Posts by Arthur Miller7

And wait, it gets even weirder—Wang actually sat down with his Polish counterpart Zbigniew Rau and basically said Beijing is praying this whole war fire burns itself out ASAP. Then, for the first time since the Russian invasion kicked off, he met with his Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba and went, "Hey, we totally respect the territorial integrity of every nation." Yeah, including Ukraine. Get this: back in 2013—yeah, way back when that pro-Russian guy Viktor Yanukovych was calling the shots—Beijing and Kyiv actually signed an agreement where the PRC promised to protect Ukraine if they ever faced a nuclear attack.

Kimberly Perez82 said:I realize some people here are incredibly sensitive about this topic, which explains the outbursts, but so far, besides one single forum member, nobody has actually attempted to answer the core question: how do we stop an irrational individual who has 6,000 nuclear warheads at his disposal? Aside from the compromise I mentioned earlier, I don't see any other path forward, and I might be 100% wrong—truly, I would love to hear better solutions. But please, suggest solutions that won't drive the entire world into a nuclear catastrophe. For instance, suggesting we defeat the military Putin at any cost is out of the question, because we all know exactly how that scenario would likely conclude. I assume that isn't anyone's goal, and the US is clearly aware of that, given how extremely cautious their reactions have been. So, let’s hear them. What are your proposals?

This issue didn't just pop up this year, nor did it start back in 2014. This problem was baked in long ago, right after WWII, when the USA allowed the USSR to churn out nuclear warheads like they were cans of beans in a grocery store. We've been dealing with this escalating tension for years, and now we've reached the absolute peak. And while we're on the subject, it's worth noting that several of the leading politicians within the USSR were actually Ukrainian.

You're jumping down everyone's throat like a madman, but you completely dodged my one actual question.

What happens when Putin or whoever else decides to demand even more? Like, what if we give him everything now, and then in six months he just says, "Hey, lift the sanctions" or "Or I start dropping nukes"? Or a year later it's, "Give me Odessa? How about Moldova? Or the Baltic?" Seriously, why wouldn't he keep pushing if he can get whatever he wants that easily??

We're stuck dealing with a lunatic and there's no magic fix. You gotta squeeze him—if he backs down, great; if not, well, that's the end. Period. There's no deep philosophy here. That's just what happens when you're dealing with a total idiot.

It's obvious you're scared—you probably have kids or something—but hey, that's life. If it makes you feel better, just sell everything, grab the kids, and run off to Patagonia. Whining on a forum isn't going to change anything.

Kimberly Perez82 said:That’s basically how I—and honestly, pretty much the rest of the world—see it. That is the heavy price of making a deal. Once that's done, the goal should be to cripple Russia's economy until they have no choice but to agree to voluntary nuclear disarmament, just so we don't find ourselves staring down the barrel of a situation like this ever again. In my view, China isn't acting quite as irrationally; they won't let themselves get backed into a corner like this. It's Russia that stands as the singular danger.

Man, who are you kidding? If we actually did everything your way, you'd be back in two months whining about how we need to scrap all the sanctions because your heating bill is too high, inflation is killing you, gas prices are insane, "we gotta look out for ourselves," "the war is over," blah blah blah...

Seriously, tell me the truth: if we gave them exactly what you're suggesting, and in two or three years they decide they want Odessa and Moldova too and start waving nukes around again, what then? What would you even say? Is Walden gonna step up and personally guarantee the safety of people in Odessa and Moldova? Or anyone else for that matter? You gonna go out there and give those people your word?

Kimberly Perez82 said:I agree. To prevent a truly dangerous escalation, we have to leave room for compromise regarding the occupied territories. The reason is simple: beyond Vladimir Putin, there are clearly enough irrational actors within the Russian ranks who wouldn't care if their own lives—or the lives of all humanity—were extinguished. Whether they've had too much vodka or not, it makes no difference. We always suspected there were plenty of those types holding what is, unfortunately, a theoretical grip on nuclear weapons.

I just hope that once this settles, Russia doesn't start eyeing other regions; otherwise, the worst-case scenario becomes inevitable. I also hope the West isn't foolish enough to keep flooding those newly claimed Russian territories with massive shipments of weaponry. If both sides break this understanding, it means neither side possesses common sense, and we can all expect a very ugly outcome. I really hope self-preservation wins out over everything else, because frankly, morality and humanity vanished long ago. Ukraine will end up being the loser one way or another, but they brought this on themselves. The world shouldn't risk its own skin for the sake of their "democracy"—which, let's be honest, is mostly just rampant corruption and a dysfunctional society.

Definition of compromise:

A compromise is a way to settle a conflict based on a voluntary agreement between parties. The whole point is that both sides have to give something up regarding their opposing desires or interests.

