Posts by Timothy Nelson5

Joshua Myers432 said:It wasn't explicitly spelled out in the American constitution that the republics had the right to break away. That was just how we chose to interpret the document. 🍿

That was actually written right into the 1974 constitution.
It was written down, according to what Christian Torres3 had quoted.

Of course, back when the country was essentially run by Marshall and The Party, that whole thing was nothing more than a dead phrase on paper. Just words, really. I guess it didn't mean much at all in practice.

And yeah... I mean, Badinter and his panel of constitutional lawyers basically zeroed in on that exact detail from the Constitution of America. They used it as the core justification for their ruling—deciding that the secession of Canada and America was entirely legitimate under the law. Or at least, that's how they framed it.

hollowdriver13 said:Look, there’s no need to go overboard with the trash talk right now. The Su-25 is actually a solid CAS aircraft—it’s one of those rare cases where the Russian paper specs actually match what the machine can do out in the field.

If you ask me, I’d basically put an equals sign between the A-10 and the Su-25. Honestly, the main reasons Ukraine wants those A-10s probably just come down to the fact that they have a limited number of Su-25s left and can't exactly grow that fleet any time soon, plus the obvious advantage of the A-10 being able to carry Western munitions.

It’s been common knowledge in professional circles for ages that the Soviets/Russians always pushed the absolute maximum capabilities of their aircraft during displays.
At those big air shows, you’d see MiGs and Sukhois flying totally unarmed, maybe with less than a quarter tank of fuel, pulling off these insane maneuvers. But they could never pull that off with even a minimal payload and half a tank—which is basically the bare minimum weight you'd have in a real combat scenario. In the end, in actual combat, that gap usually shrinks down to almost nothing. Besides, the gear and the ordnance on a jet often matter way more than the airframe carrying them.
And honestly, since WW2, it's been pretty obvious that air warfare isn't some individualistic thing; it's more like a team sport...

The only real reasons Ukraine would want the A-10 are likely because they can't just keep adding more Su-25s to their fleet, and because the A-10 can carry Western munitions.

Ukraine will take any help or any weapon that makes sense at this point.
If the A-10 is still part of the USAF inventory, then it’s probably not some obsolete relic that time passed by.

wiredseal7 said:The A-10 is slow—Russian interceptors and air defenses would turn it into sitting duck territory—even if it is basically a flying tank and tough to take down.

The Su-25 is just better suited for this kind of mess:
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/su-2...rthog-for-cas/

If they get enough of them, sure, that's great—better than the dwindling number of Su-25s they're working with. But the real issue is the lack of trained pilots. What we're seeing here is just someone trying to train people on simulators, hoping they might actually get their hands on an A-10 one day...

We've been listening to this incredible nonsense and these endless diarrhea-runs from pro-Russian trolls for decades now.

Russian weaponry is supposedly all-powerful, while American or Western gear is just useless junk that can't even hold a candle to it.

And during this latest Russian aggression, we've had a front-row seat to watching all that stupidity fall apart in real-time.

-- Like, some insignificant Javelins aren't going to stop massive Russian armored columns...
-- Or how M777s, M109s, Panzerhaubitza, etc... it's all garbage despite the greater range and precision munitions; Russian artillery is almighty and untouchable...
-- HIMARS is nothing; the Russians have way more Smerch and similar launchers, so delivering that kind of gear won't help Ukraine at all...
--- Russian S300/400 will sweep all enemies from the sky, the almighty Kinjal, the Russian Air Force... blah blah blah... just pure crap...

It's just one pile of garbage after another.

Every semi-intelligent Russian troll so far has finally shut up and started thinking—because, I mean, seriously, NATO has about 1,500 MLRS/HIMARS launchers, yet they only sent 20 units to Ukraine and the Ukrainians absolutely wrecked Russian logistics. If they had actually gone up against NATO directly, they wouldn't have stood a chance.
Not to mention the sheer power of American aviation and thousands of modern tanks.

