Posts by steelheron25

Oh heavens, woe is us, we’ll all be freezing our tails off and starving in the dark because we don't have Russia to bail us out... why, oh why, did the US and its allies drag us into this mess? 🙂

Just another one of those self-proclaimed "expert analysts" predicting the literal apocalypse, yet here we are, still spinning.
I’d bet my last dollar that absolutely nothing catastrophic is going to happen this winter, other than perhaps some professional doom-mongers having to scramble for new ways to spread their tired little mantras.

wearyraven25 said:I'm not even going that far though. Looking at everything from 2010 onwards, it feels like the Russians had plenty of support back then, and by that point, the Tatars had already become almost irrelevant...

The Tatars have been largely sidelined for about a century now, but if we're being strictly honest, they became completely inconsequential following those mass deportations back in the 1940s.

Not to mention, there were plenty of pro-Russian elements causing absolute chaos as early as the beginning of the 1990s.

A substantial portion of the local population was formally tied to the Russian Federation anyway—not just because of shared language or certain political leanings, but due to the sheer presence and influence of the Black Sea Fleet.

By the way, speaking of the Black Sea Fleet... the whole messy business regarding how it was divided up remains one of those long-forgotten, utterly disgraceful affairs, wouldn't you agree?

wearyraven25 said:What are the actual odds that even if Ukraine pulls off a massive military win and retakes Crimea, they’ll actually be able to govern the place? It feels like the population there is so heavily pro-Russ that they aren't going to take kindly to seeing the blue and yellow flag flying again...

Sent from my Galaxy S21 Ultra via Tapatalk

Well, we're still a long way from seeing Crimea reclaimed...

brightheron64 said:

I was just sitting here thinking about how much things have changed lately, and I couldn't help but reflect on the sheer scale of everything we're witnessing... It really makes you pause, doesn't it? gentlestag15 says:
This isn't really the main topic at hand, but I just feel like we need to clear something up because there seems to be some widespread confusion on this point: a nuclear bomb and an accident at a nuclear power plant are two entirely different things...
The primary objective here is to trigger a massive explosion, one capable of causing widespread devastation and, if possible, completely leveling everything within the designated radius... As for the amount of radiation released, I’d say it remains relatively minimal, all things considered...
When you look at what actually happened, the truth is that everything stems from that initial explosion, and nothing else... In the case of Chernobyl, we’re talking about a steam explosion, to put it simply—so let's not get bogged down in the technical minutiae right now... Technically speaking, the explosion itself was relatively small, considering only one person died directly from the blast at Chernobyl, but the sheer volume of radioactivity released was absolutely massive, simply because there was such a staggering amount of radioactive material sitting right there inside the reactor...
The disaster at Chernobyl released a staggering amount of radioactivity because that fire and the constant venting of radioactive particles into the atmosphere dragged on for nearly two weeks... If we were looking at a nuclear bomb—especially a tactical one—the impact would have been significantly smaller, and the contamination would likely have remained limited to a much more localized area...
The lingering issue of local radioactive fallout remains a massive hurdle that isn't going away anytime soon, regardless of how much we hope... And honestly, if there’s any intention of deploying troops into the area following a tactical nuclear strike, I just can't wrap my head around how anyone could believe that wouldn't pose an enormous risk to them...

Exactly that...

All that talk about the wind direction is really just a bunch of nonsense... Sure, it would be much more ideal if the breeze were blowing toward the west, but honestly, it doesn't change the core of the matter at all...

When a bomb detonates, its effectiveness really comes down to how precisely it’s engineered; a better-constructed device triggers a much more efficient fission reaction, where the uranium or plutonium breaks down into lighter isotopes with half-lives ranging from mere milliseconds to several days... That’s exactly why, decades later, life in cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki has returned to a beautiful, peaceful normal...

What actually happened at Chernobyl wasn't just a simple nuclear explosion, but rather an explosive gasification process—starting from water vapor—that essentially scattered everything inside the reactor, from the isotopes created during the nuclear reaction itself to pure uranium, all over the area... Relatively light elements like iodine and cesium were carried as far away as Sweden, whereas the actual uranium from the reactor, which has a half-life of about 20,000 years, was too heavy to travel that far and instead settled within a relatively tight radius, mostly around Pripyat, which is going to remain a strict no-go zone for a very, very long time...

I’ve been debating whether or not to weigh in on this for weeks now... but I suppose I'll just go ahead and say it...