So, if you had even a shred of intelligence, you'd realize why your post is total nonsense. But honestly, I doubt you do.

bluepuma9 said:Using a weapon like that would set a precedent where Putin (or whoever is next in line) could just keep doing it over and over... because of that, you have to be crystal clear that such a move won't be tolerated, regardless of the fallout. Otherwise, this cycle never ends.

I mean, what’s even the point of NATO if the Russians can just toss around nukes whenever they feel like it? It feels like NATO will just fall apart, Europe will sink into total chaos, Americans will be busy pulling back to deal with stuff at home, and everyone in Europe will just start looking out for themselves... honestly, I don't see it ending well. Whether someone answers or not, both scenarios just lead to pure chaos and the whole system collapsing.

analogbear70 said:I’ll say it again: if things had been handled more intelligently, this could have been avoided. That doesn't excuse the aggressor—Russia—but rather highlights the failure. The reality is that no one from the UN onwards (aside from the Chinese) is calling for a ceasefire, negotiations, or peace. It’s just weapons, weapons, weapons. Why wasn't equipment being sent to us? Why were we forced to wander the globe like beggars, pleading for help while being treated like an afterthought, all while Zelenskyy calls out the very leaders he needs? Why were we hit with embargos while everyone else looked the other way? We offered up a quarter of our territory before Operation Storm, which I believe ended up in court later. Even then, there was intense domestic opposition, and Feral was constantly critical, while the World media published nothing but half-truths about the downsides of our newly formed nation. None of that exists now. And yet, the Russians remain the aggressors; occupied lands deserve better.

Honestly, these comparisons to our own war are just exhausting. Like, why even? What kills me most is when people start acting all jealous, asking why Ukraine gets weapons and we didn't. And then they go, "Oh, look at those Ukrainian refugees with their fancy cars..."—man, it’s embarrassing to hear comments like that. Seriously. It’s because our war didn't matter to anyone outside our little corner of the map, whereas the war in Ukraine is literally a fight for the survival of the NATO alliance and the entire global order. If you can't wrap your head around that, then I honestly can't blame you for failing to grasp other things too.

Nathan Evans78 said:According to some folks on here, they can barely afford basic necessities in Moscow, yet they’re still busy spreading rumors about mobilizing a million people. I mean, seriously, hello? Who on earth is going to foot the bill for that? 🙂

You’ve been pretty quiet about how the Ruble is tanking outside of Russia lately, huh? I guess when you're struggling to buy diapers, things get a little tense—I get it. But where are all those lines of Russians heading toward Alaska or China? Everyone seems so desperate to get into a collapsing Europe.

Jeremy Turner9 said:The wealthy are making their exits, and they certainly won't be picking up rifles to fight...

Desperate Russians touch down in Mexico City: 'We're terrified, Putin is a killer'; Vučić insists: 'He isn't bluffing!'

They are fleeing to Mexico, a nation where support for Putin is openly displayed...

Man, just run with it—where else are you gonna go? It’s not like they have a massive list of destinations to pick from anyway.

A few months back, Putin announced he was signing this deal with Belarus, basically saying if anyone touches Minsk, it’s the same as attacking Russia. It just makes me wonder—all these keyboard warriors claiming that if some tactical nukes go off in Ukraine, America wouldn't even bother responding... do they honestly think Russia would actually step up and fight for Belarus? Like, seriously?

Andrew Miller102 said:You don't run into footage like this all that often, unless you assume modern battlefield drones just aren't capable of catching every single detail . To put it bluntly, a Ukrainian assault went sideways somewhere, and in the sheer panic of the retreat, they ended up running right over a few of their own. The driver of the transport vehicle really caught a bad break here, somehow managing to plow straight into a trench or a foxhole despite being surrounded by nothing but flat, open fields. ☕

Enjoying the show?

urbanotter said:Oh, absolutely, I'm just reciting the headlines for you.

If you're so sure about that, why don't you go find a newspaper that compares the price of lactose-free milk from eight days ago to what it cost yesterday? 🙂🙂

Otherwise, maybe stop jumping to hollow conclusions and playing these little intellectual games.😉

p.s.
Just to make it easier for you, I'm talking about the price at the Walmart in Marinić.

I’m sick of hearing about prices at God-knows-what grocery store. I was reading today that back in 2001—way before any wars started and when prices were like three times lower than they are now—oil was $5.00... and look, we're still here, aren't we?

James Phillips92 said:In recent conflicts across Africa, soldiers used to smear themselves with all sorts of oils provided by local shamans. They genuinely believed it made them bulletproof, which gave them the confidence to rush straight into the fray.

