Posts by brighthound13

Nathan Thomas12 said:The Ruble is worthless. You could have a billion rubles stuffed in your sock and you wouldn't even be able to buy a stick of gum—and if you tried to use it in Russia, nobody's going to swap it for dollars or euros for you.

But couldn't you just use that money to buy physical gold, which honestly seems like a much smarter investment than any currency that isn't backed by anything real?

Amanda Allen4 said:The reality? The European Union is actually resentful of the alliance with the USA—and those pushing for change are primarily motivated by one thing: tearing that alliance apart.

It’s a classic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" combat strategy.

The EU has essentially been an American vassal since 1945, consisting of what used to be major European powers. The United Kingdom isn't quite in that same boat, though they’ve certainly had their fair share of friction with the USA, looking back at things like the Suez Crisis and various other historical clashes. As for Russia, what is there for them to break? If anything, Russia would actually prefer if the EU—specifically heavyweights like Germany and France—acted as a more independent force so that actual diplomacy could take place. But how can you really reach an agreement with someone who doesn't even seem to have control over their own backyard?

Christian Torres3 said:Do yourself a favor and Google a list of major oil exporters so you don't embarrass yourself with such stupid takes.

Honestly, I can just walk past any gas station and see the reality for myself, isn't it obvious? Our demand for energy is only ever going up, while we actually hit our peak production levels—including uranium—quite a long time ago.

Nancy Gomez26 said:The Russian Federation isn't actually going to rebuild anything in occupied zones, because they won't get official recognition of those lands as theirs. Perhaps only Belarus might eventually acknowledge them as part of the RF—and honestly, I wouldn't bet on them either.

But why would Russia care about who recognizes what anyway? Isn't it true that you effectively own whatever ground your military is currently standing on?

rowdytiger13 said:Here’s what an actual professional had to say about this topic:
The USA will come out on top. They'll be the ones selling the weapons and the fuel.
China and India win too. They'll pick up energy from Russia at deeply discounted rates.
Europe is basically screwed.
Russia played a massive strategic masterstroke.

I don't see any discounted energy being available anytime soon, especially when you consider how even Saudi Arabia is coordinating oil production and exports alongside Russia. Take Canada, for example; they're essentially seen as a domestic producer for the USA, yet the US keeps them right at a break-even point or maybe just a tiny bit ahead. Plus, those British and Norwegian fields in the North Sea are winding down, and major exporters like Malaysia or Indonesia aren't really in that same position anymore.
It makes me wonder, though, how all this energy exchange is actually going to work, and what kind of currency or goods will be used to pay for it all?

Nancy Gomez26 said:Corruption is merely one facet of the issue. You find it in America, you find it in Ukraine, and you certainly find it in the West. The distinction lies in the aftermath. In the West, when corruption is exposed, there is an inevitable push for sanctions and political accountability. In authoritarian regimes, the goal is total concealment. If something does leak out, there are no consequences; in some cases, the very people who expose the rot are the ones sanctioned. This is the fundamental difference in how various nations handle graft. Some hide it behind thick curtains to avoid fallout, while elsewhere, it is semi-public—just a standard part of daily life. What matters here is this: in a state where corruption is culturally accepted, trade sanctions and economic crises change the math. When the pie starts shrinking, dividing it becomes problematic because everyone still expects their slice. Suddenly, the cracks show—like when military equipment turns out to be substandard despite being wildly overpriced—and people start looking for scapegoats. Usually, they look everywhere except at the central authority. That leadership designed this broken system from the ground up; an authoritarian structure is inherently corrupt by design, both in theory and in practice.

In the West, we have so much corruption that we've simply rebranded it as "lobbying," haven't we? It's just another convenient euphemism used to mask the truth. There are endless examples of this, especially once you look at the reality behind some truly creative accounting. And what's interesting is how the damage is almost always socialized, meaning the burden falls squarely on the taxpayers. Meanwhile, those at the top almost always walk away unscathed, thanks to high-priced lawyers and a legal system that seems tailor-made to protect the wealthy.
Think about how much corruption and data manipulation went on during the American occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
It seems to me that nothing ever reaches a courtroom unless there's an internal power struggle within the Washington cartels. Only then do certain players get sacrificed to settle scores, which has absolutely nothing to do with justice or the law, but is instead just the byproduct of one faction winning against another.

