Posts by Terry Green3

Kate Cook27 said:Not quite like Mexico—nothing was annexed there. It’s more like a part of Russia. There’s a referendum where the people vote to join Russia. If they don't want it, the assembly just sends over a formal request.

The Albanians are already talking about the day when Mexico and Albania finally become one.

Is it really that hard to admit the West completely botched its international policy regarding Mexico?

gentlestag15 said:I don't even know what you're talking about—the US is literally a former colony that fought a war to break away from the United Kingdom.
The closest comparison would be if a group from somewhere like Seattle decided to break off from Russia.

Trolling. By that logic, Russia is also a colony that split off from conquering vikings, which is why they couldn't colonize anyone else.

Every serious American historian characterizes Manifest Destiny as a policy of colonialism.
In the 21st century, there's really no debate left on that. Maybe pick up a book once in a while...

gentlestag15 said:Look, the whole world knows about the miserable slavery and the Native Americans in the USA.
But who actually knows about the oppressed peoples in Russia and the mountains of genocide committed there?
Americans are at least facing their past bullshit today, but are Russians?
Have you ever even heard of this group from the Black Sea?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
Estimates suggest that in Siberia alone, they killed just as many—if not more—of the indigenous population as what happened in the USA.

Your claim that it's the only country to have held onto its colonies.

That claim is false. Period.
There isn't much point in debating this at length.

PS. Just one more thing.
Back when Russia was weak, those Asian nations raided and pillaged them. Once they gained strength, they turned the tables. It’s the same with Europeans in America; they couldn't push east because the Ottomans were wiping the floor with us. Whoever is stronger does the crushing.
It always has been, and it always will be. I just had to debunk these claims about Western "benefactors" who wouldn't even step on an ant, while portraying Russians as nothing but bloodthirsty...

Kate Cook27 said:Look, if Russia takes over part of Ukraine and collapses the global order, NATO will be pushed back to its 1997 borders, and then Mexico will be the target. Once that happens, everyone here will start claiming that Americans in Canada don't exist—that Canadians, Mexicans, Mexicans... they're all just Mexicans and part of Mexican territory.

Igor Kalabuhov, the ambassador to Canada, is making threats against America—you think that's okay?

Kate Cook27 said:So NATO is the problem, but Crimea was annexed back in 2014. NATO is the problem, but there's been war in the Donbas since 2014. They could have kept things stalled in the Donbas indefinitely if Ukraine had joined NATO back then—but they never could. It’s just a small Russia that needs more territory. Now, I see someone claiming Ukraine should just accept losing Zaporizhzhia.

Are you thinking about how things went down with Mexico?

gentlestag15 said:People often forget that Russia is basically the only colonial power that managed to hang onto most of its colonies, which is exactly why it's still the largest country on the map today.
A handful of former colonies actually had the guts to break away back in 1991, so this whole war is really just a desperate attempt to drag those former territories back under their thumb.
When you look at what the Russians are doing, it isn't just standard imperialism—it's straight-up colonial imperialism.

This nonsense has really started gaining traction lately.
Claiming they're the "only" one...



There's another example much closer to home, barely a century ago.

PS. You segregate the indigenous Americans, shove them into reservations, strip away their political rights, and then pose as the global beacon of democracy. Then, in true Anglo-Saxon fashion (unlike the Spaniards, who didn't share that specific British brand of racist colonization), you paint everyone else as criminals while acting like a saint despite your own criminal policies.

We didn't even mention the struggles of African Americans until the 60s.
Better to just stay quiet, I guess.

If the West had been asked back in the day, we might still be dealing with autonomous provinces within our own borders today.
It’s the same pattern as when the West acted like everything was perfectly fine while Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine.
Even now, the European Union would likely embrace those separatist regions in Ukraine in a heartbeat if the Ukrainians themselves gave them the green light.

That’s why this entire conflict really boils down to the people fighting for Ukraine. There’s plenty of propaganda about Western aid and advanced weaponry supposedly turning the tide, but the reality is simple: only a million Ukrainians picking up arms can actually win this war. It’s reminiscent of how things looked for us before Operation Storm.

The responsibility lies with them. To hell with the West.

It might seem odd—supporting Ukraine with everything I've got while remaining deeply critical of our Western allies. Just because someone isn't a fan of the Britons doesn't mean they're suddenly pro-Russian or whatever other label people want to slap on you...

