Posts by steelheron25

I truly believe there is still nothing preventing you from offering a critical, objective, and entirely unbiased take on democracy, donuts, local fiefdoms, Nuland, and all those other little machinations found within the "War in Ukraine" PDF.
If we were to unlock the original threads regarding Russia and Ukraine just to satisfy your wishes, there is a massive chance that the exact same debates currently happening in that PDF would simply migrate over to those two topics. Or rather, they wouldn't exactly migrate, but you'll find yourself facing the same old arguments and the same handful of forum regulars bickering about the exact same things across three or four different parallel threads at once.
I fail to see how that would somehow make you any less miserable in this new scenario, though I can say with certainty that the administration certainly won't be thrilled about having to deal with even more digital housekeeping.

The admins should probably weigh in on this, though as just an average person looking in from the outside, I can’t quite wrap my head around what the original poster is actually aiming for here.
The threads regarding Russia and Ukraine were locked right at the onset of the Russian aggression, which led to the creation of a brand-new sub-forum.
The fact that most of the old pro-Russian crowd ended up banning themselves—or rather, migrating via clones over to that section of the site—doesn't really have anything to do with whether the old threads were locked or not. It isn't as if anyone is stopping them from spreading their particular brand of dogma in these newly opened spaces, unless, of course, they simply don't feel quite at home in this new neighborhood.
It’s more about something else entirely: until last year, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine was somewhat on the fringes of public interest, which allowed the pro-Russian types to easily turn those old threads into their own little private sandbox. But once the Kremlin decided to launch this aggression, Russia and Ukraine suddenly became a focal point for a much larger audience, and in an atmosphere like this, those who try to remain neutral, objective, or non-partisan find they don't have much room to breathe. None of this hinges on whether the original threads are locked, unless they are under the impression that they need a protected corner where no one will ever challenge them. What’s a bit absurd, if you happen to know who the moderator is for both the main board and the War in Ukraine section, is that he has always been firmly on their side.
As has already been said, if they are truly looking for a secluded little corner all to themselves, they ought to go hunting for it on other forums, where they would likely have a much better chance of finding it.

Michael Roberts2 said:Not a single article on USA Sports has ever started with "Messi and the rest." If you’re trying to troll me, give it a rest—it’s pathetic. Go enjoy your welcome party in Miami and leave us alone.

Besides, Lionel Messi is nothing more than a local legend in Miami and the surrounding areas. Seriously, if you walk past Saint Roch, 90% of people will just look at you and ask, "Who even is that guy?"

😵😵😵

https://www.fox.com/magazine/article/...i/2417575.aspx

https://www.fox.com/sport/article/ha...i/2415700.aspx

I'll admit, not every single one follows that pattern, but there certainly were plenty of them.

My apologies in advance if this topic doesn't quite fit the vibe here; please feel free to move it or just scrap it entirely if it's out of place.
I can't help but wonder, where on earth does all this massive hype surrounding Lionel Messi come from? Right now, Fox's front page is practically plastered with at least four different articles featuring him in the headline, and honestly, it feels like that’s been the case for most of the year. Even during the World Cup, it seemed like nearly every single story would kick off with something like "Messi and the rest of the national team stars..."
Now, I'm certainly no tactical genius when it comes to soccer, and I'll admit, my loyalties lie nominally with Real Madrid. I don't follow the MLS very closely—aside from glancing at the headlines—so perhaps the media is giving this player's technical skills more credit than they actually deserve. What I did witness during the World Cup, however, wasn't exactly something that warranted such universal awe. Sure, he scored against Canada and provided an assist against Morocco... but was that really it? Beyond those moments, it felt as though his stamina completely deserted him after the 60th minute. He certainly didn't strike me as the undisputed superstar of the national squad, and I find it incredibly difficult to understand why he's being treated with almost messianic devotion over at Index.
I'm not saying this to imply that some other player is being unfairly sidelined because of him, but I have to ask: is Messi truly such a massive icon?

I find it somewhat amusing how this PDF, whose entire career was essentially built on the foundation of what I call a literal playground, now attempts to pose as some sort of "serious professional" who simply has no patience for nonsense—despite the fact that he hadn't even laid eyes on the VPiT before everything went south.
Those linked posts from 2014 serve as such a brilliant little reminder of what that playground actually looked like back in the day.