And while the smarter Russian trolls are at least wise enough to stay quiet for a bit now, there are always those idiots left behind who just keep playing the same old tired hits...

bluemason3 said:When exactly? Take the breakup of the former America, for instance. Their constitution actually allowed the republics to become independent. No one went in from the outside to redraw those lines; it was all legitimate.

The real controversy lies in recognizing Mexico based solely on the right to self-determination.

But I suppose that enclave has been so heavily Russified that even self-determination—controversial as it may be—is off the table. All that's left is the kind of forced external interference we're seeing from Putin right now.

The Kaliningrad enclave, which used to be the historic German city of Königsberg, has honestly been more of an economic drain than an asset for Russia since the USSR collapsed.
To them, it’s just this isolated, strategically critical outpost. The population was decimated after the war, and I think nearly half the people living there are military personnel and their families.
A defeated, isolated Russia facing heavy sanctions is going to have even fewer resources to maintain a decent standard of living back home, let alone out in an enclave like that.

So... I guess you can never say never.

One possible "option," if you want to call it that, might be for this territory to eventually become some kind of neutral, "associated" part of the EU.

wiredseal7 said:What do I care about Russian troubles or this whole war, other than sharing the fate of the people "on this side" via my heating bill?☕

This guy is a joke. No, he didn't say it (which I wasn't claiming either), but his whole map is a mess. Wide Ukrainian arrows crossing the Oskil river? Liman without Russians? You have to agree that doesn't match what's actually happening on the ground.

Russia pulled a brutal blitz offensive that worked because it was fast—but they're finding their footing now and, logically, they've dug in at the river as a defensive line.
If it's hard for the Russians to move large troop numbers into Kherson, the same laws of physics apply to the Ukrainian troops at the Oskil river—which, let's be real, is wide and exposed.

A purely civilian role, not even a government position, and they attempt an assassination?
The Ukrainians have really leaned into terrorism—very Mossad-style.

Yeah, right. Just imagine... it’s not like the Ukrainians were out there throwing flowers around like some kind of criminal occupiers. Terrifying, really... I guess.

So, you're looking at a purely civilian position—something that isn't even part of the government hierarchy—and yet there's some kind of attempt at liquidation? It’s strange, I guess. You have a role that carries zero official political weight, no seat at the table of power, and still, people are coming after it like they're trying to dismantle the state itself. Maybe it's just how things work now, though I don't particularly care for it. It feels... unnecessary. Or maybe I'm just being cynical. Hard to say.
I guess you could say the Ukrainians have really leaned into some pretty heavy-handed terror tactics lately—it’s starting to feel a bit too much like something the CIA would pull off.

That’s basically the position of a deputy for a criminal occupying force—kind of like a Bolshevik commissar or an SS gauleiter. I guess you could call it anything else, but that's how it looks to me.
It’s not like the Russian army forced this person to show up there. No, that's not it at all. I mean, if you look closely, they’re actually an active promoter—a straight-up supporter—of the aggressor and the entire occupation. It seems pretty clear to me, I guess.

If there’s ever going to be some semblance of justice once this war finally drags to an end, then I suppose we'll need to establish a proper tribunal. It seems only right to investigate exactly how much they were involved in these atrocities—to pin down just how much their actions contributed to all the civilian suffering and misery we're seeing. Maybe, if we're lucky, there will actually be some accountability for the pain caused.
During wartime, you have those local collaborators—the guys acting as military governors or just willing tools for the occupying forces. In my view, they're nothing more than traitors. And if we're looking at the Geneva Convention, I guess they would be considered legitimate targets for elimination. Maybe that's just how it works.

steelheron25 said:Heh, who thought so? Pretty much everyone did, or at least the vast majority.