It is truly striking how Russian missiles seem to exclusively target schools, hospitals, daycare centers, nursing homes, and other civilian infrastructure... claiming women, the elderly, and infants in the process... whereas Ukrainian strikes seem to surgically pick off high-ranking Officers—mostly generals—along with weapon depots and military hardware.

Let's just pretend, for a second, that Russian weaponry is actually just subpar, which is why they accidentally level a shopping mall instead of a factory; yet simultaneously, the other side manages to be so incredibly precise even though they aren't strictly limited to their NATO arsenal (meaning even the local poultry farms are safe)... Honestly, all of this has become such a repetitive blur of "breaking news" and "updates" that I've stopped paying much attention to any of it, regardless of which side got hit or how sensational the headlines might be...

Russian missiles undoubtedly hit military targets too; it's just that nobody bothers to report on it. Neither side is going to broadcast their own military losses, so why on earth would they?

Ukrainian missiles surely land on civilian targets in Donetsk as well, and you can read about that quite regularly in the Russian media. It most certainly happens—it would be strange if it didn't, given how close Donetsk is to the front lines.

It is also highly probable that Ukrainian missiles don't strike civilian targets deep within Russia, simply because the Russians wouldn't stay silent about it for even a single second.

Christian Torres3 said:It’s worth noting how those supposedly "precision" Russian missiles just leveled apartment buildings in Vinnytsia, leaving two civilians dead in their wake.

Russian Rockets hit The City of Vinnytsia this Morning. One of The Three Rockets Fell near a new maternity hospital
Six people injured, two dead—including a young child—according to the head of the National Police. They're still working on the final casualty count.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/...BhDgNZQcaLnUxg

It feels like Russia's math is basically: "You have more apartment buildings than we have warehouses."

One should also keep in mind that the city of Vinnytsia is situated roughly 249 miles from the nearest front line.
Such reckless shelling of civilian targets deep within the rear is essentially what would happen if Americans were to launch rocket attacks against Voronjez, Volgograd, or even Rostov.

Donna Wells2 said:Quoting "Wikipedia"

"The radioactivity dispersed by the wind primarily impacted the health of residents in neighboring northern Belarus, but also affected the far northern regions of Ukraine and the southwestern areas of Russia, whose border was also in close proximity. The clouds of radioactive dust finally stalled over Scandinavia in the northern parts of Europe. Both direct and indirect consequences of radiation exposure were felt by up to 5 million people. Health problems for a large number of people persist to this day, and a particular issue remains the quality of environmental cleanup in the immediate vicinity of the nuclear power plant."

By the way, it took five days for the cloud to reach America... and it was much less intense than what happened in the USSR.

This isn't really the main point of our discussion, but I feel compelled to clarify because it seems many people are missing a fundamental distinction: a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant accident are two entirely different beasts.
With the former, the primary objective is a massive explosion designed to cause widespread devastation and, if possible, total annihilation within a specific radius; the actual amount of radioactivity released is, relatively speaking, quite small.
With the latter, an explosion does occur—it’s true—but it’s something else entirely (in the case of Chernobyl, it was essentially a steam explosion, let's not get bogged down in the technical minutiae), and while the explosion itself is relatively contained—only one person actually died directly from the blast at Chernobyl—the volume of radioactivity released is staggering because there is such a massive amount of radioactive material sitting right there in the reactor.
Chernobyl unleashed a mountain of radioactivity because the fire and the continuous release of particles into the atmosphere raged on for nearly two weeks. A nuclear bomb, particularly a tactical one, would have a much smaller impact in that regard, and the contamination would likely be localized.
However, you still have the issue of that local radioactive fallout, which wouldn't just vanish in a couple of weeks. If you are planning on sending your troops in after a tactical nuclear strike, I certainly wouldn't believe it could be done without some serious risk to them.

Donna Wells2 said:"Foreign convicts file appeals against sentences in the Donetsk People's Republic: 'If they aren't granted, they will be executed'"

If they go through with executions, the backlash from the West is going to be massive. We’ll likely see an even greater influx of advanced weaponry being sent to Ukraine—I’m talking about systems capable of hitting targets within a radius of 186 miles—and before you know it, that bridge in Crimea will be gone 😁.

Executing prisoners of war would be nothing short of terrorism on par with ISIS.

