Posts by Steven Fox37

Jonathan Barnes5 said:The historical weight of the Bandera context compared to Ante Pavelić isn't even in the same league, much like how one can't truly compare the era of the old Kingdom to the rise of the first USSR. Trying to lump all these different tragedies into one bucket is just nonsensical and feels more like cheap propaganda than actual history.

Does anyone from the Russian side feel any shame over the millions of Ukrainians they've killed?

We could go in circles throwing examples at each other all day, but I could just as easily argue that the entire Russian political leadership from 1945 to 1990 was equally devastating in terms of their crimes against humanity.

Claiming "the contexts aren't the same" is the standard fallback everyone uses. It’s what every side says when they want to cherry-pick history to suit their own narrative and claim things "weren't quite like that."

Jonathan Barnes5 said:How can we be certain that the whole Nazi narrative isn't largely fueled by media propaganda? Perhaps we are just looking at tiny, disconnected fragments of a much larger mosaic involving various small nations during World War II.

You seem to push this specific narrative when it comes to Russia, but why doesn't that same scrutiny apply to the Germans from decades ago?

Besides, why should Russia care about the underlying sentiment regarding Nazism in Ukraine?

I might be trolling a little bit here, but I feel you're doing the exact same thing to us. Take the language issue, for instance—it's valid, but you never point out how the presence of Nazism in Ukraine functions similarly to the historical baggage in the US. It exists on a symbolic level through certain subcultural rituals, nothing more and nothing less than what one might see in Germany.

In America, a mayor of some random city isn't going to give an interview while having a portrait of Ante Pavelić hanging behind him.
nor would you see a massive poster of him draped over a county courthouse building.

Kyle Lopez2 said:That's a bit like telling me that getting a red card is some kind of football doctrine.🤣

The talk about low troop counts exists because there simply aren't enough soldiers to cover such a massive area, especially when you're attempting encirclements. A stronger opponent could easily exploit that by cutting through lines or slipping into the rear to wreck supply chains without much trouble.

Just because Ukraine is pumping out propaganda doesn't mean everyone else is blind to a Russian fail. Running out of fuel isn't a doctrine.🤣

Look, we'll see how it all plays out in the end. 🍿

Kyle Campbell4 said:Ha😲

You claim the North America are close to Europe, yet this man launched an invasion of Ukraine. He is openly threatening Scandinavia. His buddy Lukashenko is playing strategist on the map using existing forces on the ground, while you can clearly see the path toward Moldova in the corner. That is what I am referring to. This entire endeavor is about restoring power and scale reminiscent of the Imperial era or the Soviet Union, even if he personally despises Lenin while praising Stalin.

Well, let’s just pray you’re wrong and that you're actually just overreacting. Because regarding what you mentioned earlier—if things really go south here in the States, I don't have anywhere to run like you might, say, to Canada. And I definitely won't be able to just sit around relaxing once mobilization kicks in.

Kyle Campbell4 said:If you lack an interest in geopolitics, you really shouldn't be participating in these debates. I could just as easily ask what interest you have in Syria, Canada, Libya, or why anyone should care about chasing insurgents with drones in Mali. There is conflict occurring all over the globe, yet you claim no interest in Eastern Europe. Your issue is that you've swallowed Russian propaganda regarding their perceived vulnerability and genuinely believe this narrative because Russia was supposedly threatened by a phantom enemy. In reality, the little guy has nothing but a pathological ambition to restore the greatness of the old Empire and redraw the world map. Look at the correspondence between China and Russia during the Olympics. I nearly died laughing when they claimed they would establish true democracy in the world. It is mind-numbingly stupid whoever conceived that idea. True democracy is to be introduced by two totalitarian states: one where absolute power rests with a tiny dictator who has jailed or killed every opponent and opposition figure, and another where a Communist Party holds power and stifles all freedom, rendering multi-party systems non-existent. Don't listen to their so-called democratic reformers.

