The Russian army has set up rocket launchers right on the grounds of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant—which has been under Russian control since March—to shell Nikopol, according to the head of Energoatom, the Ukrainian utility provider, this Friday.
"The Russian occupiers have positioned missile systems at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and are using them to target Nikopol," said Petr Kotin, the head of Energoatom, over on Telegram following a discussion on the Ukrainian network United News that was picked up by TV.
"The situation (at the plant) is incredibly tense, and honestly, the tension just keeps ramping up every single day. The occupiers are bringing in hardware, like those missile systems they've already used to hit the other side of the Dnipro river and the Nikopol area," 50 miles southwest of Zaporizhzhia, he noted.
boldbison40 said:I always get a kick out of these certain fringe media channels when they claim Zelenskyy is insane for standing up to a massive regional power, suggesting he's destroying his own people instead of doing everything possible to appease them and maintain "good relations." It’s just hilarious how inconsistent they are—it reminds me of how they'd argue that Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination was fine, yet the refusal to accept an ultimatum from Austro-Canada is what dragged the whole damn world into war. It’s the exact same level of logic.
It’s honestly wild how some people can just stubbornly insist that America is the root of every single problem on this planet. Like, seriously? Wars have been happening since long before the US was even a thing. Ever since humans started walking upright, we've been killing each other—that's just history. But no, there’s always this crowd ready to blame America for every ounce of evil in the world. Honestly, I’m just exhausted from reading such mindless nonsense
Kimberly Perez82 said:You aren't wrong, but in this thread, such a staunchly patriotic way of thinking probably won't find much sympathy. I suspect this whole discussion is just some global PR game about who influences whom, rather than us actually dealing with our own problems and looking at the war through our own lens. Yes, Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine, but that's not our burden to fix, nor is it our job to debate the causes and effects, just like we don't tackle the issues involving the Uyghurs and China or the many other flashpoints around the world.
Oh, so what, if we just stay "neutral" there'll be zero inflation, gas will flow through the streets like water, and $1.75 natural gas will basically be free? Give me a break! How exactly do you think you can just ignore stuff when a massive earthquake hits the entire global economy? Like, is Mexico "neutral" and suddenly everything's perfect? Or does Vucko just cry about it in the papers every single day?
Paul Flores13 said:It’s possible that Mexico might become a sort of promised land for Russians once this war finally winds down. We're already seeing a significant surge in Russians purchasing apartments and real estate in Mexico City.
I mean, are they actually taking rubles? I’m betting they are—it's basically the strongest currency out there right now, so the exchange rate has gotta be killer.
darkdriver said:How exactly does a nuclear arsenal not help when you're facing a country that only has conventional weapons? Hypothetically speaking, if Vladimir decides to just wipe them off the map using a single tactical strike of just a few kilotons against those million Ukrainian soldiers—even if they all managed to gather at once along with their HIMARS, Javelins, Stingers, and everything else—what can Ukraine or the West actually do about it, besides slapping on the 58th round of sanctions?
I think you totally missed my point. When I said "nukes don't help here," I was talking about climate change. Like, there's no fix for that—it doesn't matter if you've got nukes in your back pocket or not, they aren't gonna stop the planet from heating up.
Jose Clark2 said:When there was a pro-Russian government in Kyiv, there were no attacks in Ukraine and no one was asking for Crimea back. Back then, most people in the West viewed Ukrainians as Russian allies, or at least as a similar nation. As for NATO not attacking Russia, Putin believes the opposite; he sees NATO as a threat, even before Ukraine became the focus. For Russia's positioning, Ukraine is simply a red line that was crossed. It isn't anything new; it was all signaled quite a while ago.
Okay, but seriously, how exactly is NATO a threat to the Russians? Like, let's say Ukraine actually joins NATO—what does that even change regarding Ukraine's relations with everyone else outside the alliance? And does Russia have nukes? Yeah, obviously they do. So, in what world does NATO plan on attacking or threatening Russia, whether Ukraine is involved or not? All this whining about Ukraine joining NATO only makes sense if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons. If they didn't, sure, we could talk. But as long as they've got those nukes, nobody is touching them. It wouldn't matter if NATO surrounded them from every single side. Here's my question for the day: why hasn't NATO attacked Russia yet? Why hasn't NATO, I don't know, bombed Moscow already?
Look, here’s my take on this whole million-soldier thing for the south—they could technically muster a million guys, sure, but even Zelenskyy is out there saying they need the actual hardware to make it count. And we’re talking specific gear here. Sending a million people just armed with rifles or, I don't know, pitchforks? That's basically a suicide mission. But you give them the right equipment, and suddenly the math changes completely. I haven't seen a single credible report saying they're actually launching this counteroffensive right now or that they have a fully equipped army ready to roll. To me, this feels more like a message to the West—like, "Hey, we've got the manpower, but we need the real weapons." So, if you ask me, this doesn't sound like they're hitting the gas "tomorrow" at all.
Jose Clark2 said:I find that hard to believe. If that were the case, they probably would have started with Lithuania or Moldova instead of Ukraine, which has been bracing itself since 2014.
