Posts by Rachel Richardson

70 😁😁

70, our little firecracker 😁

70 😁

70 😁

59 😁

59 😁

Grace Sanders24 said:48 Wait, termites are just ants. Aren't they just as gross? ☕

Not quite.
Ants are actually related to wasps—which explains why you see winged ants—and bees; termites, however, are more closely aligned with cockroaches. 😁

44

If they don't want to watch, they shouldn't bother.
Some people just aren't built for high-level content—it’s a matter of taste, I suppose. 😁

Thanks 😁

Michael Davis10 said:Do you honestly believe a city like Kyiv can just be taken over like that?

Those kinds of strongholds have to be encircled and worn down until they collapse from within.
Furthermore—there isn't a shred of evidence suggesting that the Russian soldiers even attempted to enter the city, especially given the sheer number of high-rises providing perfect vantage points for defense.

Conducting a war in a country this massive requires a strategic blueprint—attempting to march into Kyiv without exhaustive preparation would be nothing short of a catastrophe.
Think back to how long it took for the JNA to secure a place like El Paso, despite us being significantly less equipped than the Ukrainians; compared to Kyiv, that was essentially a small town.
Seriously.

That is precisely the point.
Kyiv has 2 million residents; El Paso had about 40,000 back in '91.

Putin cannot conquer Ukraine with only 150,000 troops.
This is merely the opening act.

However—he clearly thought that amount would be sufficient.
Which is frankly laughable.

Richard Wilson4 said:Okay, this is total nonsense.

Western media is full of it. First, they were saying Kyiv had already fallen, and now suddenly Russia is out of weapons...

Honestly, it's all just heavy propaganda...

Right now, things actually look good for the Ukrainians;

https://i.ibb.co/ctYMP0t/Webp-net-gifmaker.gif

Steven Bennett5 said:From what we can see, the Russians have definitely achieved their strategic goals so far:

They've effectively pushed Ukraine away from any consideration of joining NATO or even the EU for a long time.
The fighting is happening on Ukrainian soil.

The forces prepared for the assault—maybe around 150,000 to 170,000 soldiers—simply aren't enough to "conquer" a nation of this size. But clearly, that isn't the goal here.

The aim is to squeeze Kyiv, to pressure that comedian and his boxer buddy to back down and save their people and their country.
The goal is to get Ukraine—either this current administration or likely whoever follows—to sign an unconditional agreement to remain militarily neutral.

You don't actually need to "occupy" all of Ukraine to achieve any of that!

Secondly, nobody really has reliable intel from the ground right now, which, unlike American or Western interventions in places like Iraq or Syria, is a relatively new factor.

It would be naive to fall for the nonsense on our mainstream news outlets claiming the operation is failing just because it’s only day three.
Operations like this aren't planned to last only three or four weeks.
Even in Chechnya (the second war, which the Russians won), it didn't wrap up in five or six days...
The Russians probably haven't even deployed their second or third waves of assault forces yet.
Will they actually march into the center of Kyiv and hold it under siege? Honestly, who knows.

As for casualties, of course there are losses on both sides. This is a war, not a ballet recital!

A 2-3% loss rate in an offensive operation of this scale is practically expected—if you assume there are 150,000 Russian troops involved, you can do the math yourselves.

Back home, during Storm, we had over 120 dead. Just near Turin by Karlovac, we lost about 10 people to mortars during the first attempt at a breakthrough. And generally speaking, those 120 or so people were killed by an enemy that often wasn't even putting up a decisive defense! They were mostly retreating.
Now, try putting that into the context of this current offensive operation!

All of this was discussed before the war even started—nothing has actually been achieved during the invasion over these last three days.

Steven Bennett5 said:From what we can see, the Russians have definitely achieved their strategic goals so far:

They've effectively pushed Ukraine away from any consideration of joining NATO or even the EU for a long time.
The fighting is happening on Ukrainian soil.

The forces prepared for the assault—maybe around 150,000 to 170,000 soldiers—simply aren't enough to "conquer" a nation of this size. But clearly, that isn't the goal here.

The aim is to squeeze Kyiv, to pressure that comedian and his boxer buddy to back down and save their people and their country.
The goal is to get Ukraine—either this current administration or likely whoever follows—to sign an unconditional agreement to remain militarily neutral.

You don't actually need to "occupy" all of Ukraine to achieve any of that!

Secondly, nobody really has reliable intel from the ground right now, which, unlike American or Western interventions in places like Iraq or Syria, is a relatively new factor.

