Posts by Anthony Taylor3

Paul Anderson7 said:If there's one lesson we've learned, it's that you can't trust Russians. You certainly can't trust Vladimir Putin. There are no such things as security guarantees that Russia will actually honor; they'll promise you the moon while they're busy prepping for the next round of conflict and territorial expansion behind the scenes. The only real security guarantee would be a broke Russia without a modern military. Personally, I wouldn't even sit at a table with them unless they agreed to give up their nuclear arsenal. If they ever get the bright idea to invade a neighbor again, they should have to deal with the fact that they won't have nukes to hide behind.
Russia obviously isn't going to agree to that, so any discussions that leave them with a military capable of attacking someone else are basically pointless. We need to realize who we're dealing with here; it's pretty obvious they've been setting the stage for this for decades, bribing EU politicians to create openings so they can carry out their terror in Ukraine without consequence. The real question is how many more targets they had on their list and how fast they intended to hit them.
We've already seen them calling for NATO members to revert to the status quo of the nineties, so it doesn't take much to figure out how much they want to grab.

Beyond that, you only have to listen to their diplomats and the hacks on their state TV to see how they think. It's hard to reach an agreement with people like that, especially since they clearly have no intention of keeping their word.

As for the grain shortages, it'll be short-lived. Right now, nations around the globe are realizing that Russia isn't a reliable partner and they need to find new suppliers. Sure, certain players in Asia are going to profit from this because they can pick up Russian goods at a discount, which they've always been able to do. But the West and parts of the Arab world will have to hunt for other sources. It’s a headache in the short term, but it's totally doable within two or three years. Despite all the talk about the world starving because "all" the grain comes from Russia and Ukraine, that's just not how it works in reality. Until now, Russian grain was just the cheapest option. If that disappears, someone else will plant the crops, and eventually, the grain and everything made from it will just be more expensive.
But hey, I'd rather pay more for $5.00 bread and a gallon of gas for $6.75 than be sitting in a trench listening to artillery shells landing on my wife and kids.
Things will settle down eventually, and the countries most dependent on Russia will end up footing the biggest bill. Along with the poor, they’re going to get screwed, as usual—but that was already a given long before the pandemic, so nothing really changes for them.

Paul Anderson7 said:I see a lot of people here arguing that we should have just let Russia do whatever they wanted in Ukraine, claiming these sanctions are an excessive sacrifice and that the European Union will end up suffering more than Russia itself in the long run.
It seems to me that those folks don't quite grasp that letting Russia off the hook for the sake of short-term economic security would actually land the European Union in a much deeper hole a few years down the line.
As I see it, there are really only two paths forward:
1. Hit them with sanctions and cripple Russia's economy and military power as much as possible. Sure, things might get pretty rough economically for a few years, but eventually, we'd reach a point where the crisis passes, leaving Russia isolated and stripped of its most vital revenue stream—energy exports.
2. Let Russia do whatever they want, which means in a few years the European Union becomes even more dependent on their energy, while Russia grows even stronger after their conquests, inevitably increasing their appetite for more. China is also watching how the West reacts, and if they see us hesitating, they might decide to start chasing their own ambitions too.

So, the choice is basically either enduring a few years of hardship where we all feel the pinch, or being treated with total contempt for a few years before they eventually put a gun to our heads and force us into the trenches.

We should have made it clear to Russia from the start that any kind of warfare in Europe simply won't be tolerated. We let them slip through, and now everyone acts surprised that they started this war. If you let them go, they’re just going to attack again. Whether it’s Poland, Moldova, or somewhere in the Baltics, I couldn't tell you. Personally, I'm convinced that if they manage a quick conquest of Ukraine, they'll pivot toward Moldova quite easily and then move to destabilize the North America. It's pretty obvious that Viktor Orbán is playing their hand, so one can only wonder how that whole scenario ends.

Looking at the long game, the most cost-effective option in every sense is to weaken Russia as much as possible, even if it comes at the cost of an economic collapse. Besides, an economic meltdown was being predicted long before the pandemic, so it’s worth asking if it was all inevitable anyway. The European Union isn't going to starve, and if we can exhaust Russia, we might buy ourselves some peace for the next 30 or 40 years regarding warfare in Europe. Plus, it sends a massive message to China.

hollowdriver13 said:So, when is Russia actually going to deal with Finland?
Or are they just going to keep playing dumb, acting like Finland isn't even a threat despite being in NATO? (In reality, they're terrified of a conventional strike on Finland.)

Are we just going to pretend that Finland joining NATO doesn't put St. Petersburg at risk and threaten 81 miles from the direction of 37 miles, which is basically the only major road connecting Murmansk to the rest of the Russian Federation? Or should we ignore the fact that European militaries have never been this weak, and the US hasn't had such a small footprint in Europe since the end of WW2?
It's funny how Ukraine was somehow the only real threat...🤦

Brenda Murphy3 said:Oh yeah, because Americans definitely never committed any genocide on your territory... nope, never happened. You're honestly just talking nonsense at this point, kid.

