Posts by Rachel Richardson

Rachel Jones8 said:Super weird.
How are you even supposed to tell if a post you're quoting is gonna get flagged? Like, how do you know if a report will actually stick?

My standard approach in these situations has typically been to reply without using a quote at all.
The logic is simple—you operate under the assumption that the reported content will be scrubbed, even though that isn't always a guaranteed outcome...

Gerald Chavez7 said:Sure, importing stuff is generally a good move—unless you happen to subscribe to one of those rather outdated schools of economic thought 😉

Russia is headed for a collapse; I wonder if women's soccer will see a resurgence in popularity then.😬

Kate Lewis3 said:Or maybe by 2045. Just in time for the 100th anniversary of "Victory in May," so those Nazis can see just how much Russia prospers outside of their hateful little world.

Interesting thought. 🤣

Gerald Chavez7 said:GDP could plummet by 30% by year-end
https://twitter.com/RobinBrooksIIF/s...23028623237120



This projection assumes a total collapse in imports

Don't forget—their industrial sector will likely start seeing layoffs soon, simply because they lack essential Western components. 😁

George Robinson43 said:Since these sanctions seem to be enriching Russia while draining the European Union, Russia should probably just ask for them to stay in place until at least 2050!
By then, the European Union will have collapsed, and Russia will have ascended to become the No. 1 economic power, easily strolling all the way to the Atlantic Ocean in just two weeks. It’ll play out exactly how those anti-Russian trolls on the forums predicted back in 2014.
Let's goooooo!

Let's aim for 2100 instead—it’s a nice round number.😁

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, no, we aren't in a war with Russia, because if we were, it would mean NATO is in direct conflict with them. And if that were actually true, there are really only two ways this plays out:

1) The Russians would be wiped out of all of Ukraine within a few weeks, and Putin would have been kicked out by his own people.

2) The Russian regime would have already dropped an A-bomb on us.

So, nope—we aren't in a conflict with Russia. Sending military aid and stuff doesn't mean you're in a war... not even close.

Now, you still gotta push back against the Russians whenever you have to... sure, the standard of living might dip in Europe, but Europe can handle that. It's way better than letting idiots like Putin think they can just do whatever they want. That's a much worse long-term problem than dealing with a potential recession for two or three years (which probably won't even happen) or paying more at the pump.

Things aren't actually that complicated... it really just comes down to which side you're on.😁 .

It’s all quite clear.
Putin did what he should never have done, and he must be held accountable.

Alex Carter said:I don't see any correlation between how attractive someone is and how fast they text back—it’s more likely a matter of how they were raised, how much free time they actually have, and whether they possess a mature mindset (unlike those kids still stuck playing video games all day).
🙂
🙂
There you have it—they've summed it up perfectly.😁

👍

Dana Robinson4 said:What do you think would happen to those weapons in a scenario where a mob forcibly removes a democratically elected president?

Nothing would happen.

That’s like suggesting people were playing around with Chernobyl back when they overthrew Yanukovych...

Respond when you can—ideally, as soon as you’re able.

If someone needs a few hours to get back to you, just adapt to their pace.

Sometimes people are genuinely busy, and other times, they simply don't care.
If you're dealing with someone playing games by timing their replies—trying to pull that hot-and-cold routine—you either move them to the top of your priority list or you cut ties entirely.

You shouldn't lose your mind over the small stuff, but if someone clearly isn't interested in talking to you, why should you waste your breath on them? 🤷

Lisa Jackson7 said:"Quote:"

Look, I’m not interested in playing judge or jury here—I just want the damn problem solved. Even Germany wasn't exactly left to its own devices after World War II, since, you know, "who actually forced Hitler to invade his neighbors?"
Look, Germans weren't exactly everyone's favorite back then—just like they aren't today—but that's really the heart of the issue. What kind of world order are we actually looking for? Seriously.

Some people are out here praying for a Cold War reboot—they actually want to go back to playing games with Putin and China like we're still in that "golden age" of globalization... honestly? I’m just over here hoping for some actual prosperity and a world that isn't run by autocrats.
Sounds like a damn fairy tale—but long-term? Not a chance. Look, if we don't build a world like that—seriously—Western political systems won't even stand a chance at surviving.... there isn't even a wall high enough to keep them out.

"Quote:"

Spot on. Everything said here is 100% facts. Some people actually claim that if the US had just let Ukraine into NATO back around 2000, we wouldn't be dealing with this whole mess today. Or what—she shouldn't have handed over her nukes?