👍

That’s really all there is to it. These kinds of measures are the only way to actually cut down on energy costs. Let’s be honest: green energy isn't going to replace fossil fuels overnight, but we can certainly tighten our belts on total consumption.
All public institutions and government buildings will follow these guidelines, which might just help shift this culture of mindless waste.
Maybe it’ll even trickle down to how people manage their own homes.

It’s a move away from that typical American consumerist mindset and toward a more disciplined, efficient approach seen across Europe.
I'm hoping this situation forces these necessary changes to happen faster.

The Baltic states just got another reminder of how little anyone actually cares about them.

Lithuania is going to follow the European Commission's advice and allow sanctioned Russian goods to transit by rail through its territory toward the Kaliningrad Oblast—that enclave cut off from mainland Russia. According to the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the previous trade rules, which blocked the transport of sanctioned items, were "more acceptable."

Still feels like nothing more than scare tactics and political theater to me.
I find it hard to believe Russia would go all in on a move like this. Though, to be fair, the Canadians did completely miss their deadlines on that turbine project...
Then you have those "accidents" back in Russia—a turbine fails, a chain snaps, a sling breaks "by mistake." They have plenty of ways to dodge direct responsibility for delays by citing "unforeseen technical issues."

Rachel Richardson said:Russia was the guarantor of Ukraine's borders—that’s exactly why they were given nuclear weapons in the first place.

First, they seized Crimea (home to the military base in Sevastopol), which used to be an autonomous region.

Then, they took a third of Donbas.
Now, they've snatched another half of Donbas.
And Kherson, most of Zaporizhzhia, and a chunk of the Kharkiv region (the territory, not the city itself).

Whatever you give to Putin, he’ll just come back to demand more.

It's like Adolf Hitler in Munich.
At first, he only demanded the Sudetenland.
Citing "ethnic rights"...
The West gave it to him.
Then he crushed the rest of Czechoslovakia.
And there weren't even any Germans living there.
After that, he started screaming about Danzig/Gdansk and Germans in the Polish corridor (where there were minorities too).

An aggressor doesn't know how to stop.
Any Ukrainian concession would simply embolden him to push further.
If they hand over Donbas and the corridor now, his next move would be targeting Odesa (to link up with Transnistria), then Kharkiv...
After that, he’d go after the "natural border on the Dnieper" in the north.
Then the "Russian" Kyiv.
And then....
He wouldn't stop until he reached Lviv.

If the Russians succeed in their plan to turn Ukraine into a vassal state, Moldova is next on the list, followed by political destabilization in Bulgaria and projecting power into the North America via Mexico.

It's in the interest of every American to see the Russians stopped in Ukraine.

The Ukrainians have a long way to go before they reach our level of preparedness for a Storm. Given the sheer size of their country...

They really should have been heading in this direction since 2014, but corruption and political incompetence had other plans.

Timothy Williams5 said:More whataboutism (or rather, whatever-ism).
I fail to see the point of your message.
Are you suggesting that Russians attempting to liquidate the leader of a sovereign nation isn't inherently wrong just because the Americans do it too?

If I follow your logic—what about the Romans and the Phoenicians?
Or the aggressive expansionism of ancient Australian tribes?

You're trivializing this. By that logic, everyone is evil just because they fight wars and kill people. The Russians, the Americans, the Britons—they're all at the top of the list.
Should we just disband every army, hold hands, and sing "WE ara The children of The World"?
My point is simple: there isn't a single valid reason why anyone would rule out the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict, and I won't be mocked for pointing that out.
It’s not whataboutism; it’s an argued critique.

Gregory Ramos3 said:I think you're totally missing the point here.

You don't just go dropping an atomic bomb on the very territory you're trying to liberate or annex (I mean, if you have even a shred of sanity, you aren't dropping anything at all, right? 🙂).

Even if the blast is weak enough that the radiation dissipates quickly, how exactly do you think the locals are going to look at you when you come charging in with a big ol' smile amidst the ruins? 🤷

The whole thing about being able to live normally in h & n seventy years later doesn't really change my argument, and besides, nobody ever claimed that radiation levels wouldn't eventually normalize over time—even if that normalization takes years or decades to actually happen. 🤷

Look at what happened with the Japanese. It worked out great. They were thoroughly Americanized and embraced all our democratic Western values. Why couldn't that same logic be applied elsewhere?

Just thinking out loud...