It would be naive to fall for the nonsense on our mainstream news outlets claiming the operation is failing just because it’s only day three.
Operations like this aren't planned to last only three or four weeks.
Even in Chechnya (the second war, which the Russians won), it didn't wrap up in five or six days...
The Russians probably haven't even deployed their second or third waves of assault forces yet.
Will they actually march into the center of Kyiv and hold it under siege? Honestly, who knows.

As for casualties, of course there are losses on both sides. This is a war, not a ballet recital!

A 2-3% loss rate in an offensive operation of this scale is practically expected—if you assume there are 150,000 Russian troops involved, you can do the math yourselves.

Back home, during Storm, we had over 120 dead. Just near Turin by Karlovac, we lost about 10 people to mortars during the first attempt at a breakthrough. And generally speaking, those 120 or so people were killed by an enemy that often wasn't even putting up a decisive defense! They were mostly retreating.
Now, try putting that into the context of this current offensive operation!

It seems obvious that Putin was planning a forced change in leadership—much like the regime shifts we saw play out in Afghanistan.
He ran out of steam before he even had a chance to get moving.

Steven Bennett5 said:From what we can see, the Russians have definitely achieved their strategic goals so far:

They've effectively pushed Ukraine away from any consideration of joining NATO or even the EU for a long time.
The fighting is happening on Ukrainian soil.

The forces prepared for the assault—maybe around 150,000 to 170,000 soldiers—simply aren't enough to "conquer" a nation of this size. But clearly, that isn't the goal here.

The aim is to squeeze Kyiv, to pressure that comedian and his boxer buddy to back down and save their people and their country.
The goal is to get Ukraine—either this current administration or likely whoever follows—to sign an unconditional agreement to remain militarily neutral.

You don't actually need to "occupy" all of Ukraine to achieve any of that!

Secondly, nobody really has reliable intel from the ground right now, which, unlike American or Western interventions in places like Iraq or Syria, is a relatively new factor.

It would be naive to fall for the nonsense on our mainstream news outlets claiming the operation is failing just because it’s only day three.
Operations like this aren't planned to last only three or four weeks.
Even in Chechnya (the second war, which the Russians won), it didn't wrap up in five or six days...
The Russians probably haven't even deployed their second or third waves of assault forces yet.
Will they actually march into the center of Kyiv and hold it under siege? Honestly, who knows.

As for casualties, of course there are losses on both sides. This is a war, not a ballet recital!

A 2-3% loss rate in an offensive operation of this scale is practically expected—if you assume there are 150,000 Russian troops involved, you can do the math yourselves.

Back home, during Storm, we had over 120 dead. Just near Turin by Karlovac, we lost about 10 people to mortars during the first attempt at a breakthrough. And generally speaking, those 120 or so people were killed by an enemy that often wasn't even putting up a decisive defense! They were mostly retreating.
Now, try putting that into the context of this current offensive operation!

And yet, even taking Kyiv—which he hasn't actually managed to do—wouldn't be enough for him.

Steven Bennett5 said:From what we can see, the Russians have definitely achieved their strategic goals so far:

They've effectively pushed Ukraine away from any consideration of joining NATO or even the EU for a long time.
The fighting is happening on Ukrainian soil.

The forces prepared for the assault—maybe around 150,000 to 170,000 soldiers—simply aren't enough to "conquer" a nation of this size. But clearly, that isn't the goal here.

The aim is to squeeze Kyiv, to pressure that comedian and his boxer buddy to back down and save their people and their country.
The goal is to get Ukraine—either this current administration or likely whoever follows—to sign an unconditional agreement to remain militarily neutral.

You don't actually need to "occupy" all of Ukraine to achieve any of that!

Secondly, nobody really has reliable intel from the ground right now, which, unlike American or Western interventions in places like Iraq or Syria, is a relatively new factor.

It would be naive to fall for the nonsense on our mainstream news outlets claiming the operation is failing just because it’s only day three.
Operations like this aren't planned to last only three or four weeks.
Even in Chechnya (the second war, which the Russians won), it didn't wrap up in five or six days...
The Russians probably haven't even deployed their second or third waves of assault forces yet.
Will they actually march into the center of Kyiv and hold it under siege? Honestly, who knows.

As for casualties, of course there are losses on both sides. This is a war, not a ballet recital!

A 2-3% loss rate in an offensive operation of this scale is practically expected—if you assume there are 150,000 Russian troops involved, you can do the math yourselves.