Even if we avoided the War entirely—which wouldn't be enough, by the way—Ukraine still needs a path toward integrating into Europe through some kind of "light EU" setup. And honestly? Russia should probably follow suit at its own pace.

"Quote"

That's exactly why the sanctions have to be this brutal—no question about it. Are they actually trying to trigger change from within? — seriously, what a joke.

It’s hard to stay the same—really tough—when things start getting unstable and we're looking at a potential coup or whatever... you gotta throw in a "carrot" too... just be careful and make sure there are clear terms in place.

I suspect the West won't be handing out any carrots to Russia for quite some time after this.
As for the rest, I agree...

Lisa Jackson7 said:So what does that actually say about the moral compass of US leaders?

If they’re playing this "zero sum game" geopolitical chess too, then all that talk about "defending democratic values" is just pure smoke and mirrors for the public.

From their point of view, a dictator they can somewhat pull the strings on is way better than a Russia heading toward democracy and prosperity—because you can't have a competitor like that.

True—there are tons of parallels between Putin and Hitler...

But honestly, the bigger comparison is between the Weimar Republic and 90s Russia—specifically how the winning powers in the West treated the losers in both scenarios.

The US has its own calculations to make—the West is certainly no saint—but nobody forced Hitler or Putin to invade neighboring nations...

Lisa Jackson7 said:So what does that actually say about the moral compass of US leaders?

If they’re playing this "zero sum game" geopolitical chess too, then all that talk about "defending democratic values" is just pure smoke and mirrors for the public.

From their point of view, a dictator they can somewhat pull the strings on is way better than a Russia heading toward democracy and prosperity—because you can't have a competitor like that.

True—there are tons of parallels between Putin and Hitler...

But honestly, the bigger comparison is between the Weimar Republic and 90s Russia—specifically how the winning powers in the West treated the losers in both scenarios.

Exactly right.
It’s also worth noting that if Ukraine had been brought into NATO around 2000, we might not be facing this war today.
Or consider what happened when they didn't hand over their nuclear weapons.

Grace Phillips25 said:So, looking at the big picture here—is Russia even remotely ready for democracy? Like, do they actually *want* it? There are plenty of nations out there that aren't prepared for it, nor do they particularly care for it. China is pretty much the same story (and believe me, I know enough about that firsthand).

Realistically, no.

That is precisely why the sanctions can be so severe.
Are they intended to trigger internal change?

Lisa Jackson7 said:The Gaidar reformers definitely expected Help, if we're talking about Russia... 1991 and 1992 were the make-or-break years, maybe even just that window right after the USSR collapsed through mid-'92.
The Bush administration basically did nothing, what with elections, economic recovery, and all that other stuff.
I didn't know about the Japan thing—what exactly was the threat there?

Regarding Russia wanting in on NATO, they could have leaned hard into "Partnership for Peace" or some kind of associate status in the EU, but that ship sailed.

On the flip side, who was the West actually supposed to help?
Who was running the show, and how much instability were we dealing with?

There's always room for improvement, but...
Sometimes you don't even have a real choice to make.

Like I said—first you had the Gaidar reformers, then the Apple party led by Yavlenski.
You couldn't get a 100% guarantee, obviously, but in the early '90s, the West—specifically the Americans—had massive leverage. That famous Sachov plan should have looked different, focusing way more on building actual political and economic institutions.

Once you miss those windows for making the right moves to steer Russia toward democracy, it's game over. But the big shots in the West didn't really care... just like so many times before, they just went looking for a quick fix to get the job done.
Any resemblance to the Weimar Republic and Hitler isn't just a coincidence.

They simply weren't interested in hosting an economic miracle here.

Lisa Jackson7 said:The Gaidar reformers definitely expected Help, if we're talking about Russia... 1991 and 1992 were the make-or-break years, maybe even just that window right after the USSR collapsed through mid-'92.
The Bush administration basically did nothing, what with elections, economic recovery, and all that other stuff.
I didn't know about the Japan thing—what exactly was the threat there?

Regarding Russia wanting in on NATO, they could have leaned hard into "Partnership for Peace" or some kind of associate status in the EU, but that ship sailed.

On the flip side, who was the West actually supposed to help?
Who was running the show, and how much instability were we dealing with?

There's always room for improvement, but...
Sometimes you don't even have a real choice to make.