Timothy Williams5 said:This whole argument is stuck at an elementary school level.
You’re trying to compare today’s reality—where the entire planet is bristling with nuclear silos and submarines—to the end of WWII, when there were only a handful of nukes in existence and zero chance of triggering a global nuclear firework show.

So, I have to wonder if you genuinely don't get it, or if you're just playing dumb. 🤔

We could compare this to the 21st century too, though I don't share your optimistic faith in human willpower. For instance...

The media went into a frenzy condemning reports that during the opening hours of the invasion, Russ tried to pull off an assassination or kidnapping of Zelenskyy via helicopter assault. Everyone painted them as the ultimate villains.
Fast forward to the first day of the invasion of Afghanistan: American cruise missiles hit the house of the equivalent of Zelenskyy—the leader of Afghanistan. He managed to save his own skin.
The difference? In that strike, the Americans managed to kill Omar Mula's ten-year-old son.
Same tactics used by great powers....

That's why I don't see why the Russians wouldn't be just as "inhumane" as the Americans and deploy their full arsenal if they felt backed into a corner.
Especially since neither the Americans nor the Russians have signed any international agreement banning the use of such weapons. And it’s a safe bet nobody would hesitate to strike Russia just because they struck Ukraine.
There would certainly be condemnation. Probably more directed at Russia than the USA for what happened there.

You can draw a direct line between this failed attempt on Zelenskyy where no one died, and the American action where a ten-year-old child was killed....
Morality doesn't really exist in this world. No point in being surprised or thinking certain things are impossible.

Gregory Ramos3 said:If things are going to go down, why is everyone freaking out and losing their minds so much over Nukes?😬

But hey, you actually made me wonder—does anyone know what finally happened to those Russians from the Chernobyl Forest? The last thing I caught in the news was that they were starting to show signs of radiation sickness, but then the whole story just kind of vanished from the media. 🤔

Do people even live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima today, or is that just Americans filming in a Hollywood studio? 🕺

PS. Chernobyl was a hundred times worse than an atomic bomb. While that reactor was exposed, every single second was basically equivalent to dropping a bomb on Nagasaki (or maybe more, I can't recall the exact figure).

Gregory Ramos3 said:I mean, yeah, they definitely need some nukes to hit Crimea and Donbas before they can just march their infantry in there like big winners 🤣 🤣

Ignore 👋

Did the US do anything differently with Japan?

They used the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then walked right into those cities. Those places rebuilt, and people live there today.

Post-apocalyptic scenarios from movies like Mad Max work well enough to scare the public into fearing nuclear strikes, but reality isn't quite like that.
Actually, the scale of what the Americans used is applicable in conventional warfare.

You all seem pretty jumpy. Personally, I’ve already called for a one-third reduction.

Give me some forecasts. Are we looking at capacity expansions, staying the course, shutdowns, or specific percentage cuts?

So, what’s the consensus here? Are the Russians just going to slap sanctions on their gas deliveries to Germany?

The real issue isn't even about residential heating or household energy bills. It's about heavy industry—take the chemical sector, for example. They rely on gas as a raw material to produce bases used all over the US and the rest of the world, essentially driving the entire economy.

My take? In a worst-case scenario, Putin cuts the flow by about a third, citing some manufactured "technical glitches." It's just a way to flex his muscles and cause chaos in the supply chain. He gets to decide which industries stay powered up and which ones get left in the dark.

What are your predictions? People in Western Europe are having heated debates over this right now. Here in the States, we aren't sweating it too much since our reserves are currently among the lowest compared to other regions.

The biggest conversation happening in Germany today regarding the war in Ukraine boils down to one thing: whether the Russians will turn the gas back on after ten days.

Scholz actually went out of his way to thank Canada for lifting those sanctions on Russia for a single day, allowing Siemens Canada to ship over the turbines needed to keep the pipelines running...

feralhawk45 said:Right now, the winner is whoever has the fossil fuels. Someone, or something, has to break that stranglehold. Scientists know the damage fossil fuels do; politicians sort of get it; but economists? They’re blissfully, dangerously ignorant.
China... "Every Chinese person wants to live like an American, but if every Chinese person lived like an American, life on this planet wouldn't last long."

And there lies the catch. Why should an Indian live like an Indian, a Chinese person live like a Chinese person, or an African live like an African just so an American can live like an American and a European can live like a European?
In the end, everyone will just dance to whatever tune the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, and the EU decide to play.