Donna Wells2 said:Oh, absolutely... old man Joza was basically best buddies with them.
He was tight with Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, that monster Idi Amin, and the list goes on and on.
Quite the respectable roster of friendships, wouldn't you say? ☕

In this world, friendships don't really exist—only interests do, right? And Joe certainly knew how to play the game, because every single time he stepped off an official flight, he'd be carrying a folder full of signed deals.

electricsurfer47 said:The USSR had bases in Ukraine where they kept those bombs. Everything was falling apart so fast back then, and at that moment, the Russians weren't exactly thinking long-term about what to do with the arsenal and stuff.

The Ukrainians really should have held onto those weapons so they could modernize them later. They would've been like Israel sitting next to Russia; nobody would be able to dictate political terms to them. That’s exactly what Russia does to Ukraine all the time, even with that Budapest Memorandum they signed.

The truth is, the Ukrainians never actually wanted to take action, did they? They didn't want to preserve any part of the Soviet legacy; instead, they were just looking for ways to plunder the country, signing those agreements, contracts, and memorandums merely as a formality. Those papers aren't worth the ink they're written with, serving only to mask corruption that borders on treason against their own people.

gentlestag15 said:I don't know, all I know is that about 90% of what was in Saddam's military arsenal was Soviet gear.
The other 10% came from France.
So basically, the Soviets/Russians were the biggest supporters of Saddam.
Plus, I can still recall the whole Iran-gate scandal, where the US was caught funneling weapons to Iran.

As for the chemical weapons production facilities and equipment, I believe he sourced those from West Germany (though there were mentions of America as well). France sold him a nuclear reactor, while Gerald Bull and various companies in Belgium and Britain worked on converting conventional missiles into weapons of mass destruction. With their assistance, he even developed other WMDs, like the Super Top. He also bought naval mines from Italy. On top of all that, he received massive amounts of funding via American satellites in the Persian Gulf and directly from the USA itself.
The West didn't seem to mind Saddam's genocide against the Kurds because he was essentially doing their dirty work for Turkey, and since the Kurds were aligned with Iran, it just put them in a position where Saddam was given a free pass by the West.

Kate Cook27 said:Reasons for the war in Ukraine:
Demilitarization, denazification, stopping NATO expansion, and taking down the fascist regime in Kyiv—plus all those rumors about biological labs in Ukraine holding 900 different pathogens, or the lab where COVID was supposedly created, or even the one allegedly developing viruses to target Russians. Then there’s the whole nuclear weapons issue in Ukraine. Apparently, Ukraine was planning to strike the People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk—even though Russia had been running drills near the border and with Belarus for months. Was Ukraine actually planning to hit Russia? If so, then Russia’s move was just a preemptive strike. Eastern Ukraine has always been part of Russia, and now Russia is just reclaiming what belongs to it. Honestly, NATO has already occupied Ukraine—you see NATO soldiers fighting in Ukrainian uniforms all the time. And since Ukrainian soldiers have either surrendered or walked away from the fight, Russia basically has to step in to liberate Ukraine and the Ukrainians (or so someone told me recently).
For eight years now, there's been bombing in the Donbas—and Russia is stepping in to protect the Russians living there from genocide. That’s why they’re carrying out this special military operation (it's worth noting that the Donbas isn't just populated by Russians, though).

Fighting off demons and witches.
Broken institutions.
A nation destroyed.
Jihad for the defense of Islam. 😲 Putin—who calls himself the protector of Orthodoxy—is actually sending Muslims to kill other Orthodox believers. It’s just wild. Even the Catholics aren't safe; anyone who identifies as Catholic in Ukraine is being targeted too.
The list keeps growing.

The Donbas is working while Kyiv is being rebuilt, so isn't that just one more reason to consider?

silentsurfer3 said:The real culprit? It’s the folks who were handing out cheap credit left and right like candy...
The whole mess with the coronavirus and the war in Ukraine—it just acted as an accelerant for a situation that was already brewing.

