Posts by Lisa Jackson7

Rachel Barrett8 said:Russia is pretty much incapable of building a functional state. Instead, they just turn whatever they touch into a wreck, mirroring the mess they have at home. We don't even need to debate that—it's already been proven.
I agree... For Russia, Ukraine is just another piece of the "Russian World."

But there is a massive difference between a democracy and Putin's regime. In a democratic country, people should be able to speak up about mistakes and failures without fear. I certainly don't expect that kind of openness from China or Russia.

Totally agree—it's all about expectations. We know what to expect from Russia and China, but we hold Western democracies to a much higher standard, which is only natural.
If the West makes mistakes or slips up, staying silent about it doesn't make us stronger—if anything, it just weakens us in the long run.

gentlestag15 said:Iraq attacked Iran, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and then they moved in on Kuwait
and once again, hundreds of thousands died.
That’s basically how it should go for any aggressor nation trying to snatch territory from their neighbors.
I'm certainly not shedding any tears over what happened to Saddam.
Let's just hope Putin follows right in his footsteps.

Nobody in the West actually gave a damn about the invasion of Iran... if anything, they were all for it.
Hundreds of thousands have been sacrificed in the name of these "principled battles for democracy"—which is really just code for using our sons and then tossing them aside like trash.

Nancy Gomez26 said:And in his desperate attempts to micromanage foreign affairs, Putin seems to have adopted the exact coaching methods of Miti Sadomazođubrilović.

The West has way more "soft power" at its disposal than Russia ever will.

steelheron25 said:Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel between the military intervention in Afghanistan—which happened two decades ago, mind you!—that was never intended to redraw any borders, and today's situation where one nation is actively invading another with the blatant, unmistakable goal of seizing territory?
I have to hand it to you, 🙏Nancy Gomez26.

And look, the old USSR used to set up "friendly" governments whenever they could... clearly, that option isn't on the table in Ukraine anymore.
If it were, we wouldn't be seeing border shifts and outright military aggression.

Nancy Gomez26 said:

Lisa Jackson7 As stated by:
I will simply reiterate what you have highlighted in bold. As for the rest, I find myself in agreement—not that I am particularly pleased about it.

It wasn't the Russians who voted to put those people in power. They’ve been voted in.The first presidential elections back in '91 were perhaps the only ones that could be considered somewhat legitimate. Everything following that was little more than a staged performance—orchestrated, unfortunately, with heavy involvement from the West, most notably the USA.
So, it seems Boris Yeltsin has already become that "friend you simply can't let hang out to dry"—if I may be so bold as to put it that way.

Putin is simply the logical progression...

I don't view Putin as the logical successor to Boris Yeltsin. The man comes from an entirely different social sphere. One can only wonder why, and under what specific circumstances, Yeltsin "selected" him to take the reins. But then again, that’s a question for the historians.

Sure, Putin came from a different background than Yeltsin—true enough—and Yeltsin definitely had his own personal reasons for making a deal with him... basically protecting himself and his family since he made so many enemies back then.
But honestly? The US administration at the time actually welcomed Putin.

Here’s the kicker... with American democracy being gutted right at the start and the "stabilization" focusing strictly on economic market reforms, Putin was the logical next step.
Nobody gave a damn back then that the country was essentially sliding back into an autocracy... nobody thought it mattered.

I'm bringing this up because one day it’s gonna matter... you can't go planting seeds with dictators and expect "world peace."
I mean, sure, you can try—but if you do, war becomes your best friend and your biggest moneymaker.

Christian Torres3 said:Honestly, it would have been better for Russia if that ultra-hardline communist Gennady Zyuganov had won instead... but I doubt this guy will even bother reading all that.

Look, for most regular folks—both in Russia and everywhere else—it would have been way better if there was actual, timely help during that transition period back in late '91 and early '92.
If that had happened, even Zyuganov wouldn't be such a massive threat right now.

That's my two cents—moving on from this thread.

