Posts by Grace Jones86

hollowdriver13 said:Right, because Russia wasn't a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, no, no—it was just the "evil West" forcing UA into it. 🙏

Who on earth is talking about an "evil West" here?! 😕

Go back and read my posts. I am constantly describing a supreme, wise, dominant West that toys with other "powers" like a baby plays with a rattle.
And they keep everything under control, driving a coherent narrative.

Where exactly are you seeing any "evil West" rhetoric from me?? 🐔

crimsoncyclist71 said:If you don't know what a regime is, just Google it. No big deal.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regime

😕

What the hell is wrong with you people? This is nothing but cheap, pathetic nonsense.

I didn't necessarily use the word "regime" just to fit the narrative you're trying to pin on me. Even if I did, look at this... pure hysteria, hunting for typos, looking for witches, chasing ghosts! 😵

edit: For God's sake, if the CIA were actually paying me to write neutrally and analytically while being anti-Russian on an American forum, you all would somehow twist it into pro-Russian rhetoric. Clearly, everyone here has lost their damn minds.

I'm done with this thread. The quality of discussion here is absolutely disgraceful.

hollowdriver13 said:Honestly, calling a democratically elected government a "regime" pretty much gives away which side of the fence you're sitting on.

But hey, go ahead and try explaining to Germans that they don't actually care about Ukraine—since you clearly know better than they do.

https://twitter.com/meyer_resende/st...CqxZ2NmN4rAAAA

Oh wait, look at this—support for Ukraine actually went up by 4% in the last 30 days, hitting 74%.

I guess you should try explaining to the rest of Europe and America that they don't really support UA either, just because "Grace Jones86 knows best."™

It's pointless to argue over this point... we actually agree on the core issue here. 😵

We are all standing with Ukraine... not because of Ukraine itself, but because of us. Because of the West. Ukraine isn't exactly some shining model of anything desirable. 😉
Enough of that.

edit: by the way... I use the word "regime" because these are all regimes, regardless of whether they call themselves democracies. I don't actually believe in democracy, nor does any truly intellectual person. Who am I even talking to here?! 😕

Anyway... despite the stupid insinuations about my views, I am extremely anti-Russian. It's obvious in every single one of my posts. Anyone reading what I write about Russia can see that.

But no... I use the word regime, so clearly I'm just some Democratic Party paid hack... a Russian online troll. 🤣 🤣
What kind of hysteria is this?

It’s just like during COVID. No matter how neutral or analytical your take was, you were immediately branded a cold-blooded killer or a hater.🤣

Rachel Richardson said:Exactly. 👍

@Grace Jones86, nobody has occupied a single inch of Israeli territory.
Not even Iranian territory, if we're being honest...

Yeah, they just "happened" to be pummeled from above for decades on end.

And enough that the Iron Dome is basically running like a damn disco night and day. 😁

Imagine if some foreign troops—say, from Mexico or somewhere—had been raining hell on us from above for 30 years straight. 😁

Rachel Richardson said:And why should I care?
Even if Ukraine had zero nuclear weapons, it would still be Russia's neighbor.
Ukraine with a "billion mushrooms" equals Russia with a billion mushrooms.
The wind carries radiation everywhere—you know.

I don't follow your logic.

By the way... in case it needs repeating: radiation spread is FAR less after a nuke explodes than after a nuclear power plant accident (and even then, the radiation isn't nearly as bad as they claim).

Also... the oil/Russian lobby has always pumped fear regarding nuclear energy. 😉
Don't fall for propaganda.

By the way... that bizarre decision to strip a massive neighbor—one packed with resources and one that Russia has always historically obsessed over as their own "homeland"—of its nuclear capabilities through some 90s paperwork and "agreements"... it smells like a West game plan.

It’s like they're just teasing the Russians, driving them mad. They deliberately left the door open for exactly this scenario today. Why? It isn't obvious at first glance, but the motive is pretty clear.
To humiliate Russia... during their moment of madness... and wipe them off the historical stage entirely.

It's the same reason they ensured China became intensely tied to the West after the 80s, riding the wave of prosperity that followed.