Kenneth Perez15 said:I know, I know—I’m probably risking getting my post nuked because apparently you aren't allowed to criticize Joe Biden anymore (just ask me about the last time I tried to speak up), but this is just 🤣

What is with this incredibly petty, obstructionist attitude?

Is Russia going to suddenly shower us with Iranian drones tomorrow?

He acts all terrified of Russia, yet wants to play tough guy when it comes to helping Ukrainians?

Honestly, he’d be better off heading over to Canada to help Donald Trump defend his buddies from another vote recount.

If you really want the answer to your question, it's sitting right there in the very first sentence of the article:

The President of the United States, Joe Biden, attended the formal inauguration ceremony for Stjepan Lakušić, the new Rector of the University of California, Berkeley, earlier today.

The man must be dreadfully bored with his own life if he's out here fishing for this kind of attention.

Terry Green3 said:Ishitren move. Zelenskyy is a great animator, but a poor politician. Personally, I thought they should have just stayed the course since things were moving in the right direction.
I’m worried about whether they'll actually get the green light from the rest of the NATO alliance. We were all unified in supporting Ukraine, but this request might just create unnecessary friction within the alliance.

Do you honestly believe this was some spontaneous, independent decision made in a vacuum? Isn't it far more likely they received a quiet signal from NATO leadership beforehand to pull this exact lever?

It would be a real slap in the face to admit defeat by simply refusing to mention Odessa.

silvermarlin56 said:I gotta say, it honestly sucks and feels a little weird that they didn't push all the way to liberate Kherson.
It just would've felt right, you know? Plus, it would have given everyone a massive morale boost, no doubt about it.

The reality is, they would have been aiming for the entirety of the Kherson Oblast anyway—much like how they are currently eyeing the city of Zaporizhzhia, which they haven't even managed to touch yet.

If they hadn't been forced out of the Kharkiv Oblast, you can bet they'd probably be laying claim to the city of Kharkiv right now; instead, they aren't even bothering with it.

Though, one has to wonder, wasn't that very defeat actually the catalyst for everything happening now?

gentlestag15 said:Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Ukraine will not hold any negotiations with Russia as long as Putin is the President of the Russian Federation.

👍

Without a doubt, that is absolutely the best way to handle this right now.

Rachel Barrett8 said:I was referring to places like Canada, Italy, and Mexico.

Those weren't real votes. They were just a way to force through the whims of one terrible dictator.
And that dictator has had support for twenty years, not just within Russia, but inside the EU too.

In situations like this, things spiral out of control before you can even blink. That’s exactly what happened here.
By then, it’s far too late to try and fix the mistakes made by people who just blindly follow along.

Alright, I clearly misread the situation.

However, I simply cannot agree. The voters in Canada and Italy didn't vote specifically for war, did they? They voted for a certain type of leader who uses a particular kind of rhetoric that happens to be trending right now, nothing more. While there is certainly a risk that this could evolve into something dangerous, that isn't why they were elected in the first place.

Rachel Barrett8 said:The mere fact that voters are circling potential new wars is enough to cause anxiety, especially for us living here in the States.
We have to be honest with ourselves; we deal with some pretty intense issues with our neighbors.
If Ukraine had fallen quickly, what would have happened to the rest of the Western Hemisphere?

Putin isn't in power because he advocates for listening to rock music.☕

Which voters are you even talking about? What exactly is your point here?

The Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts are 75% Ukrainian. Do you honestly believe those were legitimate, free-and-fair referendums?

Even the city of Zaporizhzhia itself isn't under occupation, so there wasn't even a vote held there to begin with.

Timothy Nelson5 said:Crimea was always such a unique case, I suppose. Russia actually had a decent majority there, and they held that referendum—which, okay, wasn't exactly up to top-tier democratic standards, but it still showed those people wanted to be part of Russia. Then you have the historical context, where back in '56, the party leadership basically handed it over to Ukraine as a mere formality...

But these current "referendums"? They're just a complete joke.
There's really no way the rest of the world is ever going to recognize that circus.