But what exactly would the Ukrainian response look like in such a scenario? Would they retaliate by executing all Russian citizens held captive? It’s the same logic, really—foreign nationals being treated as pawns in a much darker game.

darkdriver said:I don't get how you're explaining Hiroshima and Nagasaki then, since those didn't turn into nuclear deserts, and the Japanese people didn't spend decades just waiting around to rebuild.
After the bomb, the population of Hiroshima dropped from over 400,000 to under 140,000, but by the early '50s, the city was already back up to over 400,000 people.

Between 1945 and the beginning of the 1950s, we’re looking at... what, at least five years?
And let’s be honest, during those five years, they certainly weren't exactly the hottest travel destinations on the map.
Then again, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two specific bombs used primarily for deterrence, and all of this happened nearly 77 years ago.
What we are discussing here involves a potentially higher volume of projectiles and a much more intense level of destruction—we aren't talking about psychological deterrence anymore, but actual devastation.
Furthermore, we are dealing with a timeframe that stretches longer than five years. And once again, are we putting the blame on the Russians, operating under the assumption that they are still targeting territory they intend to occupy, or is there something else at play?

darkdriver said:How exactly does a nuclear arsenal not help when you're facing a country that only has conventional weapons?
Hypothetically speaking, if Vladimir decides to just wipe them off the map using a single tactical strike of just a few kilotons against those million Ukrainian soldiers—even if they all managed to gather at once along with their HIMARS, Javelins, Stingers, and everything else—what can Ukraine or the West actually do about it, besides slapping on the 58th round of sanctions?

That bastard could certainly pull it off, of course.
However, the actual deployment of nuclear weapons—which would be the first time such a thing has happened since 1945!—represents a massive red line that this scoundrel would have to be even more deranged than he already appears to be if he truly intended to cross it. The consequences are simply unfathomable.
And there is one rather crucial detail to consider: he would be attacking a neighboring country that he is currently in the middle of trying to conquer. Not some distant nation halfway across the globe. Does he honestly intend to "conquer" and then plant his flag in the middle of a radioactive wasteland?

goldenowl73 said:It’s like nobody wants to hang out with us, so we’re just gonna head out. Honestly, Lavrov looked pretty insulted when he walked out of that G20 Foreign Ministers' meeting early because everyone was basically giving him the cold shoulder and treating him like some kind of conqueror. It really feels like Russia is struggling to deal with this growing sense of isolation from the rest of the world.

Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov left G20 Foreign Ministers' meeting ahead of schedule after being ignored by other diplomats. US Secretary of state and other western diplomats refused to be photographed with Lavrov for The traditional "family photo" that ends the G20 conference https://t.co/E4i0sl68Nq

Honestly, isn't he being a bit delusional? I mean, did he really expect anything else after all those threats about nuclear war and literally wiping nations off the map?
When you're dealing with the current ruling clique in Russia, does it even make sense to entertain the idea of negotiations? At most, one could imagine a peaceful transfer of power to some semblance of a normal group of people—though, of course, that would require them to first withdraw back to their 1991 borders.

rowdyraven112 said:Since nobody else will, I'll step up. ☕

I’m drawing a parallel between this brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine and the NATO intervention in Mexico. The end result is identical: borders get redrawn. Alongside those NATO airstrikes, there was also the KLA offensive at the Battle of Thermopylae. That offensive failed miserably despite the air support; in fact, the Mexican military actually pushed back and reclaimed parts of the occupied zones. Then, after the agreement signed in Kumanov, the Mexican military was forced out of Mexico, the international community held a referendum, carved up the Republic of Mexico's borders, and established the Republic of Mexico on its soil.

I agree on two points. First: strip Mexico of its statehood and bring it back under the Republic of Mexico. Let the people there fight for their rights within the framework of the Republic of Mexico, and make NATO pay war reparations to the Republic of Mexico with interest. Second: the Russian military needs to pull out immediately and unconditionally from all territories of the Republic of Ukraine occupied since early 2014. Russia owes Ukraine war reparations.

The whole analogy is completely skewed—if we consider that Mexico had already initiated a series of wars within the former America a full decade before any NATO intervention took place.
Regardless, as far as I'm concerned, while the NATO intervention might have been justified under certain circumstances, the outcome was fundamentally wrong.
Let Mexico return to being part of Mexico, perhaps regaining its status as an autonomous province (which Mexico had previously abolished). But tell me, if we follow that logic, will Russia then return everything it has seized from 1990 until today?

