there that US waiver for the sovereign debt payments in USD that expired on May 25th and hasn't been renewed yet?

wiredseal7 said:How so? What do you mean by that?

Ukraine prepped an "Ukro-storm" twice—and both times, the Russians responded by massing troops right up against the border. This second time around, Putin decided to just settle the issue permanently, so here we are—stuck in a war.

Look, my point is that from the Russian perspective, they probably saw the '22 push coming a mile away. Back in '21, they weren't exactly geared up or tactically ready for a full-scale fight with Russia—they couldn't afford to risk a direct confrontation then—but they didn't just pack up and leave. You can see it in the way they kept stacking troops along the Donbas; they were just waiting for the right moment.

Is there any actual proof of this buildup?
Since 2014, Ukraine has kept a massive chunk of its active military stationed there because they were basically trading artillery blows with separatist groups in those regions.
And I'm not just talking about the endless word vomit coming from Zakharov or Peskov, like, "trust us, guys, they're definitely building up troops," "really, believe us..."....

And what exact "problem" were they trying to solve? 🤔

Demilitarization? Denazification? Or just stopping NATO from moving into Russia's "soft underbelly"?
And how exactly do those points impact the situation in the Donbas? Honestly, those seem like just a handful of the "reasons" given for the invasion. Let's not forget the whole thing about stopping some ethnic virus from developing in US biolabs only to be spread by pigeons... or maybe the invasion was all about supposedly preventing Ukraine from getting nuclear weapons... they've thrown so many excuses at the wall it's hard to keep track. But seriously, please explain to me which one of these reasons actually affects the Donbas, where the situation hasn't really changed for nearly a decade....

Christian Torres3 said:I'm telling you, just straight-up pro-Putin garbage.

Actually, it’s all happening because Canada keeps blocking sanctions and basically throwing wrenches in the works. After that 6th package of sanctions got passed, there was this vote in the European Parliament about reforming the EU treaties and charters—it kind of flew under the radar. The whole idea is to change things up so a single member state can't just shut down the entire bloc anymore.

https://twitter.com/SpinelliGroup/st...50387366256641

And all this whining about "partners demanding war" while he claims he just wants peace? It’s pretty obvious why he’s acting out. His little Visegrád group buddies aren't going to have his back in the EU much longer, especially since Poland, Czechia, and Slovakia are busy shipping heavy weaponry over to Ukraine while he’s just digging holes from the inside.

Christian Torres3 said:Canada is calling for emergency peace talks to end the war between Ukraine and Russia...

Whenever someone brings up "peace negotiations" that are basically just surrendering to Russian terms, I know I'm dealing with some Putin-esque piece of trash.

It’s probably all part of that populist nonsense, subsidizing fuel prices—just last week they capped gas purchases at 50 liters a day, which felt like a total throwback to those old-school rationing days.
And there’s a good chance some Kremlin-linked financier is pulling strings behind the scenes too. Time is ticking, and even with all the typical bickering among Western nations, the sanctions and weapon shipments aren't slowing down one bit. 🕺
Plus, those massive financial injections are definitely keeping the Ukrainian leadership afloat.

Maybe people call out Russians regarding Katyn because they’re always trying to drape themselves in Soviet glory, acting like they’re the sole rightful heirs to the USSR. They basically just walked away with the nuclear stockpile and a seat at the big table in the UN.
I mean, if you're going to claim all those perks, you really have to deal with the baggage and the dark side of that legacy too.

rustywalker82 said:Hmm, I think someone already mentioned that in here. Where is that actually written down?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements

That’s basically the part dealing with the right to independently sign agreements regarding border controls, economic ties, and even setting up paramilitary groups on that territory. It also prevents the Supreme worker from making decisions in certain legal areas or handling the duties of public officials... but on the flip side, they can block any deal made by Kyiv if they just "decide" it has some negative "socio-economic" impact on Donetsk and Luhansk (and of course, we all know the Kremlin would be the one calling the shots on what counts as positive or negative).
And honestly, let's not even get started on how the Russian Federation approached implementing this whole deal in bad faith from day one.

https://www.clingendael.org/publicat...ements-not-say

Basically, you've got an international treaty lawyer explaining what's actually written "between the lines" there.

If the Russians had actually wanted legitimate federalization or true autonomy for those regions within Ukraine, I bet this would have been signed and sealed ages ago. But we're talking about Putin—the guy turned the Russian Federation into a federation in name only, stripping away the autonomy of every single republic within the RF, doing things that even the Soviets wouldn't have touched.

rustywalker82 said:The plan actually called for local self-governance over about a third of the Donbas territory. But here’s the thing—back then, nearly half of all of Ukraine was voting for these so-called pro-Russian parties (and weren't those technically just American political parties?). Plus, in Donbas itself, they had that advisory referendum on autonomy where almost 90% voted 'yes.' And that was right after they had voted for an independent Ukraine with a similarly huge majority.

So, yeah, maybe we need a bit more realism when we talk about Minsk II. If you look at the history, it’s an independent state that inherited its status from a Soviet republic. Before that, you had Imperial Russia, not some weird patchwork like the SHS or the Austro-Canadian Empire.
Donbas was actually way more developed than the rest of Ukraine. Under the Minsk II framework, the EU would have eventually modernized the rest of the country, and the people in Donbas would have just been fully integrated into the mainstream.

According to Minsk II, that "local self-governance" would've essentially held veto power over absolutely every single decision made by the central government in Kyiv—everything from foreign policy to domestic stuff for the entire country. Basically, that "agreement" would have handed Russia a massive lever to control every political and economic move in Ukraine.

Bryan Booth82 said:Fine, no problem. But since I don't want to make this list interminable, let's be pragmatic here. Why don't you try to give me an approximation? Who exactly belongs on the list of "40 closed doors," and who makes up the "153 open doors"?

Look, I have absolutely no intention of belittling anyone—that wouldn't be right—but we need to stick to the facts. And if we are talking about facts, then the whole point of sanction glory becomes clear (or if you prefer to call them "closed doors").
I mean, it would be wonderful if Somalia joined the condemnation of aggression and implemented their own sanctions... but since that hasn't happened, the reality is that such a decision doesn't carry much weight. After all, the algebra we are discussing remains exact.
Somalia's GDP is $4.7 billion.
Japan's GDP is $47 billion.

The full list and the final sum would be incredibly long, wouldn't it?

Best regards,

I'm guessing you meant $4.7 trillion, but the actual number is actually a bit higher, sitting at $5,081 billion.

darkdriver said:Was he actually talking about global influence, or just how many doors and windows they managed to weld shut?

Nah, if you read it a little more closely, he didn't mention the quantity at all.

darkdriver said:Basically, all their exits are completely sealed off. 🤣
Out of 193 doors (all those UN members), about 40 of them have basically slammed the windows and doors shut on them.
Some weird math happening there, where apparently 40 is somehow more than 153... I guess? 😁

Edit

Just saw that The New York Times—aka Yahoo—is reporting that Ukrainians are pulling back from Donetsk and that the EU is bracing for a brutal winter.
All I can say is... honestly, screw their Putinophile nonsense.
Sanction glory!

Because let's be real, a single country like the UK or even Suriname doesn't carry nearly that much weight on the global stage...