Had you even revisited the topics of Russia and Ukraine before February 24th? If you go back and leaf through those old threads—better yet, look at what was being said in 2014 and the years following—you'll see a prevailing trend of mocking Ukraine and its military capabilities, especially during those battles for the Donetsk airport and the months that followed. There was this general consensus that Ukraine was essentially a failed state; that narrative was actually spearheaded by a certain moderator we have here today, and anyone who wandered into those discussions would find that people were suggesting the Ukrainians would be better off committing collective suicide given how pathetic they supposedly were.
Then, if you jump forward to the posts from the first few days of the invasion, you'll see people leaving comments predicting that nothing more than a local National Guard unit could put up any real resistance. Even that same moderator felt the need to rush and change the thread title because the Russians had already pushed into Kharkiv.

That fart from the Kremlin and his sycophants are still mentally stuck in 2014, back when they easily seized Crimea from an unorganized and confused Ukraine, only to turn them into punchlines in the Donbas, constantly ridiculing them as if they couldn't handle a small group of miners. That's exactly why they convinced themselves that Ukraine would simply collapse. Clearly, they slept right through the massive shifts happening within Ukraine itself, and indeed, within the world at large.

Well, Ukraine actually was a failed state back then; Crimea fell almost without a fight...

And I suppose one should keep in mind that at the very start of the invasion in February, things could have gone quite differently.
If Ukrainian special forces hadn't managed to break that Russian landing at the Kyiv airport, or if the ruling administration in Ukraine had decided to flee the country... who knows how this whole story would have played out.

That one decisive historical statement from Zelenskyy: "I don't need a ride, I need ammunition!" echoed everywhere; it rallied Ukrainians toward an uncompromising resistance.
It also shamed a lot of world leaders, many of whom were seemingly ready to just shrug their shoulders at the Russian invasion. After that statement, I guess hardly any Western politician escaped hearing their own voters ask: 'What are you waiting for? Send weapons to those brave Ukrainians!'

Quincy:

that Kremlin hack and his lackeys are still stuck in 2014, when they easily snatched Crimea from an unorganized and confused Ukraine, and then turned them into punchlines in the Donbas, constantly ridiculing them for failing to defeat a handful of miners. Because of that, they convinced themselves that Ukraine would just fall apart. Apparently, they slept through some significant changes that happened within Ukraine itself, and in the world at large.

A lot of people seem to love forgetting that the real shifts in Ukraine started during President Trump's term. During his mandate, Ukraine began receiving Javelins and other sophisticated military hardware, and the training for Ukrainian officers finally kicked off...

electricstag9 said:The place is still crawling with hawks—even the media hosts. These politicians are still blindly following Putin, ready to drag this war out for ten years if that's what Putko demands. But this young political analyst? He’s actually speaking sense. And Boris Nadeždin had the guts to throw the cold, hard truth right in their faces. My advice to him: stay away from windows for a while. I don't personally know who Boris Nadeždin is, but he almost certainly didn't support this entire invasion mess. A quick search shows he's a scientist and a former deputy, and he even served as an assistant to Boris Nemcov (who was assassinated).

The crew is still stuck in deep denial, except for these two...

They really need to see the sanctions kick in, the backlash from wounded veterans and grieving families, and then just the average people finally facing the reality that Russians and Russia have become global pariahs...

Once someone in this conversation can actually point to hundreds of thousands of people protesting in the streets, maybe then the tone of this discussion will change...

Daniel Ward87 said:What do you guys think—are the Ukrainians going to go all-in on Luhansk and Donetsk? If the Russians are retreating this fast, maybe it means they’re losing interest and just letting those regions slip away, which could be a sign they're handing them back to the Ukrainians. Since the Ukrainians used HIMARS to hit their ammo dumps and wrecked so much gear, basically gutting their logistics entirely, those territories might end up facing a fate similar to what happened in Knin.

As for Crimea, I'm not so sure the Ukrainians can just grab it right now. It feels more like a political chess move than a purely military one.