Grace Phillips25 said:Honestly, Russia has already lost this one. For Russia (and yeah, Ukraine too), the longer this war drags on, the worse it gets for them—and let's face it, this thing is going to last. Even if everything stopped right this second—which, spoiler alert, it won't—and Putin kicks the bucket, Russia is still toast. The only smart move for actual Russians? Pack up and get out of whatever wasteland they're turning into.

Gas prices are gonna stay sky-high for a long, long time.

It’s a shame, really, because I actually care about them as a people, but they've managed to vote for the wrong guy to lead them several times now.

I'm only gonna push back on that bolded part... I agree with the rest, though I don't really feel bad about it either.

It wasn't that Russians chose their leaders—they were chosen for them... maybe those first elections back in '91 were somewhat legit, but after that, it was just rigged deals, unfortunately, with help from the West—especially the USA.
Basically, even Boris Yeltsin became "a friend you can't afford to let slip away," if you want me to put it politely.

Putin is just the logical next step...

Amanda Allen4 said:Putin has disappointed me—though let’s be clear, he isn't some absolute autocrat like Peter the Great was; he's just one part of an elite group steering modern Russian policy. A "first among equals," if you will.

Back in 2007, Time magazine named him "Person of the Year" because of how much he did to integrate the Russian economy into the global market.

Of course, any time state-owned capital gets privatized, it creates tycoons—Russia was no exception there—but that isn't a matter of global concern, and the world doesn't meddle in that. What the world reacts to is when a nation's aggressive actions cross its borders and threaten other sovereign states—and that is precisely the war Russia is currently waging in Ukraine.

So, how did the world respond to the Russian aggression against Ukraine?

The UN resolution condemning the attack on Ukraine was supported by 141 member states, with only 5 voting against and 35 abstaining. That provides a very clear picture of the current global landscape and how the international community will likely handle similar actions from any other country in the future.

Putin himself explicitly stated that Ukraine is actually Russia and that this war is about reclaiming what was taken from them. I think that says it all—there is no longer any doubt regarding the motives behind the aggression against Ukraine.

Russia has always been a colonial power that expanded through land grabs in its immediate neighborhood, and it poses no threat to countries far removed from it. This explains why many nations that condemned the invasion of Ukraine are hesitant to join sanctions that would negatively impact their own economies.

The criteria for "Person of the Year" or "Person of the Century" speak volumes... and no, it's definitely not "normal" for privatization to just birth oligarchs.
Combine those guys with a few other factors and you get a "perfect storm"—an aggressive, authoritarian regime obsessed with territorial expansion (don't forget, we're talking about a resource-rent economy backed by massive military power and a total lack of "democratic oversight and checks and balances").

The world's reaction is just "hindsight is 20/20" once everyone is already gone.

Those folks at Time have a sick sense of humor... they gave Hitler the exact same honor back in 1938.

dustyowl29 said:The real motivation behind the Russian invasion—it’s about occupying parts of Ukraine that are loaded with natural gas and coal. They're aiming for total control over those Eurasian hydrocarbon sources, basically trying to recreate the old USSR power dynamics. At this point, all they're missing is Kazakhstan and the rest of the Caspian Sea nations...

For sure... but also, there's the threat of Ukraine actually becoming prosperous and democratic (moving closer to the EU), even if that process is painfully slow and difficult.

That could end up being a massive wake-up call for the people living in Russia...

Justin Mendoza16 said:☕I mean, Russia is already a dictatorship with the opposition leaders rotting in Siberian prisons, so what's the difference? Russians are gonna lose this war and their whole country is gonna fall apart. China's just gonna swoop in and take all of Siberia... then they'll realize what the West is really about and where they should've run to.

I know exactly what Russia is like today...

The difference is that a whole Russia—one that hasn't completely spiraled into total chaos and where some elites actually agreed to reforms toward democracy—has some kind of future, and so do its neighbors.