Now, word on the street is they’re about to hike interest rates to basically "kill off" the massive consumer spending power that triggered this inflation spike in the first place.
And predictably, the ones getting hit hardest will be the regular people who locked in those long-term, low-interest loans back when money was easy.

So, according to the logic here, the way we "fix" this crisis is by making everyone a little bit poorer. Makes sense, right?
It’s just another band-aid solution that has absolutely nothing to do with Russia.

Russia is just the booster rocket for this crisis. This whole thing was going to happen regardless.

Even back in 2008, the systemic issues were never truly resolved, weren't they? First, we saw prices start climbing after Corona, and then the war in Ukraine just blew everything wide open.
It reminds me so much of that stretch between 1974 and 1982, when there was this massive flood of petrodollars and low interest rates, only for rates to suddenly skyrocket from 3% to 16%. So many countries found themselves unable to even touch the principal, let alone keep up with the interest, but there's always some figure like France Preysler stepping in with "stabilization measures," which is really just a polite way of saying bankruptcy.
And let's not forget how Corona accelerated the printing of dollars and euros to levels we've never seen before, all while so many nations can't even cover 50% of their energy needs through domestic sources. It feels like we're staring at a rerun of the early eighties in the USA and much of the rest of the world.

darkdriver said:Ukraine is struggling as a state because it's a breeding ground for kleptocracy and nepotism—kind of like almost every post-USSR wasteland out there, including Russia, which isn't any better just because they have massive natural resources.
I mean, wasn't Yulia Tymoshenko—who got grilled back in 2001 by Leonid Kuchma for corruption and, get this, smuggling Russian gas—one of the biggest faces of pro-Western politics? And one of her closest business associates was the former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, who ended up being convicted in the USA for corruption, money laundering, and fraud.

Btw, wasn't it similar in America before the big policy shifts, where they basically told retirees, "Hey, vote this way or you might lose your pensions"?
Just, you know, since we're talking about bribing people with veggies and stuff.

Finally, a post that feels grounded in reality. People either don't understand, or simply refuse to accept, that a nation is destroyed by internal corruption and theft rather than by external enemies. Golda Meir used to say that corruption is essentially the same thing as treason. If those pro-Western leaders in Ukraine had truly intended to build a lasting nation and act as genuine patriots, wouldn't Russia have lacked the strength to ever attack them? Instead, they attacked a state with broken institutions and a people who had already been hollowed out. The fact that Russia moved in with only about 200,000 people really shows just how fractured Ukraine actually was.

Sandra Harris2 said:Here we go, the classic Russian narrative: Ukraine is failing because it isn't a real country; it’s just a gang of Nazis and junkies. They claim the Ukrainian people don't even exist and need protection from Mother Russia to be guided toward prosperity (and "re-educated"). The suggestion is they should submit like Belarus, which enjoys the favor of empires (read: lost its sovereignty), and then everything will be fine for the Malorus—pardon me, the Ukrainians.
I honestly don't know how you can stomach this garbage.

By the way, regarding the elections in Donbas, I read an incredible report back in 2015 by two freelance journalists from Italy. Basically, the separatist authorities lured people to the polling stations by selling crates of vegetables and groceries for a symbolic single hryvnia. Desperate people "voted" simply because they needed to eat.

Reading justifications for a select clique of cronies lining their pockets by selling off national resources through privatization at the expense of the common people... it's not just slimy to read, it's utterly immoral to defend it by saying "you're just jealous."
Horrible.

Now you've gone and labeled me as the "Russian narrative." You're basically fantasizing about my posts and putting words in my mouth. You were the one who brought up "Mother Russia" and "Nazis and junkies," not me.
From 1992 to 2014, Ukraine was what it was. My father used to meet Ukrainian laborers who traveled like nomads through both Russia and Europe, and through his conversations with them, he heard stories that were both heartbreaking and ugly. And interestingly, those Ukrainians never once blamed Russia or Putin for the collapse of their country. Even the refugees today don't do that.
As for elections, referendums, or any other political theater, they are always—always—organized under the shadow of bayonets or fighter jets by whoever controls the process. The most important thing is always who counts the votes, who stands by the ballot box, who holds the money (the dirty money), who buys the votes, intimidates, threatens, runs the media smear campaigns, and appoints the election commission. That is the entity that wins in the end, while the loser can take their complaints to Bob. And I should clarify: the hand that takes is just as guilty as the hand that gives. In fact, the hand voting for a crate of vegetables is arguably more at fault than the one offering the bribe.
Regarding immorality, well, it's practically the foundation of capitalism. In our modern system, money earned through prostitution or drug trafficking officially counts toward the GDP, though the West has been leading opium wars and slave trades for a long time now. I don't see the innocent or suffering masses protesting that, just as they don't protest the sell-off of national resources, extortion by foreign banks, or the exodus of their own people. For them, sports and drugs are more important.