So clearly, the Wagnerites picked up the idea while they were out there, and now they're applying this "new Russian technique" we're all apparently waiting to see on the battlefield.

I’m fully expecting the Russians at the next parade to just march out completely naked, covered in nothing but grease from Wagner's Africa.

Looks like Russian gas isn't finding new buyers nearly as fast as they hoped...

Check out this comment: Gas wells aren't some kitchen faucet you can just turn off whenever you feel like it. My dad spent his entire career working on drill sites, and when those Russians started threatening to cut off the supply, the first thing he said was, "Are these guys out of their minds?!" Once a gas well is set up for extraction, any massive pressure shifts can wreck its capacity—and God forbid you actually try to shut it down completely. The pressure keeps building inside, and that gas is going to find an exit somewhere else. Sure, you could try drilling a new one later, but who knows if it’ll have the capacity or even be viable at all. So, all this flaring we're seeing? It’s probably just a byproduct of insane pressure buildup in the pipelines—they're basically burning it off just to get the compression back to something manageable because, like I said, you can't just flip a switch on a well. Honestly, Putin using gas shut-offs as a threat is just classic bluffing from a total liar.

rustywalker82 said:I'm not quite sure I follow the question.
What I'm actually asking is: for those of you who support the current situation with the gas supplies, how much longer should we let an aggressor make just as much money from gas as they did before these so-called sanctions?
How long are we going to keep caving and looking the other way?

So, you're one of those guys who's against the sanctions, right? Just being direct here—not even about your specific post—but what exactly was supposed to happen? What was the move when Putin has that "power" to just squeeze us whenever he feels like it?

And honestly, I don't think this is off-topic at all since we're talking about sanctions, and that's why we're even here—to swap ideas. It gets annoying when people don't have a real answer, so they just dodge the subject and start bringing up missiles, labs, NATO, and all that other nonsense.

Donna Harris11 said:We're looking at street protests toppling governments and total Balkanization—basically tearing things apart like back in the 90s... I mean, Hillary Clinton or Madeleine Albright practically said it themselves, how unfair it is that Russia has all those massive natural resources

Then there's the whole history of bad blood with the Anglosphere.

Like that armed incident from last year where a super modern US Navy Ship Deliberately Sailed Close to Crimea

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/w...er-crimea.html

US Navy Ship Deliberately Sailed Close to Crimea, US Officials say

Oh, sure! Because protests and regime changes are some brand new concept in human history, right? Like they only ever happened at Maidan? Honestly, aren't you guys embarrassed to keep repeating the same tired lines?

But seriously, quick question: did Ukrainians vote in 1991 saying they didn't want to be part of the union with Russia and wanted out of the USSR? Or was that just some master plan cooked up by Americans too?

Donna Harris11 said:He’s probably talking about that missile defense shield the Americans set up back in Romania and Poland in the early 2000s. That was during the Bush era, when he was basically best friends with the V. P. excuse.

The whole excuse was protecting Europe from long-range Iranian missiles, right?! And then there was opening a NATO office in Sevastopol... and then that whole string of color revolutions across the former USSR states, all backed by Soros—or rather, Western intelligence agencies (we had stuff like that too, I guess).

I mean, I think it was pretty obvious to Moscow back then what was being cooked up.

Please, enlighten me here—what exactly was being cooked up??

urbanotter said:It’s been said and written time and time again, but it feels like some people are simply choosing to be deaf and blind to the warnings that were already coming our way.

It never occurred to anyone, much like it hasn't today, to actually sit down and talk with Russia to resolve existing tensions instead of dragging Ukraine into NATO, establishing military bases, and positioning missiles in a way that makes Russia feel threatened.

I remember reading about how when the USSR placed missiles in Cuba, American planes carrying nuclear bombs were already in the air; if an agreement hadn't been reached at the very last second, the world would look very different today.

But I suppose I am just wasting my breath here, and I might as well end up in total "self-isolation" for trying to make sense of it all.

Give me a break. What kind of "dialogue" are we even talking about if he won't budge? Like, seriously—what else does he care about besides having a direct stranglehold on everyone else's politics? What are you even on about? Concessions? Please. Where are the military bases? Where are the missiles? Labs? Viruses? Come on, urbanotter—you finally showed your true colors...

goldenowl73 said:The whole mess we're in today basically stems from back in 2008 when we just let the annexation of Georgian territory slide without doing anything. If we had actually stood our ground and been decisive back then, Putin would probably be nothing more than a footnote in a history book by now.