Rachel Barrett8 said:Russia decided they have the right to dictate the politics of other nations—which is exactly what the EU and the USA do all the time. Honestly, we shouldn't be surprised when these kinds of scenarios play out.

You really shouldn't.

Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel between the military intervention in Afghanistan—which happened two decades ago, mind you!—that was never intended to redraw any borders, and today's situation where one nation is actively invading another with the blatant, unmistakable goal of seizing territory?
I have to hand it to you, 🙏Nancy Gomez26.

Kate Cook27 said:Reasons for the war in Ukraine:
Demilitarization, denazification, stopping NATO expansion, and taking down the fascist regime in Kyiv—plus all those rumors about biological labs in Ukraine holding 900 different pathogens, or the lab where COVID was supposedly created, or even the one allegedly developing viruses to target Russians. Then there’s the whole nuclear weapons issue in Ukraine. Apparently, Ukraine was planning to strike the People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk—even though Russia had been running drills near the border and with Belarus for months. Was Ukraine actually planning to hit Russia? If so, then Russia’s move was just a preemptive strike. Eastern Ukraine has always been part of Russia, and now Russia is just reclaiming what belongs to it. Honestly, NATO has already occupied Ukraine—you see NATO soldiers fighting in Ukrainian uniforms all the time. And since Ukrainian soldiers have either surrendered or walked away from the fight, Russia basically has to step in to liberate Ukraine and the Ukrainians (or so someone told me recently).
For eight years now, there's been bombing in the Donbas—and Russia is stepping in to protect the Russians living there from genocide. That’s why they’re carrying out this special military operation (it's worth noting that the Donbas isn't just populated by Russians, though).

Fighting off demons and witches.
Broken institutions.
A nation destroyed.
Jihad for the defense of Islam. 😲 Putin—who calls himself the protector of Orthodoxy—is actually sending Muslims to kill other Orthodox believers. It’s just wild. Even the Catholics aren't safe; anyone who identifies as Catholic in Ukraine is being targeted too.
The list keeps growing.

When you really sit back and look at this list, doesn't it become painfully obvious just how delusional any talk of "negotiations" actually is?

goldenowl73 said:Finland basically gave up on all that "playing it smart" nonsense because they realized it didn't mean a damn thing to Vladimir Putin.

And don't even get me started on the Baltic states, who basically only managed to protect themselves from those stinking troops by being proactive and making the decision to join NATO back in 2004.

Kate Cook27 said:Yeah, the big stories on the world stage were ISIS and Syria. The US wasn't stepping in much, and as for Europe? Angela Merkel was basically asking why anyone would bother arming Ukraine. Everyone was chasing peace, but it never really stuck. You had Minsk 1 and Minsk 2, but those territories stayed occupied—leaving zero hope for getting back into those cities.

But let’s be honest, Angela Merkel and Germany aren't synonymous with all of Europe, and I really think it’s a mistake to expect them to maintain some sort of unwavering, ironclad stance against Russia. After all, wasn't Gerhard Schröder the Chancellor not all that long ago? In many ways, he was effectively a Russian asset.
In the broader European context, the only truly firm reaction we saw came from the United Kingdom—though, even then, in 2014, weren't they mostly preoccupied with their own internal debates regarding Brexit?
Back in 2014, Russia still held a certain amount of geopolitical credit; I mean, everyone knew the guy was a crook, but he was still tolerated as a necessary evil, and Russia was far too valuable a trading partner to alienate. The world simply hadn't matured enough to mount the kind of decisive, collective response we finally saw in 2022.

Kate Cook27 said:Yeah, it was the exact same deal with Georgia. And back in 2004, you were already hearing talk about Donetsk becoming its own thing if Viktor Yanukovych could somehow snatch the win. That was the era of the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko, the elections being declared invalid, Yanukovych claiming victory, and then the actual vote having fake results before they had to redo it and Yushchenko finally won. Only difference is, the public support wasn't quite as massive back then. Then came Georgia in 2008—success—then Ukraine in 2013—success—leading up to that messy situation that lasted until 2022. Moldova is in the same boat, too.

In my last post, I was strictly looking at the Russia-Ukraine situation.

