Posts by Charles Chase13

dustyfalcon122 said:I mean, "resource depletion" requires at least 100 billion dollars in infrastructure alone. Who in their right mind is going to invest that kind of cash into such an unstable region? Absolutely nobody.
Afghanistan sits on mineral wealth worth thousands of times more than that, yet nobody is digging there either. And honestly? Russia already has plenty of its own stuff; they don't really need to go digging for the same things elsewhere.

The issue isn't whether Russia actually needs those specific resources from Ukraine; it's about blocking future competition. You can't buy rare metals from Ukraine if they don't have them anymore.

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. ☕

In the chaos of combat, all sorts of absurd, almost unimaginable screw-ups happen. This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last. No army is immune to this kind of breakdown.

Here is an example: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/...-u-s-conflicts

Regardless, it's not pleasant to watch. I would much rather see the Russians fighting amongst themselves.

Jessica Peterson2 said:It is fundamentally flawed to judge an entire population based solely on what state-run media outlets broadcast under the thumb of an authoritarian regime. It’s blindingly obvious that in such a system, you won't find a single soul who doesn't mirror the warmongering, hateful rhetoric of a lunatic like Putin.
Those who dare to disagree are immediately detained, slapped with fines, or thrown into custody; if they persist in defying Putin's so-called "legislation," they face certain arrest and prison time.
What I find particularly amusing, however, is seeing a certain cohort of "useful idiots" from Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, and elsewhere appearing on these state channels, zealously backing Putin and his aggressive war. But let’s be honest—we all recognize them for what they are: mere mercenaries whose opinions bear absolutely no resemblance to the views held by the actual citizens of those countries.

I suspect few people are actually making rational judgments here. It seems more like a collective rage directed at the Kremlin, and since humans are inherently emotional creatures rather than purely logical ones, that anger often manifests as sweeping generalizations. People tend toward tribalism and mob mentality.

I feel a certain sympathy for the "average" Americans caught in this—those who aren't part of the political machine. They find themselves caught in a vice, rejected by both sides. To the government apparatus, they are viewed as traitors, yet to much of the rest of the world, they are branded as criminals simply because of their nationality.

Kimberly Perez82 said:Then why on earth are the USA and the UK so relentless about funneling increasingly heavy weaponry into Ukraine if their actual goal is peace? I mean, does anyone honestly believe they care about democracy or human rights in Ukraine when they haven't even prioritized things back home in their own countries? It feels like—and I've seen this pattern before, it's been happening for decades now—they just want to push their sphere of influence further into Eurasia, exactly like Brzezinski mapped out all those years ago. It's all so far away from them anyway. Honestly, it’s just two sides of the same imperial coin, and it looks like China might jump in as a third player with those same exact ambitions. Just because American capitalism feels more palatable to most of us than a practical Russian dictatorship doesn't mean they're the "good guys." Not by a long shot. In my view, the smartest move is to stay out of it entirely, because neither side is playing fair here. These are just private power games being played, and this time, the Ukrainians are the ones paying the price—just like how Afghans and nations in the Middle East were crushed under the weight of these maneuvers before. The Ukrainians truly believe they are fighting for freedom, but it seems the USA and Russia are operating on entirely different agendas.

It’s more accurate to say that the outcome of this conflict poses a direct threat to global stability. Therefore, the weapons are being sent because the final result is what truly matters.

Kimberly Perez82 said:I see some people getting all worked up over the American version of this story, though I suppose showing respect to your fellow conversationalists isn't exactly anyone's strongest suit here. Honestly, at the very beginning, I was just as angry at Russia as anyone else. But... if you take a moment to actually think about it—really sit with the facts—this war doesn't have anything to do with Europe or us. It’s similar to how our own domestic conflicts don't involve Europe, and I certainly don't recall seeing such intense, biased posts favoring us back when things were different. Secondly, look at the US wars in the Middle East; nobody was slapping labels on Russia then. Not even when Russia was fighting in Afghanistan. Now, let me be clear: I am not supporting Russia as an aggressor. But there were precursors to this conflict. There were constant attempts to pull Ukraine into NATO, even though everyone knew deep down that Ukraine holds a unique historical significance for Russia and that move simply wouldn't fly. Of course, it wasn't the EU's interest driving that; it was the USA. And now? Now all of Europe is groaning under shortages that weren't caused by anyone else, and if someone actually supports this path, they clearly have issues with their own judgment. That is why the war needs to end. We need to negotiate peace so we can finally move forward. I mean, seriously, no one with a functioning brain is buying this "American doctrine" about spreading democracy anymore. And peace won't happen as long as Zelenskyy keeps being so boastful with his statements—he's just pouring gasoline on the fire instead of realistically assessing his position and heading to the negotiating table. At the end of the day, every invaded nation in history has either defended itself or failed to, and Ukraine is no exception. They keep demanding weapons, yet they were already armed to the teeth and had all the time in the world to bolster their defenses; they can't blame others for the corruption happening on their own soil. Why should we be forced to solve their problems? He's trying to drag the entire world into what is, quite frankly, his private problem. Negotiations and ending the war is the only way out, likely involving some concessions because the situation isn't what it used to be before the fighting started. And the biggest farce of all? The USA, which dragged Europe into this mess in the first place, is now considering lifting the embargo on Russian oil imports. So, what happens? They'll probably just sell us that cheaper oil in the EU at a markup. That isn't just a slap on the wrist; it's a total knockout punch to a naive Europe.