hollowdriver13 said:Man, you've really spit out a lot of nonsense here.🙏🙏

Can you pro-Russian folks please just make up your minds? Does reducing sales to the EU actually hurt Russia or not? People claim China and India will just soak it all up anyway, so what's the big deal with Russia just turning off the tap themselves?
And then there's Nord Stream—a few posts ago you were saying they could move everything through that. So, can they or can't they? Pick a side.

What pockets? Mislis Lyschansk? Where did the entire Ukrainian army retreat from? Now Russian military bloggers are running around the internet claiming the Russian Federation never even had a highway under fire control and that the Ukrainian forces executed a perfectly controlled withdrawal—even though some people were writing quite sweetly here about how it was total chaos. Or maybe it's about Zolota and those fictional 2,000 Ukrainians who supposedly surrendered, yet there isn't a single photo or video of such a mass of prisoners? Better to stop quoting Zoko and Geroman.

And does the UA not have a professional military? Though, we could certainly have a debate about Russian "professionalism."



This face practically radiates professionalism while driving around loot that weighs as much as a tank.

I am not jealous of the oligarchs at all. On the contrary, my life is more than comfortable with what I've earned. You're the one pushing the idea that Russia stopped being looted once Putin arrived.🤣) Look, I’m just telling you, that’s not even the half of it. If anything, you could argue that the level of looting happening under Putin is way more massive than what we saw during the collapse of the Soviet Union in the nineties. Those mega-yachts are just the most obvious tip of the iceberg—I mean, they're building private yachts with a displacement larger than the actual command ships in their own Navy.

https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/stat...1642222067

This is such a killer three-part thread on how deep corruption runs in Russia, from the low-level bureaucrats all the way up to the top brass. Basically, if it isn't nailed down, it's being stolen or sold off.

As far as I can tell, Zelenskyy is the only one constantly calling for more sanctions against Russia, yet he keeps letting the gas and oil flow right past him, which basically means we're just subsidizing the Russian war machine and civilized Europe at the same time. All that money from the transfers gets funneled into shells and initial defensive lines, but honestly, isn't that all just a bit of a fantasy? You can see it in Zelenskyy's eyes—he’s clearly focused on making sure his troops have ammunition and defenses before they even think about having a decent meal, because that's just the kind of people they are.
When it comes to those encirclements, we’ve spent so much time watching the footage of Ukrainian soldiers—those absolute warriors—being evacuated from various airports or pulled out of places like Crimea, Ilovaysk, Debaltseve, and Mariupol. Honestly, isn't it just a relief to see that any of them made it out alive, whether they were let through or managed to escape being captured? It breaks my heart knowing they were stuck in those situations through no fault of their own, so even if only a few of them managed to get away, shouldn't we just be grateful for that?
When it comes to Russia, I actually know people over there who are doing perfectly fine just by working regular jobs, and they aren't exactly complaining about their lives. Corruption, theft, and those massive corporate tycoons are really their own business, much like how Enron, Worldcom, Medoff, Epstein, and Lehman Brothers are part of the mess we deal with here in America. But isn't it true that the real core issues in Russia were effectively settled by Putin and his inner circle?

Kate Cook27 said:Ukraine has been struggling under its system since gaining independence. The biggest issue? Too many politicians in charge were essentially working for Moscow's interests. It was the same setup you see in Russia, just with more compliant players—a specific group of elites and wealthy individuals lining their pockets by bleeding every single project dry. How can a nation develop when its leaders are serving a foreign power whose goal is to prove the country is dysfunctional and needs to be dismantled? You even have people calling for the country to be split into five different states—basically hoping for a breakup similar to what happened with America.