You toss a bone to one group (the Russians) so they can attack aimlessly and flex those pathetic Slavic muscles 😁 while you buy off another group with unprecedented prosperity for hundreds of millions of people. From zero to 124 miles/h in just 30 years.

Edit: The point is that Americans have maintained an absolutely dominant position through all these combinations.
They let China grow exactly where they wanted it to.
They removed the nukes from Ukraine. They could have insisted back in the 90s when they had total dominance over the Russians 😁 that the nukes stay put... but they didn't.

Kuarnyaj said:as soon as you start tripping on drugs

One nuke on Moscow and a few million people turn to dust.

Stop talking nonsense. If Ukraine still had its nukes from the 90s, none of this would be happening.

It doesn't work like that.

If you think that’s how it works, then why hasn't Israel turned millions in Tehran to ash yet? Why hasn't Pakistan crushed India? 😁

You can't just trigger a global nuclear war under the guise of "self-defense." That isn't how things work post-1950s, ☕ even if you are a nuclear power.

Sure, the truth is that nukes are a deterrent... and they would stop the cowards in Moscow from doing this.
Dammit.

edit: My point was that it's ALREADY too late. Since everything has already happened and they weren't a nuclear power, getting nukes now solves nothing. It's post-factum.
If they had them before the attack, there wouldn't have been an attack.

James Chavez91 said:Someone mentioned this a few pages back, and I honestly see it as a brilliant way to de-escalate things—basically moving the whole mess off the global stage and tucking it strictly into the backyard of the US/Russia conflict...
Since all those guarantees regarding the integrity of Ukraine's borders and their very sovereignty have basically been trampled, it might make sense to just return what was originally given to ensure those protections hold up.
Give them back the nukes and whatever else was part of that deal, and just call it a day.

Besides, they’ve got enough resources and know-how to build their own stuff if they really had to.

Why does it end there?
What good are twenty or fifty potential Ukrainian nukes against thousands from Russia?
Nothing.

It still boils down to X thousand Americans versus X thousand Russians.

If we are talking about full-scale nuclear madness.
A handful of nukes in Ukraine won't change a thing. And let's not even get into why this is in NOBODY'S interest... for countless reasons.

The US knows that Ukraine is actually a chaotic, disorganized, nearly unformed state riddled with corruption at every single level. They don't need fools like that holding nukes.

They already have enough to deal with, like having to manage Israel and their nukes and everything else.

Melissa Peterson19 said:Maybe, but they certainly won't allow the Russian Federation to collapse or let the West seize their Siberian resources. They would rather impose the harshest possible dictatorship and trigger a global nuclear catastrophe—letting everything burn if necessary—on the gamble that their massive territory will offer them some level of protection.

And you think Americans don't have a strategy to prevent that in a nuclear holocaust scenario?

How could they possibly leave Russia with the chance to rebuild within those massive, lawless wildernesses?

Americans aren't children.

They have a "Plan Z." A final plan. A blueprint for executing a global nuclear holocaust with precision. Americans value quality, even when it comes to total mutual destruction. 😁

By the way... ever since the Russian invasion kicked off—actually, even before it started—American geostrategists have been insisting that Russia isn't, and can't be, a real opponent. In my view, they are just weak fools in every sense of the word.

The only true challenger to the global order, led by the USA, is China and its satellites.

But if you ask me, the US has always banked on China's deep-seated internal weaknesses. That’s why they’ve never actually feared them as real competition.
And the Chinese end up looking like fools too... sure, they're much bigger and more capable fools than Russia is, but a fool is still a fool.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Oh yeah, and that Silk Road thing they totally messed up. I guess the Chinese won't need much convincing to sit down for some serious talks with the Russians.

Don't be naive.
It’s not like two buddies hanging out on a street corner. 🤣 Don't act like they're just heading off to some insignificant little chat.

We're talking global powers here... namely 1) nuclear lunatics and 2) contenders for dominance in the 21st and 22nd centuries. 😁

Obviously, the Chinese "clarified" the reality of the situation to Putin's regime long ago—telling them exactly how things have to work if they don't want to end up trying to sell oil and gas to themselves. 😵
And generally, they can take it where they shove it...
I am certain they are on an extremely short leash held by "their bloc." 🤣
The Russians are dogs. Always have been, always will be.
They are at their best when they are defending themselves; that's when they are effective. When they attack, they do it poorly and pointlessly.

northernsailor8 said:Russia definitely won't reach for nuclear weapons, for several reasons.

