Posts by George Robinson43

Jeremy Peterson4 said:Nah. Zoki already greenlit the Scandinavian countries, and there's no Veto when it comes to the US.

It’s as if he decided to brand himself a traitor all on his own!

“Anyone who votes differently (to admit Sweden and Finland into NATO) will be labeled a traitor by me. And anyone caught having coffee with them will also be called a traitor. There is no middle ground,” Milanović declared.

Sandra Harris2 said:Turkey has dropped its veto regarding Finland and Sweden.

Now we just wait for the inevitable threats and outbursts coming from the White House.

It seems like the Z. m(56) is our final glimmer of hope. 😉

Is there any news regarding the casualties from the de-radicalized shopping mall?

Melissa Rivera5 said:What are you even rambling about? You think 300k professional NATO soldiers would be deployed without any equipment? I guess you're getting them mixed up with the Russians and sending guys out in half-broken gear.

Well, the guy was actually talking about the Russians.

Terry Green3 said:If NATO pulls a move like that between May 5th and 12th, we’re heading straight for an open conflict. Nobody is going to foot that bill—it’s just common sense. So, I'd say it's unlikely.

Are Turks and Greeks really going to send their brigades while they’re still at each other's throats?
The Britons might, but Johnson is fighting for his political life in Parliament right now.
Macron? Unlikely, not after those recent election results.
The Germans won't be sending mass numbers, given their history.
The Italians... well...
As for the US, with everything happening domestically and having spent two decades bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, sending a massive new contingent overseas is a huge gamble.

The likely scenario? They'll count all the forces from Romania and Poland toward that 300,000 figure, add another 50,000 from various other countries to the current 40,000, and claim they have 300,000 combat-ready troops at any given moment.
We'll see if they actually walk the walk.

It seems you haven't realized that we are already at that "5 to 12" threshold.
What else would the Russians even need to do?

The friction between Turks and Greeks was ten times worse during the Cold War.
BoJo basically handed the win to the Democrats in the elections. Who's actually breathing down his neck?
What's Macron going to do? Claim France will defend itself within French borders even if the Russians reach the Rhine?
Those two American tours over the last twenty years were war tours. This isn't a militia; it's a professional military. Whether they are stationed in Wyoming or Prague, it's all the same to them.
Nobody is asking the Germans for anything while those former Putin puppets are in power. Scholz already knows he's a lame duck once his term ends, and it's doubtful the Democratic Party will fare any better than the wreckage of the Democratic Party here in America. After all, it's a nation that is 100% dependent on US and UK military aid because they can't defend themselves against anyone. They barely even have an army.

Terry Green3 said:Do you honestly think it's that simple to just strip other regions of their manpower and equipment—to hollow them out instead of actually reinforcing them?
If it were that easy, the Russians would have done it by now instead of dragging people in from behind the Urals and treating their own people like garbage.

Which ones?
Oklahoma? Nebraska? Montana?

Terry Green3 said:Which NATO members are actually going to cough up that much manpower and hardware? Honestly, this feels more like a threat than an actual reality.

The number of NATO troops stationed in Europe will return to levels similar to those seen during the Cold War. For instance, West Germany alone hosted 900,000 soldiers back then.
That is precisely why I am arguing that this initial 300,000 is merely phase one.

If there is an actual attack on a NATO member, then yes. In peacetime, nobody is going to absorb a cost like that.

???
The goal here is deterrence! We want to prevent an attack, not wait to mobilize NATO after Russian forces have already marched into Vilnius, Riga, and Tallinn.
Taking this proactive step is significantly more cost-effective in the long run.

Arthur Miller7 said:NATO is dropping 300,000 troops into position

Given how the Putin bots over on Rossiya 1 are constantly hyping up new special operations—like strikes on the Baltic, sabotaging oil infrastructure in the Netherlands, or even the total disappearance of the United Kingdom—I suspect this deployment of 300,000 is merely the opening act!

Christian Torres3 said:Canada is calling for emergency peace talks to end the war between Ukraine and Russia...

Whenever someone brings up "peace negotiations" that are basically just surrendering to Russian terms, I know I'm dealing with some Putin-esque piece of trash.

Ugar says this:
Some of Canada's partners in the EU were far too eager to fight Russian President Vladimir Putin, which is dragging the continent into a crisis," said Balázs Orbán, warning that they should abandon such a strategy.
"They want war and believe they can defeat Putin, that they can occupy the White House and that is their goal",

There's no more hiding behind the guise of neutrality in Canada. This is now overtly pro-Russian.

brightheron64 said:It feels completely absurd to lay an entire nation—one that suffered such horrific devastation during WWII—at the feet of its own dark history, though I have to admit that once I truly confronted these facts, my empathy for the Polish people shifted in ways I didn't expect... Not to mention some of their more recent "achievements," like that whole "pregnant women registry" controversy...

But, if we look back at the past:

Kielce: A pogrom following a Holocaust that Poland is still grappling with today
In the wake of World War II, Jewish refugees discovered they couldn't actually return to their homelands—a heartbreaking reality that still resonates even now...
.........
The massacre was ignited by a blood libel. It wouldn't have been out of place in the Middle Ages, except this wasn't ancient history or even Nazi Germany—this was 1946, just a single year after World War II had ended...
..........
All in all, 42 Jews were murdered that day across 7 Planty and throughout the city, including a newborn baby and a woman who was six months pregnant. Another 40 people were wounded...
After the Holocaust, so many Jews dreamed of finally returning home. Kielce shattered that dream; for Jew, Poland could never truly be home again...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ver-180967681/

Automatic translation:
https://www-smithsonianmag-com.trans...r&_x_tr_pto=sc

🙂
It isn't right to use the term pogrom. We all know where that word comes from.
Try using something else if you want to engage in whataboutism regarding Russian "enemies."