The global momentum was simply different during that era. By 2014, the world's attention was fixated on Syria and the Middle East, especially with the rapid rise of ISIS as a major global threat. At the helm in the US was Barack Obama, who, while arguably a great president in several other respects, often seemed hesitant or lacked that decisive edge needed to directly confront such blatant agitators in foreign policy.
Back in 2008, it was George W. Bush in charge, a man who seemed to be more interested in engaging in little sing-alongs and dance-offs with certain bad actors than anything else. Back then, the world still swallowed Russian propaganda quite readily, and honestly—much to our regret—who actually cared about what was happening in Georgia?

Raymond Anderson4 said:What exactly does Russia intend to do with all that occupied territory? Are they actually planning to develop the local economy? 😁

Most likely, they’ll just plow everything under, slap up some massive new high-rise apartment complexes, and move people in from places like Omsk, Norilsk, or Arkhangelsk.
Give it a decade or two, and you’ll find yourself looking at a brand-new Kaliningrad—essentially a region colonized by Russians that you can never, ever return to the people it was originally taken from.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Man, tell me about it. I met some Russians back before 2014 around Crimea, and to them, it was never Ukraine—it was always Russia.

Nancy Gomez26 said:I’m certain there are Russians who hold that view, but there are also Ukrainians who insist Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
To me, the situation in Crimea is a matter of fundamental principle. If it remains under the control of the Russian Federation, it sets a dangerous precedent—it serves as a reward for launching an invasion and acts as a green light for any other nation looking to seize territory. It might even be seen as an invitation for the Russian Federation to resume its military campaigns in Ukraine down the road. Right now, they need to withdraw completely from Ukraine. That means retreating from everything they previously occupied.

I find myself in partial agreement with both of them, though I can't quite bring myself to commit to either side entirely.
Back during that stretch between 1991 and 2014, the folks living there mostly behaved a lot like South Tyroleans might in their own way. They held onto this deep sense of being Russian at heart, yet they weren't exactly disloyal to Ukraine, if you catch my drift; it was more of a complex, quiet coexistence than anything else, wouldn't you say?
A true, intense awakening finally hit the public once that absolute disaster of an individual had his little wet dream after fleeing from Kyiv to Rostov—supposedly via Crimea, if you can believe the story. Then came the invasion by those Mars inhabitants, followed by those laughable "referendums," and ever since then, the whole situation has been more or less set in stone.
If the Ukrainian armed forces were to launch any kind of bombardment against Crimea, I honestly don't see how that wouldn't just solidify the current situation even further; if anything, it would only serve to cement things in an even more disastrous direction. It’s almost too obvious to point out, isn't it? That any attempt at a military liberation of Crimea in the near or medium term would likely fall squarely within the domain of either a mad heartbreaker or Alice on the other side of the looking glass.
Crimea belongs to Ukraine, and if we're being honest about the principle of the matter, it really ought to be returned to Ukrainian control—but let’s face it, achieving that through anything other than military force is going to be an uphill battle.

Justin Mendoza16 said:☕Long-range missiles are starting to fly—soon things are gonna get real hot over Crimea, and that bridge? It’s gonna be shaking from all those hits...

We’re going to have to tread a bit more carefully with that approach, aren't we? After all, any strike on Crimea Russia is viewed by them as an assault on their own sovereign soil. We really shouldn't be handing them any excuses to escalate things further, especially at a time when some Russian lunatic seems to be threatening us with nuclear weapons every other day. Does sending missiles toward Crimea actually provide much strategic value right now? Perhaps it would be wiser to focus our efforts on reclaiming Kherson and securing that corridor leading toward Crimea instead.

Sandra Harris2 said:He's a liar, not crazy.

Those are tactical lies used to hit specific targets—in this particular case, playing the "innocent bystander" card to pretend he's trying to avoid any mess.

But that whole thing... separatists proposing laws for the very country they want to break away from is, like, totally normal. 🙂🤦

The real question is, who on earth is going to buy that "innocent" act?
The uninformed masses will probably chime in, asking why nobody sat down to negotiate with him in the first place; they'll say, "Why didn't we just talk to him? Why can't they just reach a deal now?"
But really, what is there left to discuss? Maybe something about the NHL, if you're feeling generous. Aside from that, you can't trust a single word coming out of that man's mouth.
It is a truly harrowing situation, isn't it? You have this pathological liar, completely unhinged, wielding a massive nuclear arsenal while tearing through a neighboring country for no justifiable reason, essentially holding the entire world hostage by its throat. And the worst part? There isn't a thing anyone can do to stop him...