1. Tactical nukes aren't particularly effective against a highly mobile enemy on the 932 miles front. I guess they don't offer much more direct military impact than the conventional gear Russia already has, like FOAB or hypersonic missiles. Plus, hitting populated cities would be a massive war crime—one you can't really hide or spin as propaganda, even back home.

2. Any detection of elevated radiation levels near the NATO border would likely trigger Article 5 automatically.

3. They run the risk that NATO isn't bluffing and actually follows through with a military response.

4. The economic fallout would be devastating. If Russia faces total isolation at every level—which could include a complete naval blockade of key transit corridors like the GIUK, Dover, Denmark Strait, Bosphorus, or the Japanese archipelago—their access to warm waters and oceans would vanish. In retaliation, Ukrainians would probably just blow up any remaining pipelines. That would strip Russia of its energy profits from Europe, which accounts for about 25% of their GDP and 33% of the state budget. It would effectively kill all maritime trade right when their economy is already stumbling.

5. China and India would likely distance themselves from Russia to protect their own image, especially if the West imposes draconian conditions. Maybe even Iran would pull away, given they have plenty of their own internal issues to deal with instead of sharing Russia's fate.

6. Using nuclear weapons without an immediate response would probably lead to a double-digit increase in the number of nuclear-armed nations in the world. Ukraine might still possess the technical expertise and hardware for some kind of nuclear or radiological device. But honestly, I suspect Russia would worry more about Germany or Poland potentially doing the same.

7. Deciding to use nuclear weapons isn't just up to Putin. According to doctrine, there are three layers: the President, the joint chiefs, and the commander of the silo, airbase, or submarine. It wouldn't be the first time a Russian officer refused a launch order. Disobeying such a command would likely signal the imminent collapse of an already shaky military chain of command.

Conclusion: ignore the Russian intimidation tactics. Russia isn't going to touch nuclear weapons in this conflict.

regarding point 5)

So, economically speaking, both China and India = the West.

It's not just about reputation. It's about the era of prosperity they are banking on and currently enjoying. All of that vanishes with a single decision by the West.

Even now, thanks to Vladimir Vladimirovič putin, the massive, century-long Chinese project known as the New Silk Road... where they intended to flex their geopolitical muscles... is already 🤣 falling apart. They'll be showing their hand soon because everything is stalling out on them.
The Chinese are probably banging their heads against the wall wondering why nobody gives a damn about them. 🤣

btw... latest news is that yet another giant like Evergrande has defaulted in China. Their foundation was already shaky even without the idiots in Moscow. 🤦
And with his help, China's internal weakening will only accelerate... which started for a million different reasons anyway. And they really thought they were going to dominate the 21st century like Americans did the 20th.😁
Not happening. I think the world has finally breathed a sigh of relief knowing that an inhuman mass of a billion and a half people, completely devoid of any ideals of freedom, clearly won't be ruling over anyone or anything. ☕

Grace Jones86 said:I just don't see this "bloc division" you're talking about.
In what sense?

Sure, China is trading with Russia, but they are far more interdependent with the West and the rest of the world where the West calls the shots.
Therefore, China is clearly and most neatly a part of the Western bloc in every meaningful way.
China dies the day the West decides it's over... no armed conflict required. They’d face famine on par with the darkest days under Mao Zedong. And they are terrified of that... because today, that means a bloody, brutal civil war where the people would likely tear the Party and its local officials apart like rabbits. The public would skin them alive. 😁 And then they'd turn on each other.

Economically speaking, that bloc simply does not exist.

btw...given all this, it was obvious that Putin definitely doesn't have a green light from China, or even India, for an attack under point 1) or any kind of escalation.
Regardless of how much Putin and Xi were grumbling back in February at the Olympics... acting unified and giving that "green light."

This whole thing looks more like a private madhouse in Moscow that actually has nothing to do with real geopolitics.
Geopolitically, this entire narrative is completely senseless and impossible from the moment they entered Ukraine.
(And honestly, how Russia's entry into Crimea in 2014 went so smoothly in the West remains a massive mystery to me.)