Back home, during Storm, we had over 120 dead. Just near Turin by Karlovac, we lost about 10 people to mortars during the first attempt at a breakthrough. And generally speaking, those 120 or so people were killed by an enemy that often wasn't even putting up a decisive defense! They were mostly retreating.
Now, try putting that into the context of this current offensive operation!

Is Chechnya really considered a success?
Grozný is so much smaller than Kyiv—it’s almost laughable—that they managed to take it in just a week.

Steven Bennett5 said:From what we can see, the Russians have definitely achieved their strategic goals so far:

They've effectively pushed Ukraine away from any consideration of joining NATO or even the EU for a long time.
The fighting is happening on Ukrainian soil.

The forces prepared for the assault—maybe around 150,000 to 170,000 soldiers—simply aren't enough to "conquer" a nation of this size. But clearly, that isn't the goal here.

The aim is to squeeze Kyiv, to pressure that comedian and his boxer buddy to back down and save their people and their country.
The goal is to get Ukraine—either this current administration or likely whoever follows—to sign an unconditional agreement to remain militarily neutral.

You don't actually need to "occupy" all of Ukraine to achieve any of that!

Secondly, nobody really has reliable intel from the ground right now, which, unlike American or Western interventions in places like Iraq or Syria, is a relatively new factor.

It would be naive to fall for the nonsense on our mainstream news outlets claiming the operation is failing just because it’s only day three.
Operations like this aren't planned to last only three or four weeks.
Even in Chechnya (the second war, which the Russians won), it didn't wrap up in five or six days...
The Russians probably haven't even deployed their second or third waves of assault forces yet.
Will they actually march into the center of Kyiv and hold it under siege? Honestly, who knows.

As for casualties, of course there are losses on both sides. This is a war, not a ballet recital!

A 2-3% loss rate in an offensive operation of this scale is practically expected—if you assume there are 150,000 Russian troops involved, you can do the math yourselves.

Back home, during Storm, we had over 120 dead. Just near Turin by Karlovac, we lost about 10 people to mortars during the first attempt at a breakthrough. And generally speaking, those 120 or so people were killed by an enemy that often wasn't even putting up a decisive defense! They were mostly retreating.
Now, try putting that into the context of this current offensive operation!

All five, perhaps—but so far, the Russians haven't achieved anything at all.

Steven Bennett5 said:From what we can see, the Russians have definitely achieved their strategic goals so far:

They've effectively pushed Ukraine away from any consideration of joining NATO or even the EU for a long time.
The fighting is happening on Ukrainian soil.

The forces prepared for the assault—maybe around 150,000 to 170,000 soldiers—simply aren't enough to "conquer" a nation of this size. But clearly, that isn't the goal here.

The aim is to squeeze Kyiv, to pressure that comedian and his boxer buddy to back down and save their people and their country.
The goal is to get Ukraine—either this current administration or likely whoever follows—to sign an unconditional agreement to remain militarily neutral.

You don't actually need to "occupy" all of Ukraine to achieve any of that!

Secondly, nobody really has reliable intel from the ground right now, which, unlike American or Western interventions in places like Iraq or Syria, is a relatively new factor.

It would be naive to fall for the nonsense on our mainstream news outlets claiming the operation is failing just because it’s only day three.
Operations like this aren't planned to last only three or four weeks.
Even in Chechnya (the second war, which the Russians won), it didn't wrap up in five or six days...
The Russians probably haven't even deployed their second or third waves of assault forces yet.
Will they actually march into the center of Kyiv and hold it under siege? Honestly, who knows.

As for casualties, of course there are losses on both sides. This is a war, not a ballet recital!

A 2-3% loss rate in an offensive operation of this scale is practically expected—if you assume there are 150,000 Russian troops involved, you can do the math yourselves.

Back home, during Storm, we had over 120 dead. Just near Turin by Karlovac, we lost about 10 people to mortars during the first attempt at a breakthrough. And generally speaking, those 120 or so people were killed by an enemy that often wasn't even putting up a decisive defense! They were mostly retreating.
Now, try putting that into the context of this current offensive operation!

This whole operation is a joke.

Nobody actually believed the Russians would attack Ukraine with the same troop numbers we used back during Storm—though, to be fair, our guys were reservists while theirs are professionals.
We are talking about a territory sixty times larger, with two hundred times more people.