As for the funding transfers—just imagine if Zelenskyy suddenly pivoted. He isn't acting alone here; the West is providing the support, and he can't just cut off the branch he's sitting on. The country is at war, and they need the cash. If Russia pulls back and the Ukrainian people don't have to die, what else is he supposed to do? Of course he calls for sanctions against Russia—what's the alternative? Wave a white flag and say, "Fine, Russia wins"? The people on the front lines are fighting for their families.

Feel free to weigh in with your own reasons for the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

The reasons behind the aggression in Ukraine are really the same as the reasons behind the attacks on Gustav III, Napoleon, Mustafa III, Sultan Abdulaziz, or even Hitler—it's just pure opportunism. It doesn't matter how many soldiers, oil reserves, shells, food supplies, generals, nukes, or missiles they have; it's been this way for centuries. Human history is essentially just a history of warfare, and we all just deal with whatever happens.

Up until 1999, Moscow was led by politicians who were as pro-Western as it gets, led by Boris Yeltsin, and they basically turned the Russian people into prey for Western nations. Putin is just slightly less pro-Western, though his kids live in the Netherlands. That version of "Westernization" actually caused more damage than the years of 1941–45, and you can measure that damage purely through the economic toll on the Russian people. Putin was brought in to prevent a massive communist resurgence and to head off a military coup that felt imminent to the people. With help from the oligarchs and the CIA, he took power to stabilize the public and the Army. He quickly moved to settle things in Chechnya, fix the economy, handle the debts, and rein in state enterprises and tycoons, which finally calmed down both the citizens and the military.
Ukraine, on the other hand, never had its own version of a Putin or Lukashenko to consolidate power, and they've been paying a heavy price for that for a long time. They've been suffering long before the war started, and certainly since 2014. Since 1992, Ukraine has mostly been treated as prey for Western powers, specifically the Americans and the Britons. Beyond being systematically looted by them, the country is constantly being used as a proxy or cannon fodder for a war against Russia. Ukrainians, acting like a sort of Gurkha force fighting for American and British interests, are essentially Washington and London's greatest asset. In the process, this war is completely tearing apart the European Union, which becomes meaningless and redundant without political and economic cooperation with Russia.

hollowdriver13 said:Why would he miss out on energy profits if Russia is paying up? Honestly, let them send double via UA. 😁

Look, since Putin arrived, they haven't been "draining" money; instead, oligarchs are just raking in petrodollars out in the wilderness while mega-yachts practically build themselves.
They seem so worried about improving their own country, yet the yachts owned by Russian billionaires have more tonnage than the entire Russian Navy. Heck, just Abramovich's Eclipse has a bigger DWT than a submarine from the Black Sea Fleet in Moscow.

If Zelenskyy were to block fuel transfers passing through Ukrainian territory, wouldn't that deal the most devastating blow possible to Russia? It would hurt them deeply on a million different levels, and "civilized Europe" would finally be forced to step up beyond just sending those little "band-aid" solutions. I'm not sure if you know, but a band-aid is really just a wet rag soaked in booze—it numbs the pain for a second, but it doesn't fix anything.
And as for the transit money, has it actually done anything to help the Ukrainian military or its institutions improve since 1992? Probably not, and it won't change things in this short window of time either. Honestly, I find myself looking at those Ukrainians on the front lines with a sense of wonder as they pull their dead and wounded back, all while Zelenskyy leaves them trapped in pockets just to eliminate the hardliners, while oil and gas flow smoothly so the oligarchs in Kyiv can stack cash and cruise along the coast in cars worth a hundred thousand dollars or more. Why doesn't it occur to any of the Ukrainians on the front line to disrupt the trade while their friends and comrades are dying? At least the Russians have a paid military that has to follow orders for a paycheck; a mobilized Ukrainian guy might feel he has the right to think for himself or walk off a post if he wants to make a positive change on the battlefield. As it stands, they are just cannon fodder.