Like I said—first you had the Gaidar reformers, then the Apple party led by Yavlenski.
You couldn't get a 100% guarantee, obviously, but in the early '90s, the West—specifically the Americans—had massive leverage. That famous Sachov plan should have looked different, focusing way more on building actual political and economic institutions.

Once you miss those windows for making the right moves to steer Russia toward democracy, it's game over. But the big shots in the West didn't really care... just like so many times before, they just went looking for a quick fix to get the job done.
Any resemblance to the Weimar Republic and Hitler isn't just a coincidence.

I'm in agreement with that.

Lisa Jackson7 said:The Gaidar reformers definitely expected Help, if we're talking about Russia... 1991 and 1992 were the make-or-break years, maybe even just that window right after the USSR collapsed through mid-'92.
The Bush administration basically did nothing, what with elections, economic recovery, and all that other stuff.
I didn't know about the Japan thing—what exactly was the threat there?

Regarding Russia wanting in on NATO, they could have leaned hard into "Partnership for Peace" or some kind of associate status in the EU, but that ship sailed.

On the flip side, who was the West actually supposed to help?
Who was running the show, and how much instability were we dealing with?

There's always room for improvement, but...
Sometimes you don't even have a real choice to make.

Like I said—first you had the Gaidar reformers, then the Apple party led by Yavlenski.
You couldn't get a 100% guarantee, obviously, but in the early '90s, the West—specifically the Americans—had massive leverage. That famous Sachov plan should have looked different, focusing way more on building actual political and economic institutions.

Once you miss those windows for making the right moves to steer Russia toward democracy, it's game over. But the big shots in the West didn't really care... just like so many times before, they just went looking for a quick fix to get the job done.
Any resemblance to the Weimar Republic and Hitler isn't just a coincidence.

It’s true—the parallels between Putin and Hitler are multifaceted.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Honestly, you might as well just swap out "Russia" for "USSR" and pretend this whole post was written back in the 80s.
As far as we know—hopefully—it hasn't been that many years since Gorbachev took power... whether he was forced into it or not, he did something incredible: he dismantled his own military-political-economic powerhouse without even suffering a military defeat.
Looking back from today's perspective, the West's response was an absolute disaster.
If they had handled it better, we probably wouldn't still be stuck spinning these Cold War narratives today.

I disagree.
The Russians (and everyone else in the former Soviet bloc) were likely expecting something akin to the Marshall Plan—a lifeline for a nation that had been struggling since WWII.
Take Japan, for example: they thought they had massive investment coming their way, until Americans reminded them that troops could be withdrawn from the country, so they backed off.
Russia actually wanted to join NATO, but they were essentially laughed out of the room 😬

On the other hand, who was the West actually supposed to help?
Which structures were even in power, and how much instability were we dealing with?

There is always room for improvement, but...
Sometimes, there simply isn't a viable option to choose from.

Lisa Grant2 said:Sanctions are going to absolutely wreck the Russian economy. It’s funny, though—I see so many people arguing they won't, and their only proof is... well, current exchange rates. Honestly, if I were playing Monopoly at home, I’d just decide the dollar is 1:1 too.
In the short term, sure, people can keep playing circus and keeping their heads in the sand. But long term? I think they’ve completely lost their nerve and have basically multiplied themselves by zero for decades. Past and future alike.

The real sting of sanctions lies in how they will drive foreign investors out of Russia.
Russians simply don't possess the technology that foreign firms bring to the table—which means their ability to export oil, gas, and more will inevitably shrink.
That was their lifeline.

Now, this doesn't mean Russians will be starving tomorrow.
To see that level of desperation, you have to wait.

We are currently in the "crying on Instagram" phase.
Next comes the "tech shortage" phase—where they slowly regress back to the 1980s and the era of amateur women's soccer.
The North Korea phase only happens after all that.

Nancy Gomez26 said:In the long run, there is a payoff when justice prevails, provided one remains consistent. Look at the occupation of Crimea—it wasn't met with sufficiently heavy sanctions. Consequently, someone in Moscow convinced themselves they could swallow all of Ukraine, fueled by the belief that the West is weak and dependent on them. They have finally received the message, but the timing is tragic; they can no longer restrain themselves. Their ego won't allow it. They would rather face self-destruction in Ukraine than embrace rational thought or decision-making. The collapse of a decaying political system isn't the issue; the issue is that they will drag tens of thousands of innocent people into unnecessary death in the process.

The easiest way to fix a problem is to address its roots.