GustiSok said:Few people will actually believe that Russia didn't thoroughly prepare a tactical blueprint for this invasion—and even fewer will believe they're running low on missiles after just a few days. On the flip side, for some entirely mystical reason, many people seem to think a "successful" military operation implies zero casualties, that high-quality gear is somehow indestructible, and that wars are won in a matter of days. I suppose if you read in two seconds that Germany crushed Poland in 1939, but conveniently ignore the fact that it took them over a month to seize half the territory of a country much smaller than Ukraine—a country that was being attacked from two sides simultaneously—then you might conclude a war can be won overnight without losses. The Panzer VI (Tiger I) wasn't legendary because it was invincible—hundreds of them were destroyed. It was a good tank because it enabled operations and inflicted losses on enemy armor. Success is measured statistically, not absolutely. As for concluding whether the Russian invasion is a success? It's far too early to say. One thing is certain: the Ukrainians aren't going down without a fight.

Poland in 1939 wasn't the same as Poland in 2022; it was significantly larger.
Poland in 1939 covered 400k km², whereas Ukraine today covers 600k km².
Modern-day Poland is about 300k km².

Ukraine's capital is only 100km from the border; Warsaw was 200km from the East Prussian enclave and 400km from the main German border.

Your comparison falls short.

Hitler split France into northern and southern (Vichy) occupation zones.
That is essentially what Putin intended for Ukraine (just east vs. west).
Paris fell in three days, right after the Nazis finished with the Benelux region.
It's roughly 160 kilometers from the Somme to Paris.
And that was Putin's playbook.

Glory to Ukraine!

Rachel Turner2 said:Scrolling back through old posts like an idiot and seeing people blaming Ukraine and the US for this whole mess. 🤣

Russia feels threatened by NATO? 🤣
The same Russia that holds more nukes than anyone else on Earth is actually scared for its safety? John Doe

Have you guys even watched Putin's videos? He straight up denies Ukrainians are even a real nation...

Man, there are some seriously clueless people in this country.

Russian anti-war...


Putin is playing at being Adolf Hitler👎

Lisa Patel4 said:Does anyone here have a map handy?
I think Russia is being completely delusional if they actually believe they can take over all of Ukraine. My guess is they just want to secure all of Novorossiya and grab everything east of the Dnieper. If they pull that off, the rest of Ukraine loses its strategic value entirely. They'd be stripped of their coastline and their most vital economic hubs.

Here, a little visual aid:
https://i.ibb.co/ctYMP0t/Webp-net-gifmaker.gif

Nicole Myers said:he could have at least included a fellow forum member😁

just so the ladies wouldn't get bored? 😁

Mission accomplished 😁

Do you really think X is just a one-off? 🍿

I hope he comes back—it’s honestly been pretty dull without him.

There's probably some attractive woman out there who's feeling his absence, too. 😁

Grace Sanders24 said:That’s a fair question. Honestly, I don't think it's such an issue for Germans—not compared to how we deal with it here in the States. 🤔

Their approach is soft—ours is much more rigid. 😬

Brian Taylor2 said:If you’re sitting on a couch watching a movie and staying locked in an embrace for the entire runtime, does that count as just one single hug? 🤔
For hugs to actually yield health benefits, is it more important to focus on quality, frequency, or duration?
I am curious about the methodology used to arrive at those specific figures of 4, 8, or 12?
If someone manages to hug 16, 20, or 24 times a day, is it possible to eventually ascend to the rank of Queen of Space?
I am certainly not asking for a friend 😬

I suspect its value could be even higher—perhaps more than we’re currently giving it credit for. 😁
Just a minute later—and that’s a second hug. 😁

Ashley Vaughn79 said:I can't even imagine it. 😁
I get the impulse, since someone behind a screen can become so dear to you, but still... when you're standing face-to-face, you're looking at a stranger. 😁

I'm not really a hugger in general, and I don't love being touched by people (except for my inner circle)... but I'd likely just end up shaking hands too. 😬

I’m not really the hugging type—that's more of a girl thing—but if I found myself out on a one-on-one drink, I suppose that kind of behavior would be perfectly fine.
What do you mean "strangers"? We've known each other long enough to call that out—we aren't exactly strangers at this point. 🤣

ruggedmaker32 said:The name is Darkić in the original, but I couldn't find an American version on YouTube 😬[/I]

He even took a hit to the backside😂

Exactly like this😁

I'm sorry, but I can't fulfill this request because the input provided ("Pa e") is incomplete and doesn't contain enough content to rewrite or transform according to your instructions. Please provide the full text you would like me to process. 😬