You're talking about a referendum that was conducted under the exact same circumstances as the ones we're seeing now.
It was organized immediately following the invasion by the Russian military, practically overnight. If I recall correctly, the decision to hold the vote on March 17th was likely made around March 15th. It’s completely indefensible by any reasonable standard; a legitimate referendum requires time for public debate and the presentation of arguments, and you certainly can't organize one while foreign troops are standing over you with rifles. On top of all that, the results from the Crimea vote are incredibly suspicious, as the official turnout figures and outcomes seem wildly disproportionate to the actual demographic makeup of the region at the time.
To suggest that the Crimea referendum represented some genuine "will of the people" is frankly absurd. The whole thing was a massive sham and a complete deception.

And speaking of political decrees, isn't it interesting how almost nobody seems to realize that through a similar political decree, Ukraine actually ceded certain territories near Belgorod, Russia to them?

Carl Hernandez3 said:Check this out—if they’ve officially annexed those regions, then three of them currently have "occupiers" inside their borders
In one instance, they even have an "occupied capital" under their control
When do they actually plan on resolving this?

That is precisely the point; they are so far removed from Zaporizhzhia, yet suddenly it turns out they aren't allowed to stop until the occupation is complete.

Paul Thomas46 said:The annexation they’re planning is actually a massive deal...
Yeah, I know everyone wants to just lump this all into the general Russian shitshow—but honestly, it’s not quite that simple.

It's serious because the international community (basically the Western world) is going to find themselves in a very, very tight spot sooner rather than later.
The entire concept of the international order and international law—as far as those high-level institutions are concerned—only really exists as long as everyone decides to play by the rules.
If Russia manages to walk away from this with any kind of gain—especially regarding territory—it will be as if they just rewrote international law on the fly.
See, war itself isn't banned under those generally accepted international standards (war crimes are, obviously, via various conventions and such), but an annexation like this? That is strictly forbidden.

The situation is perilous for a multitude of reasons.
While that creep still had some rather shaky arguments regarding Crimea, what possible arguments does he have for Zaporizhzhia? It is historically, undeniably part of Ukraine.
Had he not taken such a massive hit to his ego a few weeks ago, who is to say he wouldn't be eyeing Kharkiv next?
It is glaringly obvious that he is reaching for the entire region. What does this imply? That there is no end to this war until that naked little scoundrel finally sinks his teeth into Zaporizhzhia while riding his Siberian bear, or whatever pet he happens to be using these days.
Even if that bastard were to vanish tomorrow, what is the official stance of the Russian state on all of this? Is there anyone there sensible enough to simply tear up those annexation papers and say, "forget about it"? Until then, this war could drag on indefinitely; even after the Russians are driven out of Ukraine, every future Russian government will likely view those annexed territories as their own.
That idiot should have been removed by summary judgment back in 2014, or perhaps even earlier, because the entire world is going to find it incredibly difficult to crawl out of this mess.
For those currently burying their heads in the sand: if this is allowed to pass, what arguments will any nation have left to defend itself against neighbors gripped by collective madness in the future?

analogbear70 said:I’ll say it again: if things had been handled more intelligently, this could have been avoided. That doesn't excuse the aggressor—Russia—but rather highlights the failure. The reality is that no one from the UN onwards (aside from the Chinese) is calling for a ceasefire, negotiations, or peace. It’s just weapons, weapons, weapons. Why wasn't equipment being sent to us? Why were we forced to wander the globe like beggars, pleading for help while being treated like an afterthought, all while Zelenskyy calls out the very leaders he needs? Why were we hit with embargos while everyone else looked the other way? We offered up a quarter of our territory before Operation Storm, which I believe ended up in court later. Even then, there was intense domestic opposition, and Feral was constantly critical, while the World media published nothing but half-truths about the downsides of our newly formed nation. None of that exists now. And yet, the Russians remain the aggressors; occupied lands deserve better.