People have been fleeing Russia for ages... through waves in the 90s, and again since this war started.
So tell me, do you honestly want tens of millions of people storming across the border into Europe in such a short window of time... is that really what you're looking for?
I'm not saying a huge number would end up in America, but it doesn't even matter..

With China in southern Siberia, the whole idea of untouchable borders is basically dead... do you seriously want to live in a world like that?

gentlerider7 said:People are dead wrong if they think the war in Ukraine is just some distant thing happening to "those people over there"...

Yeah, they’re wrong—as far as I'm concerned, what's going down in Afghanistan or Syria isn't just some isolated issue for the refugees there... look, like a few commenters already pointed out, we all know what kind of regimes we're dealing with in Russia and China, but we can't just let ourselves slowly morph into them by adopting their version of a social system.
That process is slow—painfully slow—and honestly, that's exactly where the danger lies.

"Quote"

Melissa Rivera5 said:Honestly, I find the hypocrisy of people who aren't even trolls pretty fascinating. They seem to think Ukrainians should have just bowed down to Russia immediately—with all that baggage like Russification, those threats of mass killings, purges, and changing the whole identity of the country—yet at the same time, they assume if *we* got attacked, everyone would just jump in and help us instantly.

If you're taking aim at me—look, that's not what I meant. My point is we need to go all out with military and economic aid right now to help them defend themselves... but—and here's the kicker—I also think there will come a time when we’ll have to help Russia too. Not Putin or his thugs and oligarchs, obviously, but a different version of Russia. Definitely.

gentlerider7 said:The thing is—Russia and China aren't exactly winning any beauty pageants—so their propaganda focuses way more on pointing out everything wrong with the West than actually showing off anything good they have to offer. That’s why Russia is gonna lose this new Cold War regardless—because even an America like this one is still better than Putin's Russia.

Look, I get that, I just wanted to point out... some people here—and I’m talking about my own circle too, from what I see every day—are so bogged down by their own lives and bills that they only see the war in Ukraine through the lens of how it might tank their own standard of living or their own beliefs. They think they're the only ones who'll have to pay the price.
"Lord, please protect our little birds and the poor folks, because the rich will take care of themselves anyway..." ☕

It all comes down to whether you actually trust your own political system and its values.
Countries further north—like Poland and the Baltics, for example—have been hit much more directly, so the public mood there is just totally different.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Leonid Kučma, apparently.
And Ukraine wasn't the only nation to surrender its 'own' nuclear arsenal. I still maintain that Ukraine made the right, principled move back then. In exchange for those weapons, they sought additional guarantees regarding territorial integrity—guarantees that are being ignored now. It seems to me that claims for war reparations could be rooted precisely in that agreement, and at the end of the day, Russia will foot the bill. It will be cheaper for them than total isolation—and simultaneously serve as a lesson to anyone watching what happens when you flagrantly violate a signed pact while facing further economic weakening of Russia without a single shot being fired. Fortunately, the other signatories of the agreement are honoring their obligations and assisting Ukraine in defending against aggression.

Okay, but did those other guys actually defend Ukraine's territorial integrity? Obviously not... so wouldn't a better solution have been setting up some effective oversight of the nuclear weapons inside Ukraine?
Instead, you're expecting guarantees of integrity from a country (Russia) that never even ratified its borders against other former Soviet republics... I mean, who's the crazy one here?
But wait, there's more... now that we've already been hit, we're going to force Russia to pay war reparations, and after that, nobody will want anything to do with them—let them all collectively go back to the Stone Age, etc.
You can say, "Fine," but I don't think it's just Ukraine—the rest of Europe won't be thrilled about having a massive failed state right next door, probably filled with all sorts of exotic dictators and mafias, where someone also has to worry about... well, nuclear missiles and whatever else.
An empire of multinational corporations and paramilitary groups... absolutely priceless.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Honestly, if Russia had just been pushed back to the east side of the Urals back then, I guess we all would've ended up in a much better spot long-term. Maybe.