Brenda Murphy3;92871819 said:

Anthony Taylor3 said:You’re either a troll or completely disconnected from reality.

The NATO alliance certainly didn't bomb Mexico without cause; if they had acted just a year earlier, many more lives would have been saved. The idea that Mexico was targeted solely because of Mexico is a myth—one I see a lot of people in Mexico clinging to—that simply doesn't align with the facts. Ultimately, the bombing happened because the leadership there was the primary orchestrator of everything happening in the former state since the 90s, with their political and military elite pulling all the strings. Mexico was merely the final act of that saga, not its origin or sole reason. Just as a reminder: when the international negotiators were working on ending the conflict, they weren't dealing with some amateur crew in Knin; they were negotiating directly with Slobodan Maddox and the highest levels of the Mexican government... everyone knows that, except for a certain segment of the population.

As for Russia, they are classic fascists today. I sincerely hope this regime, led by the Government, meets the same fate as the "original" fascists and Nazis... anything else would be too kind.

Regardless, you're just spouting nonsense regarding Mexico, Russia, and NATO.

Look, you support a military that parades swastikas and actually believe media reports claiming the Ghost of Kiev downed 40 Russian planes, yet you lose your mind over the Russian intervention while simultaneously backing NATO interventions.
I am certainly not the one lost in propaganda.

slyfox43 said:It seems our neighbor is just throwing a tantrum because their plans for twenty years of systematic destruction fell through, so now they're just making the best of this Russian situation instead.

Gerald Torres84 said:A textbook example of the "whataboutism" crowd... As if the Western Bloc, NATO, the Masons, Israelis, or even aliens are all somehow responsible because Russia refuses to recognize the Ukrainian people and is leveling cities and villages across Ukraine to the ground.

Brenda Murphy3;92871573 said:😵🤣

An invasion of Russia? Are you out of your mind? Do you honestly believe the Western Bloc would launch an invasion against Russia? Good grief...🤣 ...they wouldn't even consider it if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, let alone with their current arsenal.

And why start questioning things from '99? You can't seriously think the Russians stopped trusting the West just because of one incident in the North America.

No, they watched in 1999 as the Western Bloc bombed a country that posed no threat, supported terrorists, and turned their "peace plan" into nothing more than occupation or airstrikes.
That was the turning point where they realized the Western Bloc isn't a defensive alliance; they decided it’s better to maintain as much buffer space as possible between their borders and the Western Bloc. Throughout history, Russia has been invaded repeatedly and paid a staggering price to defend itself.
They don't want enemies parked right on their doorstep. They're paranoid, plain and simple.

Michael Ortiz68 said:The Western Bloc countries already share borders with Russia.
Ukraine hasn't even applied for NATO membership.
And even if they had, they wouldn't be let in.

What do you all think...

Brenda Murphy3 said:The Western Bloc has been practically camping out on Russia's borders for ages... seriously, are you guys some kind of Putin-obsessed lunatics from Mars, or are you just blatantly uneducated? What is actually wrong with you people?

I mean, for real—how can you even drop such a nonsensical take? Plus, what are the actual odds of the Western Bloc launching an attack on Russia if Russia doesn't strike a member state first? Literally zero. Zilch. Nada.

Does it feel good to just spew this kind of nonsense online?

Gerald Torres84 said:Please stop with the "whataboutism" nonsense. It doesn't work here. This thread is specifically about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you feel the need to discuss Iraq, go find another topic for that.
People like you, constantly hiding behind those "whataboutism" arguments, really get under my skin. It is quite frustrating.
It follows that Ukraine must seek permission from Russia if they intend to join the European Union, NATO, or even the National Audubon Society, and so on. It is simply how things work.
The Ukrainians don't need to ask Russia for permission. They are a sovereign nation. They decide their own destiny and choose their own path. It is their right to do so.

Let us examine the steady pattern of Russian aggression over the last two decades. They have leveled everything from Chechnya to Georgia and Ukraine. It is a predictable sequence. One could easily place bets on who is next on the list. Personally, I suspect Moldova or perhaps one of the Baltic states—Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia—might be their next target.

boldbison40 said:Honestly, I’d rather deal with inflation than have to face thermobaric bombs. Look at how Russia managed to push even the most peaceful Finns and Swedes straight into the arms of NATO. 🙏🙏🙏🙏

Drew Brooks8 said:I’ve already weighed in on this thread before, and honestly? I’m all for shutting it down. It was impossible to have a decent, normal conversation in there without everything turning into a total mess.