Regarding the Russian oligarchs... I say, let them drive ten yachts each. Both the Soviets and many other nations have chased the perks of democracy and capitalism. There aren't any ideological, human, political, legal, or business barriers preventing someone like Abramovich or Todoric from owning yachts, helicopters, or castles, regardless of everything else. Because that's what the people demanded. The people asked for this kind of society and this kind of arrangement. If the extravagance of tycoons bothers you or anyone else, isn't that just envy? After all, neither you nor anyone else has actually done anything functional or useful against such a system besides typing away on the internet.

Jesse Sanchez4 said:Lina merely laid out the *official* Russian justifications used to spark this invasion and genocide.

But really, what kind of glass bell jar are our valued forum members living under? Shouldn't we try to step away from state-sponsored PR—no matter which country is pulling the strings—and look at things through the eyes of regular people, because isn't everything in everyday life actually driven by those same "official" excuses?
Have you ever truly tried to find work, rent an apartment, or pick up a used car in your own backyard? And in those moments, did you consistently run into nothing but honest, decent, moral, civilized Americans... or experts who were actually willing to help you out?

hollowdriver13 said:Do you actually have any proof for that?
Man, now you're bringing up Nord Stream, even though you were just bragging about how Kyiv is letting energy leak out and saying that "says everything about them."
If that's the case, why wouldn't Russia just shut down the supply through UA if they can just rely on NS?
Besides, this supposedly "powerful and self-sufficient" Russia is basically whining because they can't even pump more through Nord Stream since they don't know how to fix the Western tech running the pipeline.
Pretty impressive, huh.

Wait, when did I ever praise Russia? As far as I'm concerned, they can do whatever they want. But it's Zelenskyy who is calling on Europe to sanction Russia while simultaneously allowing energy to pass through. He calls on his people to fight and sacrifice themselves wherever necessary, giving these fiery speeches, yet he keeps things running normally for both Europe and Russia. The energy transfers continue uninterrupted even while he's busy making grand statements on Skype wearing a t-shirt.
As for where the Ukrainian money goes, anyone with eyes could see it, and my father even met with some Ukrainians personally. Not too long ago, before Putin took power, massive amounts of money were being siphoned out of Russia. Back in 1999, Gazprom was just a small firm with a turnover of maybe 20 companies, and Russia was drowning in debt. Then, somehow, everything changed.

Arthur Watson4 said:The only thing Ukraine could have actually done was follow Belarus's lead and eventually become just another part of the Russian Federation.

Neutrality, demilitarization, or any of those Minsk agreements wouldn't have helped them in the long run.

It’s obvious they aren't looking for a deal on Donbas or Crimea; they want all of Ukraine, every single inch of it.

Don't you think it's interesting how the dictatorship in Belarus hasn't completely ruined the country the way Ukrainian experts, who were constantly rotating through power, managed to do? It seems like Belarus has been quite successful at playing its cards right by cooperating with Russia, the EU, and even China; they even have massive exports of dump trucks going to the USA. Before the war, trucking routes often went through Belarus not just because the roads were better, but because shipments weren't being hijacked constantly. On the flip side, after the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine suffered some of the largest peacetime population losses in recent history, and their independence basically invited every possible misfortune, fueled by campaigns of pseudo-nationalism and hatred toward the old Soviet ways.
Sadly, it feels like Ukraine positioned itself right in the crosshairs of both the Western powers and Russia. While Russia isn't necessarily vastly superior to Ukraine, when you essentially strip your own military—which they inherited from the USSR—of its resources and lose the trust of your people, what else can you expect to happen?

hollowdriver13 said:So, who’s actually footing the bill for all this energy moving through UA territory and lining the pockets of the brass in Kyiv? Come on, tell me. What does that say about them?
Spinas, you're dodging the question with all this nonsense.

But honestly, they were paying for those transfers long before the war even started, so does that money even matter to them at this point? It feels like the cash doesn't mean much to anyone in Ukraine because isn't it true that high-ranking officials often just divert funds into their own private accounts? I suppose there is always the issue regarding Nord Stream and whether they might just cut off the transfers entirely, though I might be misremembering the details. Still, doesn't all of this say something significant about Kyiv's actual standing and how much influence they truly hold as a player on the world stage?