Posts by Bryan Booth82

Lisa Patel4 said:I guess maybe there isn't much to say here. Just a quote.

We'll see.

Not really. It all boils down to the same thing; it’s just different alliances, I guess.

I don't think so... because back in the 1930s, my great-grandfather had nine children, then my grandfather followed with six, and from those groups, "only" one or two survived to adulthood... it's a massive trend spanning from China to Russia, and eventually right here to us in the West.
The population is shrinking everywhere.🤔

When you look at it that way, this reality casts a completely different light on why wars happen and why there's such a desperate drive to "seize" neighboring territory.
And don't even get me started on how fast information travels now, or how "educated" everyone claims to be... etcetera, etcetera.
The people pulling the strings in Moscow aren't fighting a real war anymore... what on earth are they even doing?🤔

Most of the population lives in urban centers today anyway....

lp

Lisa Patel4 said:Viktor Orbán isn't hiding his ambitions regarding Ukraine; he just lacks the guts to act on them.

In Italy, a group is coming to power that really isn't a fan of these border changes.

I'm not talking about some obscure fringe websites, either—I mean actual people in government.

And they’re going to have problems, whether they like it or not. I guess we're entering an era of global cowboy diplomacy.

It is a massive mistake to try and view today's geopolitical landscape through the lens of the 1930s. 🤔
Lp

darkhawk30 said:But what exactly does Ukraine do with them?
Are they just supposed to let them wander around wearing Russian fatigues, penniless, hungry, and without a roof over their heads?
What's left for them then? Turning to theft? Or do you honestly think there are government agencies sitting around specifically hired to find jobs and housing for Russian defectors?
Do you expect local citizens and farmers to welcome them with open arms and a home-cooked meal?

Or should they be housed in some kind of camps and fed? With what resources, when they barely have enough for themselves?

And how on earth are they supposed to tell a genuine defector apart from a spy?

I've always been fascinated by people who come up with these flawless solutions for everyone else, yet struggle to apply even a shred of that logic to their own daily lives.

Every problem has a solution.
In cases of surrender—whether it's an individual or mass surrenders, especially the latter—it is incomparably cheaper than continuing to fight.
Liberating specific areas through traditional warfare is incredibly expensive, whereas the assumption that 100 or 1,000 soldiers might surrender, thereby avoiding a battle entirely, can only be viewed as a net positive.

If those soldiers on the Russian side were given a clear guarantee that surrendering would save their lives, that they would be treated humanely, or perhaps even granted asylum within the European Union, which is currently a topic of debate in Germany, then maybe they would actually consider it.

At the end of the day, any option that forces the aggressor to leave the country as quickly as possible is better and more cost-effective than ongoing warfare.
Best regards,

Michelle Young50 said:And how exactly are you going to know if they surrendered voluntarily versus when they were backed into a corner with zero options? Everyone who surrenders is going to claim they were forced into it—that they didn't want to be there, that they weren't coerced, and that they didn't even pull a trigger.

Honestly, does that even matter? It shouldn't. We don't need to sit them down for an interrogation or demand an explanation. The bottom line—the only thing that actually matters—is that they lay down their arms and stop fighting. Period.
Lp

Apparently, according to reports coming out of ZDF, the vast majority of those 300,000 mobilized individuals are going to be from Western Russia—basically ethnic Russians.
Best regards,

It is high time we stop swallowing the fairy tale that Russia possesses limitless resources. It’s pure fiction.
Russia doesn't have unlimited resources, and they certainly don't have them when it comes to manpower.
Historically, Russia's economy has never been a powerhouse, and their birth rates are an absolute disaster... For the largest country on the planet, they simply lack the economic muscle and the sheer number of people required to defend those massive borders if things actually went south.

Russia is in a state of total chaos; Putin is just stumbling from one catastrophic decision to the next.
lp

Jessica Peterson2 said:At my workplace, every single one of Putin's supporters suddenly decided to sprint toward HR... all just to verify their "Software Engineer" status because Putko promised that specific category wouldn't be mobilized. They haven't quite given me an answer as to why they're so desperate to avoid being sent to the Donbas 🤷

I have to point out that since I’m constantly in contact with Russians and Belarusians through work, neighbors, friends of friends... and so on...
Right at the start of the aggression, almost everyone was verbally endorsing the invasion. People were busy praising Putler's supposed intelligence, his capabilities, or mocking his stupidity—basically echoing the exact same nonsense we read on forums years before the war actually started.
It occasionally even spiraled into pathetic outbursts of nationalistic "vomit" that went way beyond any decent standard of civilized expression.

However, as this aggression drags on longer and longer, I've noticed a shift. After about two or three months, that frantic interest in verbally supporting the invasion plummeted. It turned into a sort of... "just play music and let me work" mentality. Forget the news.

Lately, I've been noticing a slight undertone of condemnation toward Putler and the aggression, along with an underlying fear of war...

Best regards,

Michelle Young50 said:It’s just a coping mechanism for their losses. It sounds much better to claim they're losing to NATO than admitting they can't handle the Ukrainians—it strokes their ego.