I truly believe it isn't just the Poles; the entire Eastern part of Europe harbors a deep resentment toward the Russians for reasons that go far beyond any WWII massacre.
For nearly fifty years, they were caught within the orbit of the "Russian world," experiencing firsthand exactly what that entails. Now, they are watching hordes from Dagestan, Chechnya, Buryatia, and Yakutsk tear apart a neighboring nation, while Putin's sycophants in Russia1 threaten Warsaw with a nuclear mushroom cloud.
The mass migration toward NATO by the entirety of Eastern Europe was 100,000% justified. They knew exactly why they were fleeing, and they knew exactly who they were running from.

boldmarlin32 said:Just look at the history. The mujahideen were primarily backed by the USA, then various Muslim nations, and so on...
It even states the USA fought alongside the mujahideen.
That’s my point; everyone has their own version of the story.
The Russians arrived for humanitarian reasons to save Afghanistan from terrorists.
The Americans, Jews, and the West—they all fueled the Islamization.
Which brings me back to what I said. I am tired of hearing these endless Eastern mantras.

However, it wasn't the mujahideen who leveled the country to the ground. That was the work of the Russians.
The Communists staged a coup and attempted to implement a dictatorship of the proletariat. When the leaders in Moscow realized that 90% of the population opposed them and that their plan for a satellite state in the south was failing, they launched an invasion and destroyed everything in their path.

boldmarlin32 said:If we're discussing the 70s...
From what I've heard, the Soviets weren't even the issue; it was the Americans who messed everything up.
Wait, did the Americans get involved in 2001, or was it earlier?

???
Russia essentially leveled Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989.
It's hard to imagine Americans being the ones to spark a communist revolution there!

It seems like this Milsim scenario is actually meant to reflect Afghanistan during Zahir's era in the mid-70s.
I highly doubt there was any tourism back when the Taliban were in power, especially since the Russians basically leveled every major city into rubble during the 80s.

They have a point. It’s honestly embarrassing. I mean, what kind of salaries are we even talking about here?

brightheron64 said:Oh please, let's not get carried away with such lofty optimism...

Let’s try some very basic math here... suppose Russian oil and gas production accounts for roughly 10% of global consumption...

If you shut that off, you’re suddenly missing 10% of your supply that needs replacing. And then what happens...?
Do you honestly think that the other 90% of producers are going to be all altruistic and decide to keep prices steady, or better yet, lower them because they just love us so much?

Let's look at it from a more practical, everyday perspective... imagine you have an abundance of gasoline, while I'm left with nothing...
- The first time, maybe you'll give me some for free because you're such a saint...
- The second time, you'll sell it to me at the standard market rate...
- But the third time? You'll cut me off and tell me it's either a 20% markup or I can start walking...

Where is this idea about shutting down Russian production coming from? Wasn't the claim that "Russia will easily substitute its markets and expand its oil and gas exports"???
What actually happened? If they stop production, they'll be stuck in the Dark Ages. Are they really going to just turn it off?

brightheron64 said:Well, oops...

So, what kind of logic are we working with here? 😲
Are we supposed to believe Iranian oil is perfectly fine, even if it's basically funding an A-Bomb aimed at Israel? 🤔

Some sanctions on Iran were actually rolled back in early 2016. As soon as that was announced, oil prices plummeted to $28. So, really, where is the issue?

Donald Trump brought those back and took out Qasem Soleimani. He also tightened the screws on Venezuela with even harsher sanctions.
But now, Donald Trump is gone.

dustyowl29 said:America needs more oil hitting the market to drive prices down—mostly because Americans themselves are becoming collateral damage from all these sanctions. I mean, gas prices are literally more than double what they were back in 2021.
It’s basically just choosing the lesser of two evils at this point.
They’d much rather lift sanctions on Venezuela or Iran than touch Russia. If oil hits $80, even the Chinese won't bother buying Russian crude just to avoid catching the ire of the US government.
Look, Americans aren't stupid—they haven't been running things haphazardly for a century, after all.
Of course, they put their own interests first, but their main partners are the UK and the European Union.
In reality, the US has the most powerful conventional military on the planet, and they're effectively the leaders within NATO. Without America, Europe is pretty much militarily defenseless..

Once Venezuela and Iran return to the global market, prices will drop significantly lower than $80!

milko84 said:Unless things aren't stable, like in Libya, Syria, or Mexico...

It’s been 23 years, yet you’re still whining about it.
The sting remains... and frankly, it never will.

Noah Diaz said:The SCO nations account for 30% of global GDP and house 40% of the world's population.

I’m laying this out to demonstrate how utterly pointless the sanctions against Russia are.

Of course China isn't going to sabotage itself; they are actually the sole winners in this conflict. Everyone is fully aware that if their red lines are crossed—specifically regarding Taiwan or the South China Sea—they won't give a second thought to European Union idiocy or American hegemony. Just as the Russians didn't hesitate when entering the war with Ukraine.

The European Union is a political dwarf. It holds zero real decision-making power on the global stage and exists entirely at the mercy of its suppliers, so long as those suppliers continue to profit off European fools.

However, you are overlooking this crucial point:
China alone makes up 80% of the SCO's total GDP, yet they build 95% of that wealth through economic ties outside the organization—essentially trading with those who actually hold the capital.
Why is that?

USA vs India: $25,364 billion vs $3,534 billion
European Union vs Russia: $18,000 billion vs $1,800 billion
Japan vs Pakistan: $4,912 billion vs $347 billion
South Korea vs Central Asia: $1,804 billion vs $200 billion

There you have it! It is quite clear to see how limited that economic weight really is, and why China doesn't feel any pressure from the SCO at all.