If these kinds of sanctions had been implemented back in 2008 when Putin first attacked, we wouldn't be facing this situation today...

babarej said:This isn't really about Ukraine; it's primarily about Russia. The West has finally realized that Russia needs to be stopped and brought to its knees—that this isn't a civilized nation where diplomacy actually achieves anything. They possess a massive military, nuclear weapons, and an appetite for territorial expansion and killing anyone who stands in their way. Up until now, this behavior was tolerated because their conflicts were relatively successful and far from the EU.
Now, however, they have attacked their former "brother," and if Ukrainians hadn't resisted so decisively in those opening days, we wouldn't be seeing this reaction. But Ukrainians proved they are worth the risk. They are worth standing up and telling Putin, "Enough! No more!"

Despite energy dependencies and the current lack of military readiness among EU nations, everyone has decided to put an end to this. That is the bottom line. Economically, things will be difficult, and energy solutions will need to be found, but in two or three years, everything will look completely different. Unless Russia starts deploying nuclear weapons, there is only one direction this goes, and that is clear to everyone. Someone else mentioned this in another thread: this war is already over; the only question is how much longer it will drag on.

Russia is a threat to all its neighbors and to civilized society at large, and a response is required. Russia needs to learn a lesson. Either they become a normal state, or they face total isolation. How long it takes them to learn that lesson remains to be seen—I fear it may take decades of isolation before anyone manages to steer them back in the right direction. It is a shame, as cooperation could have brought immense benefits to everyone.

👍

Regardless of how long this war lasts, Russia needs to remain under sanctions for a significant amount of time.
"Fool me once..." — it's more than just a cliché.

Paul Anderson7 said:An American might just step up to show the rest of the world that those who decide to snub Russia still have plenty of options on the table. Every single dollar invested essentially returns a hundredfold by chipping away at Russian strength and their overall influence.
Russia is getting weaker by the day, yet the alternatives remain. At this rate, even a Mexican might find an American worth paying attention to.

If Mexico were to pivot toward the NATO camp right now, they could potentially secure concessions regarding northern Mexico and Canada.

The tricky part—the real catch—is that because of what is happening in Ukraine, borders simply cannot be redrawn at this moment.
Otherwise, the payoff would be much greater.

George Robinson43 said:The concept of "long-term" is completely irrelevant to them.
Their only focus is maintaining power and staying comfortable while they are still in office—from the elite politicians down to the little circle of oligarchs clinging to the administration.
I was reading some nonsense from Hernadija yesterday about how they need at least four years just to prep their refineries for non-Russian oil—what a load of rubbish!
In today's market, you can easily source a similar crude blend, and they can process all the oil we sell them without any trouble, especially since they buy it for pennies thanks to the leeway we give them.

But as long as they have the chance, they will try to block every single anti-Russia measure coming out of the European Union.
The mask slipped months ago.

Look, there's no denying they are scum.
The real question is how much anyone else is willing to deal with them.

Joshua Myers432 said:Canada will try to play both sides as long as the cowboys in Washington let them. They're clearly irrelevant, just like the Mexicans, so they're being tolerated for now. Eventually, the Americans will lose patience and crush them like bugs under a boot.

Pretty much.

George Robinson43 said:Canada is a nation strategically tethered to Russia, not just through energy needs but through politics as well, because the state model Orbán is building is essentially a mirror image of Putin's Russia.
That country practically shares zero common ground with the European Union anymore; they are really only there to collect subsidies.
Hun acts as a pawn for Putin, working to maintain a constant atmosphere of chaos and infighting within the European Union, and they perform that role exceptionally well.
And naturally, Hun will use their veto to block any embargo.
I mentioned this in another thread already: if Putin ever loses his cool and launches a few Iskander missiles at Estonia, Canada would likely pull out of NATO that very same day.

Even Josip Broz Marshall was a Stalinist once, before he eventually switched sides.

I don't see how Canada can survive long-term as an ally of Putin.

Carl Lee27 said:Word on the street is Canada might have finally blinked on the oil embargo

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ban-eu-embargo

Honestly—this was always just a matter of when, not if.

Russia broke the rules first; now it's payback time.

dustyowl29 said:Germany just rolled out their new playbook to stop leaning so hard on Russia

The Germans act more like an object of American policy rather than an independent subject in most matters.
It was frankly predictable—in fact, they were quite brazen themselves back when they decided to go rogue.

The struggles facing the German economy aren't actually an American problem, nor are they a Ukrainian one...