The US wasn't redrawing borders there or seizing territory. And let's not pretend America hasn't faced its fair share of criticism. For instance, the Russians weren't getting crucified in the media over their intervention in Syria.

Furthermore, why does it bother you so much how Russia is being labeled? Are you a sympathizer? Or did you shed a tear when people were talking trash about America too? ☕

Justin Mendoza16 said:☕Intimidation? Please. This is just a bunch of lunatics attacking a sovereign nation. We need to kick them out of Ukraine and build a Great Wall on the border, not some version of the Berlin Wall...🙂

Don't get me wrong; I am not endorsing this style of "warfare." This is simply my perspective on the targeting of civilian infrastructure.

Eventually, there will be an accounting for all of this. Flexing your muscles against civilians is easy enough.

Richard Wilson4 said:Russia has been targeting civilians since day one of this invasion.

In all their wars, hitting civilian targets has basically been part of the playbook—just like how Mexico targeted civilians during their aggression against America.

The way they fight? There's no logic there at all...

If you ask me, it's pure intimidation. It's the "we'll show you just how much pain we can cause for daring to resist; we will destroy your families until you lose the will to fight" approach. Naturally, a soldier who loses his family will likely be more motivated than ever to seek revenge, but most others—those whose families haven't been hit *yet*—will start seriously questioning if they want to keep inviting that scenario. Then there is the matter of civilian pressure on the government, pragmatism, and choosing personal safety over nationalistic ideals. If you terrorize the populace and demonstrate exactly how vulnerable they are, further resistance becomes an incredibly difficult sell to the public.

In short: terrorism.

Kevin Murphy7 said:Look, man, if Russia dropped a nuke on Ukraine right now,
which other country would actually be willing to hit Russia back with the same level of force?

None of them.

Political pressure and how nations bend to it in these moments are unpredictable; things would escalate at lightning speed. I wouldn't dare make a definitive prediction, but I can imagine several different scenarios unfolding. We would be looking at an unprecedented event since World War II.

Seventy-seven years ago, we moved past that era because it was a global conflict. Japan had been branded as the ultimate villain on the world stage, the weaponry was entirely new, and the rest of the world hadn't yet formed a settled opinion on using such weapons. Not to mention, back then, the USA was the only nuclear power—and even then, they had a modest arsenal of just a few bombs. No one else could have responded with nuclear weapons, even if they had wanted to.

darkdriver said:I don't get how you're explaining Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, since those didn't turn into nuclear deserts, and the Japanese people didn't spend decades just waiting around to rebuild.
After the bomb, the population of Hiroshima dropped from over 400,000 to under 140,000, but by the early '50s, the city was already back up to over 400,000 people.

My point is that Japan is extremely land-constrained and densely populated. Hiroshima and Nagasaki underwent decontamination processes to clear out radioactive material, and the half-life of most radioactive particles involved was relatively short. Furthermore, because those were airbursts designed for maximum destruction, much of the fallout was dispersed high into the atmosphere. Within a few weeks, radiation levels dropped significantly, aided by a typhoon that effectively washed the ground. In Japan, space is at a premium; every square inch is utilized, so repopulating a devastated city wasn't an impossible feat. It's also worth noting that the USA played a significant role in Japan's recovery during an era of peace and economic rebuilding—setting aside Cold War tensions and proxy conflicts. In the West, we don't encounter these scenarios often, and it is typically easier (and cheaper) to simply abandon a city depending on the scale of the damage. You have all the space you need.

However, one or two bombs aren't the real issue here; the political fallout of such an act far outweighs the physical destruction and contamination. The real nightmare is a global nuclear war, where massive amounts of radioactive material are released into the atmosphere and major infrastructure in various nations is leveled, making a quick recovery impossible. Ultimately, one of the doctrines for the later stages of a general nuclear conflict involves specifically targeting civilian centers and infrastructure to cripple an opponent's ability to recover—be it militarily, economically, or demographically.

The sequence of events generally unfolds like this: one side attacks, the other responds with equal force, then comes a phase where both sides strike every military target they can find. Finally, in the last stage, they intentionally target civilians and cities to ensure long-term incapacitation of the enemy—essentially knocking them "out of the game" for the long haul. In Western military and intelligence circles, this is known as a "countervalue plan."

Regardless, this is incredibly grim subject matter. It feels morbid to discuss it so casually, like some idle chatter over drinks at a bar. It is easy to toss numbers around from the comfort of an armchair, but experiencing something like that is a different reality entirely.

I switched over to Firefox about four years ago because I wanted a better cool web search experience, having used Internet Explorer up until then. I’ve thought about moving to Opera quite a few times to get better performance, but honestly, Firefox has spoiled me with its selection of add-ons. At this point, I’d rather deal with a slightly slower engine than lose them. 😍

Honestly, Adobe Creative Cloud can be a bit overwhelming for someone just starting out.

Let's see if this works. wings3d
Make sure you download the tutorials and the manual as well; they’re all available right there on the site.

Of course, this assumes that when you say "3D drawing," you actually mean 3D modeling.