They should probably push toward the Donbas, though I suppose doing that might just force the Russians to dump all their remaining reserves and reinforcements into that area instead.

Then, maybe, strike from the Zaporizhzhia direction toward Tokmak and Melitopol. If that Russian front collapses, they might have a clear path toward the Black Sea and Crimea... and if that happens, the Russians in the Kherson region would be cut off, unless they decide to start retreating from Kherson right at the start of this Zaporizhzhia offensive...

I’m not entirely sure the Ukrainians can actually take Crimea right now. It feels like more of a political issue than just a purely military one, I guess.

Taking Crimea would be incredibly difficult. You'd have to cross bridges that the Russians would likely just blow up... and while the northern part of Crimea is mostly flat plains, it turns into mountains as you move south...
And then there's the political side of things too...

Drew Booth60 said:Negotiations are coming, period. The US isn't going to let Russia be backed into a corner with absolutely no way out, mainly because that's a fast track to a nuclear nightmare. They might end up letting them keep Crimea, but that’s likely the absolute limit—especially since Germany and France will probably be pushing hard for that specific compromise. Meanwhile, the US would likely accept a deal like that because it's essentially a win-win situation. And Ukraine? They'll likely have to accept it, simply because they won't have much choice once the West starts applying the pressure.

Regarding Crimea, maybe there's an option for some sort of autonomy or a condominium arrangement—some kind of recipe that grants Ukraine at least a semblance of sovereignty over the territory, even if it's mostly just formal.
Russia will stay squeezed under sanctions until they finally cave to a compromise like that, and once this whole crisis blows over, the Russians won't have anyone left to sell their gas to without selling it for pennies on the dollar—and even then, they'll probably be paying a tax to fund the rebuilding of Ukraine.

cave troll said:The Russians don't just let people like that walk away. For them, it’s either a prison cell or Novichok. 😉

Or they just happen to fall out of a tenth-story window...

🍿

Richard Wilson4 said:Even if the Russians pulled out tomorrow, Ukraine wouldn't stand a chance at holding onto Crimea.

It would basically become their version of the Gaza Strip.

The cold, hard reality is that the whole Crimea situation eventually has to be settled through some kind of agreement between Ukraine and Russia.

ztrew said:You’re forgetting that unlike the US, the ROC has been restored in Russia and Jesus's priests are the main players here—so I don't think we'll see any separatism.

I mean, look at Chechnya, everyone there is Orthodox...
🤣

Quincy:

The question is whether Kiril and the ROC can actually allow the handing over of the Ukrainian people to the USA, given the grim conditions ahead: speculation, blackmail, extortion, fraud, and a total loss of sovereignty. It won't be about research, experimentation, building infrastructure, or progress.

Between the Pride parades, gender ideology, and the Green New Deal...

🕺

Quincy:

Russian priests and the ROC have seen what happened to us back in America with those "independent" republics of ours. God forbid the Ukrainians end up like we did.

Yep.
People are starving in the streets...
🙂

Quincy:

Both the Roman Bishop and the Catholic Church see how far morality has fallen in the West, so they can't in good conscience allow Ukraine, or anyone else, to be handed over to the USA. The Catholic Church needs to explain the situation to Catholics in America.

You really think this cultural Marxist Pope Frank...?

🍿

Quincy:

Russia needs to manufacture its own chips, computers, and improve its technology, etc. ROC priests will probably just re-consolidate Russian society.

Are they going to start chip manufacturing in ROC monasteries????

🤔

Maybe potato chips?

Quincy:

Russia will never forget or abandon Ukraine and the other Slavic lands.

We know that.
They should be kicked out, just like the Ukrainians are doing now!

crimsonwolf26 said:If things ever reach a breaking point where Russia officially declares war on Ukraine—basically moving toward full-scale martial law and total mobilization—do you think there’s a realistic chance that NATO would actually step in officially?