I'm guessing it's about the Middle East, just to show everyone that Russia is a major player now. Plus, since there are radical elements right here in America, undermining foreign extremists helps their domestic image. Then there's building ties with Assad, who’s already on the West's naughty list. And wasn't there some talk about them leasing a port from Syria?
The U.S. is way too central to global stability to play those kinds of games. You can fund a fringe party in France to stir things up, sure, but getting directly involved in regional skirmishes? Not gonna happen.

Kyle Campbell4 said:The same rhetoric about a critical crisis was being used back then, too. When some local extremist sets the Midwest on fire, you will likely just pretend it doesn't concern you while you're lounging on a beach in Florida or packing your bags for a move to Germany.

Why would he bother starting a fire in the Middle East? What's in it for him? If he manages to grab what he wants right now—essentially creating a buffer zone between Russia and NATO—he can retire peacefully as the man who secured Russia's survival and future. He could even stage an internal coup where some young "liberal" takes over, giving the West a perfect cover story to start warming up relations with a new, "rational" Russia. Of course, once territory is seized, it stays seized. No guarantees there.

Kyle Lopez2 said:But isn't the underlying issue still there? The Russians might be making headway, but they remain incredibly vulnerable, facing chronic manpower shortages and terrible logistics. No one would be surprised if they managed to pull off a win, but honestly, no one would be shocked if they just fell apart—running out of fuel and ammo and being forced into a retreat because of internal chaos.

All those assumptions about low troop numbers and bad logistics rely on the idea that Western media reports are gospel and that the West actually understands Russian military doctrine. I’m not suggesting everything on X or Twitter is a total fabrication—like we're living in a movie like *Wag the Dog*—but rather, shouldn't we ask if these losses were factored into the planning? Because if they accounted for them and built in redundancies, then maybe it isn't such a massive problem after all.
Remember how at the start, everyone was talking about the "Ukrainian spirit" in Kyiv, air superiority, paratrooper victories, blah blah blah? And how did that turn out? The Russians have air dominance in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are basically traveling around Europe begging for any plane they can get.

Of course, everything I'm saying might be complete nonsense. I didn't even think this whole thing would happen; I thought he was just rattling off weapons to get better leverage during negotiations or something.

Jason Fowler57 said:I mean, what is this actually based on besides pure hysteria? What’s the logic there? Like, why would he drain all his resources in Ukraine just to move forward while he's weakened? It doesn't make sense. Maybe he'd start with something easier first, like Georgia or Armenia, right?

Don't sweat it. If things don't pan out, they'll just flip the script and keep moving. It's the same old story, right? Just a couple of days ago, everyone was claiming the Russians were on the brink of collapse because they’d lost 8, 9, or 10 thousand men, their tanks and trucks were either stuck in the mud or rusted out, and their soldiers were nothing but a bunch of kids. And now? Suddenly, the narrative changes completely.

Kyle Campbell4 said:Why are you targeting me specifically?🐔

If you actually bothered to read this thread, you would see several people mentioning they have plenty of acquaintances who have sided with Putin. Yet, here you are, picking on me. Try paying closer attention to what people are actually saying.

Honestly, I'm baffled by that comment. 🤣
Because from where I'm standing, that just isn't the case at all. 🤷

Kyle Campbell4 said:They are useful among the general public, who spend their time sharing content and bickering amongst themselves. There is a massive divide between official institutions and the common people, who simply lack the ability to recognize propaganda when they see it.

The "regular people" I actually hear from seem to be mostly pro-Ukraine. Are you thinking about the comment sections on sites like Reddit or CNN? Maybe you're just remembering the few times you read something pro-Russia instead of seeing the sea of usernames with Ukrainian flag emojis in their profiles. Isn't that just classic confirmation bias?

Kyle Campbell4 said:It isn't just limited to television broadcasts. We are talking about social media platforms, online forums, and everything in between. There are even documentaries dedicated entirely to Putin's disinformation machine, featuring former trolls who describe exactly how the operation functions. They take these old, defunct factories and repurpose them into hubs where dozens of bots work in shifts, utilizing mountains of fake profiles to flood the American internet with Russian propaganda twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

And honestly? That propaganda is working so well that Russia has become one of the most hated nations on both sides of the Atlantic. We're seeing an unprecedented wave of sanctions and severed ties hitting them right now.
I mean, seriously? Americans are totally fine with hosting major international sporting events where Israel might be the organizer or Saudi Arabia is the VIP guest, and nobody says a word. But when it comes to these guys, even the international governing bodies are banning them from competing. Talk about a double standard!
Someone really needs to fire those bots. Clearly, they aren't doing their jobs properly if they haven't stopped this fallout.