And who would be sitting on the western side? Based on your taste... ☕

gentlerider7 said:Honestly, some people in here are getting way too worked up.

Yeah.

ironseal said:We need to go all the way with this. That enclave tumor needs to be completely blocked off—wherever possible and however we can manage it. And then, once we finally crush the Nazi Russian Federation and bring them to their knees, we de-Russify the enclave and wipe the name Kaliningrad from the history books forever. I honestly think that’s the only way forward.

Bringing back Königsberg? Handing it over to Germany?

Knocking them to their knees, de-Russification, ethnic cleansing... man, you'll read just about anything in here.

Haven't we seen more than enough of that already?

analogbear5 said:Thanks for the textbook demonstration of Russian liberalism there. Basically just Nazism with a fresh coat of makeup.

Why??

rowdytiger13 said:They’d eventually civilize, I suppose. They have that same stubborn defiance you see in Mexicans, yet all their oligarchs anchor their yachts in the West, keep their villas in the West, and most importantly... send their kids to school in the West.
The whole Eastern European region has historically lagged behind the West; some have caught up, while others are still trailing. But no matter how much they resist, if you ask them why they won't join, they just stare at you like you've lost your mind (take the Americans in Poland, for example).
The real issue with Russians is this massive superiority complex that nobody else in the East seems to possess to that degree. They don't view the EU as an equal; instead, they act like they should be the ones managing what they perceive to be the "manager" of the US and Europe. The reality is the exact opposite, which creates an unbridgeable gap.
That’s why they’re currently gathering up the former Soviet states and looking toward India; even Putin is bringing up Africa. They target the weaker players, both politically and culturally—and despite India's massive capacity, it remains a culturally problematic place dealing with foundational issues like basic hygiene.

I honestly think if certain conditions were met, they’d finally break through those historical barriers—stop spinning in endless circles around this whole "mystical Russian soul" nonsense that just serves as an excuse for autocracy.
Nah, we’re gonna need help... like, serious, smart-money kind of help—and for that to happen, the West is gonna have to get its act together first.
Look, the US is gonna have to stop leaning so hard on everyone else—both when it comes to security and energy. It’s gotta happen.
Globalization as we knew it basically handed autocrats a cheat code to tighten their grip... and now? Now we’re finally getting hit with the bill.

"Quote:"

gentlerider7 said:Real Russophiles are almost non-existent, but then you've got a decent number of folks who just swallow conspiracy theories whole—you know, the whole "Soros is behind everything" or "New World Order" nonsense. Those types will unconsciously just gulp down whatever Russian narrative comes their way about Americans being the ones instigating the war.

Most people obsessing over the war in Ukraine are just straight-up terrified—terrified of actual combat, threats of escalation, or their bank accounts tanking... "conspiracy theories" basically just stick to anyone who’s fed up and has zero faith left in the system. Since we're part of the EU and NATO, that distrust just ripples outward like crazy, hitting those institutions hard.

Can we honestly say there isn't even a single shred of reason to be suspicious? Just asking.

"Quote:"

slyfox43 said:Exactly. It’s like looking at a handful of peanuts and failing to see the pill hidden inside.

Russian propaganda isn't just one simple layer, nor is its only goal to build direct support for Kremlin policy. I notice many people who claim to oppose the Russian aggression are still using the very "definitions" that serve as the foundation of Russian propaganda.

Totally possible—but don't go overboard and turn this into some kind of witch hunt... you might want to actually drop those "definitions" and clarify what you're really getting at.

"Quote:"

swiftjackal11 said:Everything we're dealing with today because of Russia... if they ever want to be part of the European community again, they'll have to pay for the damage they caused.

That’s exactly what happened when they headed toward Germany after World War I—turns out, that wasn't exactly the smartest move.
It’s way better to make sure some kind of actual democracy actually takes root and sticks in Russia.