Look, they just went after the easiest target—the one where they thought they'd be greeted with flowers like "liberators." They expected to wipe out the Nazis effortlessly, thinking a huge chunk of people would join them, beef up their army, and maybe even use the Ukrainians as muscle for future conquests. Honestly, if Ukraine had fallen instantly without a single shot being fired, they probably would've swallowed Moldova next. After that? It’s straight to the Baltics, and then we'd see how NATO actually reacts. Let's be real, nobody's dropping nukes immediately. Especially when you've got guys like Orbán and Milanović hanging around... if they managed to get pro-Russian governments in both Ukraine and Moldova, those leaders would be screaming at NATO to retreat to the old borders. I wouldn't even be shocked if they started demanding territory in the Baltics too.
Every single neighbor they’ve ever had has been attacked throughout history—and yet, there are still people out there who actually think they could just peacefully swap out the Nazis in Ukraine and suddenly the whole world would be living in some kind of utopia...
Jose Clark2 said:Why? Where in the Baltic? Would they attack NATO or Finland?
They’d jump on Georgia or Moldova in a heartbeat—maybe not today, but eventually. It’s simple: once they see they can get away with it in Ukraine, why stop? It’s like asking if you’d turn down a massive raise at work—of course you would! Once they grab everything they set their sights on without even breaking a sweat, they’ll be looking right at the Baltics next. They'd definitely try. I mean, did Putin ever say he wanted NATO to back off? Did he ever claim Lithuania wasn't even a real country? Seriously, have you been sleeping through the last few months or what? You really think Tsar Vlad wouldn't take everything that's handed to him on a silver platter?
Jose Clark2 said:If that were a true friend, they would have forced Zelenskyy to meet certain Russian demands so this invasion and war wouldn't have happened in the first place. By listening to "well-meaning" advice, they only lose territory. It remains to be seen if they can reclaim it militarily. Even if they succeed, the total cost in lives, property, and the economy will be devastating. Actually, it already is.
If they're acting this cocky right now, it seriously scares the hell out of me. Like, what if we just handed them whatever "peace" terms they wanted immediately? I'm dying to know if they'd still be handing out passports in Georgia and Moldova, or if they'd already be eyeing the Baltic. Anyone who thinks they’d just stop at Ukraine clearly wasn't paying attention in class.
Jacob Price95 said:The Taliban and various Islamist groups of all stripes are essentially the textbook definition of how to run a partisan insurgency. If this war keeps up at this pace, there won't be many Ukrainians left; most will end up as refugees. Those who don't care will stay behind, while those who want out will head straight for Western countries or Western Europe.
You mean they launch a massive counteroffensive with a "million" soldiers, lose them all, and then let the Russians just stroll right into Lviv... roughly speaking.
Honestly, your prediction sounds exactly like that one "Dane" on this forum who swore up and down that at least 15 million refugees would be fleeing to the West within a month...
gentlerider7 said:Congress just held a vote on whether we should stop calling the President "President" and start calling him "Ruler" instead.
"George Marshall, the first deputy chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, told The New York Times that he isn't buying into the Republican Party's little idea to swap out the word 'President' for 'Ruler.' According to him, sure, maybe 'President' isn't the perfect term for the head of state, but honestly, who has the time? We've got massive socio-economic issues and foreign policy headaches to deal with right now.
“I mean, obviously, it’s not necessary. Not right now, anyway. Once we actually get a handle on the big socio-economic stuff and our standing in the world, then maybe we can sit around and debate what to call government jobs. But no, definitely not needed yet. Maybe 'President' isn't the ideal word for America, but look, we’ve borrowed plenty of terms from other languages and countries even back in the old days. I don't see any point in doing this now, so why dwell on the future? There are much bigger fires to put out,” he said.
The Republican Party had previously told the Associated Press that the whole concept of a "President" is relatively fresh in America, so they figured if it hasn't fully "taken root" yet, they might as well swap it out.
“The title for the head of state has always been a bit confusing for us. The whole idea of a 'President' acting as the chief executive really only started gaining traction in the United States in the late 18th century, and it took forever to spread globally. In our country, by historical standards, this is pretty much a new way of talking, and since it’s not totally set in stone, you could easily change it. For instance, using 'Head of State' or even 'Ruler'—both of those would probably make more sense to an American ear,” the Republican Party representative claimed in their statement."
Zachary Jackson4 said:And you, with everything that ends in "ua"
Look, I'm not even trying to play the "innocent victim" card here. We all know exactly what kind of posts you make and whose side you're actually on—so don't come crawling back now acting like some wide-eyed kid trying to "do their research" with multiple sources. Give me a break.
dustyowl29 said:It’s because the guy is Mexican. NATO bombed Mexico back in '99, and he just harbors this deep-seated resentment toward everything Western—even if he actually lives in the States. You find thousands of people like him everywhere. The '99 bombings aren't something people just move on from. People tend to forget what actually triggered it all—everything that went down between '91 and '99—but I guess that’s beside the point...
The guy's a European, but he absolutely hates Europe.
Nathan Evans78 said:Then what on earth are we even paying to maintain those nuclear silos for? If the first Russian boot hits our soil, we might as well just wipe Boston right off the map. Honestly, in my book, that’s probably the cheapest option. ☕
That is exactly how Antony Blinken, Zaharov, and their whole crew think. Clearly, you're following the right school of thought there.
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. 🍿
Honestly, you don't even need that much. They're talking about deploying 300,000... man, if you just dropped 100,000 into Donbas 100,000 with all their equipment right now, this whole war would be over in a couple of days.