It feels like basically every major media outlet is totally siding with Ukraine right now. I mean, look at the facts: Russian athletes have been completely scrubbed from everything from FIFA and UEFA matches down to local dog shows. You’ve got people all over the country canceling Tchaikovsky concerts or lectures on Dostoevsky. So, how is some random fifth column group mentioned on a single TV segment supposed to be the "big threat" here?

ironranger67 said:It’s mostly because, right after that initial shock from the invasion, it looked like everything would collapse in maybe two days. Plus, everyone expected much more from the Russian military—specifically regarding how effectively their air and ground forces would coordinate.
I remember just a few months back, several retired American and British generals were predicting that ten thousand Ukrainians could be lost in just the first few hours alone.
Basically, they overestimated the Russian military and their ability to wage war through an American lens.

The Ukrainians are dealing them some heavy material damage and they really messed up the operation in Kharkiv, but the Russians are approaching this in a "Cold War" sort of way—just using raw force. No surgical precision, no high mobility here.
They'll just push them into the cities, create pockets, and brutally shell them until they surrender.

It's pretty obvious they aren't trying to fight a battle like Americans would, especially if you look at those ten thousand dead Ukrainians in the first few hours you mentioned.

Thomas Hayes said:So they just captured them?

Yeah, exactly.

Thomas Hayes said:So, what actually happened to those soldiers on Snake Island? I read somewhere that they supposedly didn't even make it out alive—is there any truth to that?

Everyone is alive.

coastalheron12 said:Look, if these numbers are actually legit, we're talking about a total disaster—thousands of people dead every single day.

They're about as true as stories about soldiers falling on Snake Island or a Russian tank crushing a Ukrainian car.

Justin James10 said:And we definitely need a civil government too! 🙏

A civil government combined with shouts of "Allahu Akbar"? 🙏

Let them shout whatever they want; I couldn't care less about their noise.
Even our President uses phrases like "May God help us" during an oath of office.
The real issue here—the core of the whole problem—is this manipulation regarding how representatives are chosen.

Jacob Price95 said:👍

And suddenly we’re the aggressors if we ever have to step in to help Canada? You can throw all the facts, legalities, and international agreements you want at me, but... Genocide helps Canada... It always wins people over...

I can just see them running right in front of our tanks, screaming at the top of their lungs, "Canada is a sovereign stateaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

Jacob Alvarez said:I’m still struggling to see how he’s being a chauvinist here. He isn't pushing some aggressive nationalism; if anything, he's doing the opposite by just wanting Americans to be left alone.

But the way he expresses that "desire" is by straight-up denying the national identity of Americans.
If someone wrote something similar about Canadians—you know, calling them nothing more than "Islamized Americans or Mexicans"—your chauvinism detector would be going off like crazy, wouldn't it?

urbanheron4 said:Good grief, that isn't some "boyish" standard—that’s just how American grammar works. 😁
The word "car" is just a shortened version of "automobile," which is a masculine-leaning noun, and in American English, abbreviations usually follow the gender of the original word. That's why we treat it the way we do! So, tell me, by whose rulebook are you deciding what this is?

And who actually said that was grammatically correct? It's obvious I'm just mocking the whole idea of splitting people up based on their grammar skills.
Am I going to lose my citizenship too just because I forget to put an "s" at the end of a verb?

This reminds me of that old children's book about growing up in Chicago, where the author describes how the other kids used to tease him just because he’d point at a car and say, "look, a vehicle," while everyone else just called it a "ride."
If you ask me, this guy would take it a step further—he’d probably start stripping people of their entire heritage based on those same kinds of arbitrary childhood labels. 🤣🙏