From the moment the war started, I knew there wasn't a shred of geopolitical math or logic here. This is pure insanity. That's why I believe the whole saga, from start to finish, is extremely nuclear—dangerous and psychotic.

BUT... China knew that too. And likely so they wouldn't look like cowards who value their own comfort too much,😁 they played along, pretending the possibility of nuclear escalation or a global economic mega-crisis didn't bother them.
That's why I assume a very clear line is being drawn behind the scenes (between China and the US) regarding exactly what Ukraine can and may do, and where China's red line for Moscow lies. It was probably defined from the jump. It would be unprofessional for China not to have done so. In fact, it's impossible they didn't... China doesn't have the luxury of granting Moscow freedom.

wiredseal7 said:Nah, if they struck at all, it would be strictly against Russian positions and units inside Ukraine (excluding Crimea)—since, technically, they don't view that as Russian territory.

My take? In any scenario involving an attack on Russian troops—even a conventional one—Putin would likely retaliate with a tactical nuke against some NATO military site. It's simple math for him; he knows he’d lose a conventional exchange, so he'd look for the shortcut.

From there, you're just guessing how it ends—but after a few tactical strikes, they'd probably decide it's better to just call the other side and negotiate a ceasefire everywhere, including Ukraine itself. The wildcard would be Zelenskyy—he might feel played and just refuse to play ball.

That wouldn't be a problem. He's been a puppet since day one... just like that regime over there.

They know perfectly well that the second the West decides to stop the talking, both the Kyiv regime and Ukraine itself mean nothing compared to the comfort and peace the West enjoys. ☕

So, they'd just abandon them to their fate. Kyiv knows this, obviously.
They have zero autonomy.

Ironically, that’s exactly why you see Ukrainian flags everywhere in the West. It’s not about caring for Ukraine; it’s about signaling Western ideals. Period.

Andrew Booth29 said:The world has managed to survive this long because we’ve stuck to one fundamental rule: stay out of my way—and I’ll stay out of yours. It’s that simple. We basically just split ourselves into two distinct camps, and honestly? That’s what creates equilibrium. This new era of bloc-based division is the new status quo—it’s stable. The only real question left to answer is whether the new border is going to be drawn right through Ukraine or just alongside it.

I just don't see this "bloc division" you're talking about.
In what sense?

Sure, China is trading with Russia, but they are far more interdependent with the West and the rest of the world where the West calls the shots.
Therefore, China is clearly and most neatly a part of the Western bloc in every meaningful way.
China dies the day the West decides it's over... no armed conflict required. They’d face famine on par with the darkest days under Mao Zedong. And they are terrified of that... because today, that means a bloody, brutal civil war where the people would likely tear the Party and its local officials apart like rabbits. The public would skin them alive. 😁 And then they'd turn on each other.

Economically speaking, that bloc simply does not exist.

The Comet is Coming - start Running

This is absolutely stunning.
It clocks in at over 6 minutes, though I honestly wish the track dragged on for at least 30.
Intriguing, relaxing, and somehow both simple and complex all at once. Delicious.

☕

Work from home starts Monday!! 🙂

:/

Dennis Hall41 said:They definitely had "objectively" better stuff in their catalog. But I haven't heard anything more beautiful. It completely ignores just how miserable the man was.

Following and bumping for:

All of my Love

I'm not big on Zeppelin, but this is decent enough.

Ashley Grant66 said:I was just drinking a new round C4 recently. I used to think it was amazing, but honestly? It was disgusting. I couldn't even finish it.😁

Tried C4 a few days ago. I'm getting back into the craft scene lately (and all those heavy Belgian styles... intense stuff, etc. 😁).
With a bigger paycheck comes more "responsibility" to sample the fancy stuff. 😁

C4 is too much. You need a highly refined palate to actually enjoy it. 😁 It’s an acquired taste, plain and simple.

But then... I had Jester's opus, specifically focusing on NEIPA King Garoo... 🙏 😁

And I tried the famous Faro Lindemansov. 😁

park it like it's hot

😁