And I wonder if that would actually make much of a difference in terms of boosting Russian strength.
What kind of tanks are they even going to hand out, or what about artillery and ammo supplies?
I mean, it would take them months just to get those units organized and trained up...

Kate Lewis3 said:The guys from those outlying regions don't get any compensation.

I suppose their forces make up at least a quarter, maybe even a third, of all the active anti-Ukrainian units.
Probably a similar percentage when it comes to casualties, too.

Henry Rodriguez5 said:So, Russia just admitted to nearly 50,000 fallen soldiers ☕

48,759 dead Russian soldiers... as of August 28th.

I guess these numbers are based on the payouts for deceased Russian citizens serving in standard military units.

But I wonder... does this count include the various Wagner Group members, foreign volunteers, or those fighters from the RAO regions—who, I suppose, make up a pretty significant chunk of the casualties?

Richard Wilson4 said:Russia isn't a democracy.

If they pulled back tomorrow, they'd just spin it as a massive win.

It's not going to have the consequences people think it will.

But honestly? It will have consequences.
Massive ones.
It might not happen overnight, but long-term, I suspect it’s going to shake Russian society right to its core.

Even if the fighting wraps up by the end of the year—say, through some truce that basically resets everything back to how things were before February—Russia still walks away looking pretty beaten.

The sanctions aren't going anywhere.
Foreign companies aren't just going to pack up and come back.
Sure, gas prices might drop, but Russia won't be able to hold Europe hostage anymore because everyone will have diversified their supplies, and new tech will eventually kill off the demand anyway.
Sweden and Finland are in NATO now.
Russia's global reputation is basically non-existent.
Selling weapons is going to be an uphill battle, which is a huge problem for them since that was their biggest moneymaker after energy.
Internal unrest... maybe more separatism bubbling up...

and so on.

Kate Lewis3 said:A loss in Ukraine is bound to shake up Russia's leadership sooner or later. It’s just history repeating itself—think about how the failure in Afghanistan shook the USSR just two years down the line.

The Russian establishment was actually much more shaken after the Mole Cricket disaster of '19.
That was really when the collapse of the USSR started to take hold, I think.

analogbear5 said:Basically, "Just shut up, everything's fine with Putin."

Nope.

Look, if some wild leopard wanders up to a bear's den while the cubs are inside and manages to land a blow that leaves the bear bleeding, it doesn't mean the bear won't come back even more feral and unhinged.
Maybe it’s better to let him lick his wounds for a bit and decide it's probably smarter to just stay far away from that leopard and its territory next time.

I guess Ukraine doesn't really gain much by hardening their stance right now either.
Because, honestly, things could get even uglier for them. Whether it's with Putin or whoever else takes the reins.

Daniel Ward87 said:Probably some weak-willed European politicians telling Zelenskyy to chill out and just give Putin a little peace offering to keep the oil and gas flowing.

I don't know exactly what kind of pressure we're talking about here, but I guess it’s about more than just oil and gas pipelines.

Defeats of this magnitude... they tend to rattle the political establishment in Moscow. It makes things like internal power struggles or even a coup feel like actual possibilities, I suppose.

People seem to naively think some well-meaning democracy lover will just step in to replace Vladimir, but honestly, many—maybe even most—of his loudest critics are actually more radical than he is.

And even that might not be the worst-case scenario. The real nightmare, maybe, is Russia completely fracturing. You could end up with total chaos where various radical nationalists seize entire regions and start waving nuclear arsenals around their territory. That’s a scary thought.

At the same time, I think Ukrainians need to realize that, eventually, some kind of peace agreement is going to be necessary. Another few years of this war is going to cost far too many lives and resources.
It doesn't have to be any specific deal, but at some point, things just have to be settled one way or another.

James Phillips92 said:They'll be learning on the job.

Given how things are unfolding, I guess there's a chance the Ukrainians could even reach Mobile before the occupiers manage to mobilize that paradise and actually get some units organized...