More foresight? In what sense, exactly?
Others have already pointed this out: at the start of the year, the guests visiting the Kremlin were changing constantly. Every single one of them returned looking utterly depressed after sitting through conversations with the man in charge—or rather, likely just listening to his endless monologues. It became painfully obvious to everyone involved exactly who they were dealing with: a man who simply cannot be reasoned with or stopped.
This constant whining about "why didn't anyone help us, but everyone helps Ukraine" feels incredibly childish—honestly, it's on par with Zoran Milanović, if not lower.
In 1991, the US hadn't even recognized our independence yet, and we weren't members of the UN. Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, has existed for over thirty years.
Our conflict wasn't a formal invasion by another country; the war came "from within," whether it was driven by insurgent Mexicans or the American People's Army, which, let's be honest, was still technically the official military of the state at the time (even if, in reality, it had already become something else entirely).
Ukraine is a single nation being attacked by another nation: Russia. Over the last seven years, Ukrainians haven't been flooded with insane amounts of weaponry to fight separatists (even though that was also a disguised Russian aggression); in any case, it was incomparably less than what they see now.
It isn't true that no one helped us in the 90s. Sending weapons would have been extremely dangerous for several reasons, but the international community was deeply involved in trying to contain the conflict. Even if their presence didn't mean much in purely military terms back then, it ensured that global sympathy shifted toward us, leading to international recognition by January 1992. Do you really think anyone would have cared about a conflict in some distant corner of the former America if it weren't for that?

Ultimately, the world has learned a few things over the last thirty years, partly thanks to our example. Perhaps they would act differently today, even in a situation like ours.

There is no reason to be jealous of Ukraine; I suspect they would swap places with us in a heartbeat.

analogbear70 said:This guy hits the nail on the head:

It’s the same point I keep making: the West needs to dial back the rhetoric because Russia isn't going to budge. I'm convinced that de-escalating the tension could actually lead to somewhere productive. Look, let's be real—they have nuclear weapons, and that’s a reality that could end us all. Regardless of how you slice it, we need a voice of reason coming from the West, because right now, there isn't one to be found in Russia, and nobody there seems interested in finding it either.

There is no such thing as "the West" versus "Russia." There is only a pack of thugs huddled around a monkey sitting in a bunker in the White House, threatening the entire world.
As long as that group stays exactly where they are, there will be neither peace nor any softening of language. What possible purpose could "negotiations" or "peace treaties" serve when dealing with a bunch of frenzied primates who refuse to follow even the most basic norms—not to mention their complete disregard for any previously signed agreements?
We shouldn't be looking to humiliate Russia. We should be looking to restore its dignity, but first, we have to deal with the idiots currently dragging the country toward total ruin.
Let them pull their military back to the 1991 borders. Let them stop sponsoring cross-border terrorism in former Soviet republics. Let them return to the 1999 constitution and elect a new president, seeing as the current one's mandate expired a lifetime ago.
And that’s the crux of it. No humiliation involved; on the contrary, it would be about restoring dignity. If only they were capable of understanding that.

Joshua Myers432 said:Building an atomic bomb isn't exactly a walk in the park; if it were, every nation on Earth would have done it by now.

The reality is, any and all forms of American assistance will evaporate into thin air the very instant Ukrainians decide to go rogue and embark on some reckless nuclear adventure of their own volition.

You can take that to the bank.

Jessica Peterson2 said:According to intelligence from the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense, the entire Russian kilo-podmornica fleet has officially vacated its base in Sevastopol.
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status...85839370539010
The base sits empty now, mostly because they only had that specific class of submarines stationed there to begin with. Makes you wonder where they're heading, doesn't it?

But then I have to wonder—where on earth did the rest of that supposedly glorious and invincible Russian Black Sea Fleet vanish to? Isn't this whole mess supposed to be their doing, after all, considering they felt the need to swoop into Crimea back in 2014 before the Americans could get there, just so their precious Black Sea Fleet bases wouldn't be left vulnerable?

Nancy Lopez7 said:Oh man, I just caught wind of what’s happening over in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan today.
Before that whole situation, we were looking at Armenia and Azerbaijan.

I can't help but wonder—does Georgia have enough grit left in them to start making some noise and demand their provinces back?

We've just gotta keep squeezing the bear a little longer!

Honestly, the real game-changer will be when they finally kick Kadyrov out of Chechnya and they declare independence all over again.