Then came Crimea, and once again, we did practically nothing. Then we had the lukewarm response to Donetsk and Luhansk, and now we're sitting here acting like we shouldn't freeze up over three regions and a conflict where Russia just claims they have nothing to do with it. But at the end of the day, it's their backyard, and our economy is tied to Russian gas. Even when MH17 was shot down, it was just a shrug or a tiny gesture. We all know the Russians have been playing the West like a fiddle, using propaganda and blackmail to test the waters and see exactly how far they can push us. On February 24th, they finally decided that since everyone was letting them get away with everything, they might as well turn up the heat on this pot of boiling water, because the frog is already halfway cooked.

Russia is still living by the philosophy of Catherine the Great:

I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.
Catherine the Great

I'm with you on that, it's all pretty obvious to me. My question is actually for this group of forum users who are fighting so hard against sanctions. Like, what's the actual alternative here? What was the West supposed to do? That old-school logic about "we need to maintain good relations with Russia" just doesn't cut it anymore. The Russians are blackmailing us. After Ukraine, if they start demanding something else—and let's face it, they will, because why would they stop?—what is the West even supposed to do then? Since you guys are all squawking so much about how things should have been, why don't you come up with those big, grand solutions to bring world peace and keep everyone warm?

The only thing we could've—or should've—done was not to cave from the very start. Look, we're here right now because everyone was too worried about the financial fallout, and now we're right back in the same financial crap. We should have been phasing out Russian energy step-by-step so that when we finally said "enough," we wouldn't be in this pathetic situation. But yeah, easy to say now, right? You can't just flip a switch overnight. If we had started planning nuclear plants and other alternatives earlier, Putin would've seen the writing on the wall and launched his "special operation" way sooner. By being soft on Russia, we basically just made them stronger than they ever were (even back in 2008), while they just kept us on a leash and squeezed us slowly.

rustywalker82 said:It’s honestly impossible to follow the logic when people are out here defending buying gas from an aggressor at ten times the usual rate—especially since we used to call those exact same deals out as wrong. At the end of the day, it’s about the money being drained, not just how much gas is flowing through the pipes.

Maybe there’s some collective delusion going on where everyone thinks Russians are actually hiding inside the gas canisters? Seriously, just grab a propane tank, hide it in your basement, and lock the door.🙂

Look, let’s play this out. Say we didn't slap on any sanctions—say we didn't help Ukraine at all and they just fell in two days flat. What happens next? Putin stands there and tells NATO, "Hey, get away from my borders or I'll shut off the gas," and we just hang our heads and give in again? Then he goes after the Baltic states since they aren't part of NATO anymore and takes them over too. Why? Because he controls the energy supply and nobody dares to step in. Then he starts backing Mexico in Canada... and everyone stays quiet because Putin holds the gas card. So, seriously, tell me—what's your brilliant plan here? The West is backed into a corner. There isn't a choice. Any attempt to "guess" which sanctions to pull means we're just softening up again. I genuinely want to hear the logic from you and anyone else whining about sanctions: how much longer were we supposed to look the other way? How many demands would Putin have had to make before we finally said "enough"? Where do you draw the line? Seriously, I'm asking.

rowdyraven112 said:How much weaponry has the world actually given Ukraine? Maybe $11 billion?

Somewhere there's a link from a former Russian oligarch claiming the EU loses 200 billion euros in profit every month due to these sanctions. If they had just handed a quarter of that monthly profit to Ukraine, the war would have been over long ago. ☕

Regarding support for Ukraine: who conducted the poll? Democrats or Republicans? That matters. Besides, my friends in the States say Joe Biden isn't doing great in the polls, sitting at around 40% support. As for Ukraine? Most Americans couldn't care less.

I also see links about a ton of companies leaving Russia, claiming people were laid off. Clearly, we're living in parallel universes. People receiving that info have their own version of a European Putin. Those companies left behind entire infrastructures, and new firms just stepped in to take their place. Idiots can talk about trivial nonsense to their kids instead of the actual reality of the situation.
Just as Putin is delusional about a quick victory in Ukraine, the puppets in the EU massively underestimated Russia's economic strength and its ability to find alternatives. It’s like that one arrogant leader said, "Act first, think later"—we all know what he meant. ☕ As if Russia hasn't been under sanctions since 2014, and as if they haven't been hunting for workarounds since then.

Like I said, we are clearly living in parallel universes.

It wouldn't be over because Putin would just threaten to turn off the taps if they kept helping Ukraine on a scale where he might actually lose. Do you honestly believe he wouldn't cut or shut off the gas if he started losing the war?

He'd do exactly what he's doing now. Any Western move he doesn't like would be met with energy blackmail. No matter how stupid the West thinks they are, they aren't *that* stupid. When things kicked off in 2014, heads started turning. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.