Seriously, does anyone in this damn country actually stop to ask themselves: how can we claim this is a "special operation" against NATO, yet if we ever declare war, NATO will be our direct enemy in WW3?
Is everyone really this completely divorced from logic?🤔

Even the massive majority of Russia-lovers on this forum have finally realized that the Russians have screwed up everything there is to screw up, haven't they? They basically shot themselves in the foot with this entire aggression... and let's not forget how those people are always even more hardline than the Russians are in Russia.

lp

I honestly cannot wrap my head around this latest pivot in Russian propaganda regarding some supposed imminent World War III.🤔
What does "the West against Russia" even mean in this context?🤔

If we are talking about an actual global conflict, logic dictates there should be two distinct sides—major opposing coalitions of nations locked in direct combat.

But look at how they’re framing it: you have the Russians on one side—a group that most people aren't even taking seriously anymore—and then you just have the rest of the world, which happens to be mostly against Russia.

So, what's the deal here? Are we meant to redefine what a world war actually is, or should we just continue to dismiss those fools in The White House as completely delusional?

Best,

Thomas Stewart8 said:Exactly. Honestly, I don't even get why they're bothering with the referendum at all. If their goal is just to claim the land and trigger a mobilization, they could just declare it theirs and be done with it. Why go through the extra theater?

In any rational part of the world, it doesn't work like this—but then again, they aren't exactly living in the rational part of the world.

I'm asking myself the exact same thing. What is the actual point of this referendum farce?
Best,

Kate Cook27 said:Didn't Saddam Hussein also invade Kuwait using the excuse that it was once part of his territory under the Ottoman Empire😁? And Slobodan Maddox had those big plans for a "Greater Mexico," too. It's similar here—Putin has designs on reclaiming "ancient Russian lands" for Mother Russia. We already know how those two ended, so we can only wait and see how Putin's story unfolds. Plus, there's the massive burden that both the Iraqi and Mexican people still carry today because of their dictators—even after all these years.

No matter how much damage Western powers have caused through their wars, if Putin succeeds, it’s going to trigger more conflict. There are just too many people out there who aren't happy with current borders and feel like something was stolen from them back in the day.

It’s not a matter of whether he *will* succeed; the reality is that he hasn't. Period. He has quite literally lost the war in Ukraine.

Best,

Kate Cook27 said:At this rate, Putin might actually find himself waiting on Lukashenko for a few minutes soon 🤣.

I get the feeling that over in Russia right now, they're actually terrified to test those nukes—mostly because they wouldn't want one landing right in Moscow.

That’s exactly what happens when you claim to be the world's premier superpower, only to end up being outclassed by everyone else fighting on the ground in Ukraine.

lp

analogbear5 said:It’s not just China facing a Western recession—it’s everyone. A downturn like that? It means oil prices are going to tank.

...and let's not forget that a collapse in oil prices hits Russia right where it hurts most...

lp

Fresh cannon fodder is arriving at the frontlines🤔


lp

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.

Just a small but vital correction to that inaccurate claim... the Ukrainians actually crossed the Oskaloosa River... so, when you mention the laws of physics, they certainly apply here.

Best regards,

Larry Sanchez7 said:If a bear's biggest strength is hitting civilians, then to me, that "strength" looks more like pure desperation and weakness...
Because if they actually had the power, they'd be hitting the military instead of civilians...

👍👍

lp

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.

I’m actually listening to reports right now—apparently, pro-Russian bloggers are claiming that the Ukrainians are massing troops specifically to strike toward Mariupol, aiming to sever the land bridge to Crimea.

He’s just relaying what those Russian bloggers are saying.🤔 🤔

lp

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?

Why bother officially entering a war when we can just stay "on the sidelines" and provide enough support to ensure Russia loses anyway? Isn't that enough?

lp

Kate Lewis3 said:Luckily for the Ukrainians, they already finished their own privatization process, so it might be harder for people to spin the narrative that outsiders forced them into a war with Russia just to grab their companies.

The absolute worst-case scenario for Ukraine—on top of all the destruction caused by Russian aggression—is joining the European Union, where the "old guard" members will likely try to protect their own turf by crushing any Ukrainian industry that actually poses a threat to their dominance.

Hold on a second—wasn't the push toward the European Union one of the primary triggers back in 2014?🤔
Isn't this whole narrative about the dangers of the European Union and the West to Ukraine largely just a cornerstone of Russian propaganda?🤔 🤔

Best regards,

If there's a defeat in Ukraine, could Putin actually survive by just leaning into heavy-handed repression instead of calling for a full-scale general mobilization?
I’m not entirely certain, but I have this nagging suspicion that he was already weighing the possibility of failure before the invasion even kicked off. It seems to me he deliberately ruled out a general mobilization from the start because he assumed it wouldn't change the fundamental math of the war—all while knowing that if things went south, the political fallout from such a move would be absolutely catastrophic.

Best,