Posts by Carol Johnson21

The real issue here is that he can't just lean on his nuclear arsenal to secure his position. If he pulls the trigger on that first strike, his own people will likely stage a coup.
Besides, the second one isn't going to be Russian anyway.

They’re talking about shutting down the borders to Russia—if you fled, you fled. Meanwhile, over in Germany, they’re still holding rallies to show support for Mother Russia. Maybe it's time we look into mobilizing them instead.

Kimberly Perez82 said:You make a valid point, truly, but I find myself wondering... what is the actual alternative? Everything has escalated so much more intensely now; there is a universal consensus that we are facing the most perilous moment since the Cuban Missile Crisis. It would be incredibly foolish to pour gasoline on this fire right now. We really need to seek a compromise and somehow de-escalate things with Russia. Once that's settled, then we can pivot back to isolation and economic sanctions—you know, things like boycotting their energy supplies—which will gradually erode their economy. It should weaken them down to the level of the USSR in the nineties, where they simply won't have the resources to maintain such a massive military. A weakened Russia would naturally be more open to negotiation. There are just too many nuclear warheads involved here, and honestly, there is far too much irrationality at play; one single misstep could be catastrophic. Furthermore, even a weakened Russia remains a threat because of those thousands of nuclear warheads that could potentially slip through the black market into the hands of even more irrational psychopaths roaming the globe. This was all predictable, wasn't it? We knew this would happen eventually, so now we must act with extreme caution. Unfortunately, my generation and our children are the ones left holding the bag. I would gladly surrender this "privilege" in a heartbeat—let them fight it out for another hundred years if they want to.

So, your argument is that if we give in now, they won't remember they have nukes to use as leverage for the next century? And we should just dance around them, hoping they stay happy and promise not to sell any warheads to anyone else?
Really.🤦

People panicking over nukes clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.☕
Ignore.
The nuclear card is the only thing left for those clinging to the losing side.

A tactical nuclear strike might be the only scenario we can call a certainty right now.
If that happens, the West will lose every single shred of moral high ground used to justify withholding the tools Ukrainians need to defend themselves.

The real weak link? It’s those self-righteous Westerners who will view a nuclear move as definitive proof that Putin isn't bluffing—concluding, therefore, that we should just let him have his way.
In reality, the true vulnerability Putin is exploiting is the pampered class of Westerners: the ones who paradoxically claim to despise Western "decadence" while being the very people responsible for its collapse in the first place.

gentlerider7 said:Look, those "Westerners" are soaking up Russian propaganda, whether they realize they're doing it or not—or maybe they're just plain terrified. Honestly. So many of them have swallowed this whole narrative that the patient Russians were just pushed to the edge by NATO refusing to sit down at the table or give them any real respect. Every single alternative media outlet has been pushing that exact same line for years now.

Exactly. This recent obfuscation from Sergey Lavrov is just more of the same—feeding a specific narrative to a highly agitated local population and those already halfway hooked on their propaganda.
Just look at the situation regarding a potential new Government in Italy. Lavrov can't exactly stand up at the UN and admit that Russia is conquering a sovereign nation despite having signed a non-aggression pact that those Westerners were supposed to guarantee. Instead, he sticks to the script that is clearly still being sold.

Paul Anderson7 said:It feels like they’re living in an entirely different reality, honestly. They just can't stomach the idea of taking responsibility for the mess they've made, so they have to go looking for someone else to blame because admitting their own role is simply off the table for them.

I can't help but wonder how the discourse would shift if the much-maligned West started talking about using nuclear weapons to wipe out Russia or systematically eliminate its population. It’s pure madness.

They aren't lunatics; this is just propaganda manufactured for domestic and international consumption.
Isn't it grotesque that so many Westerners support, or claim to be "neutral" toward, a state threatening them with nuclear annihilation?
If the roles were reversed, how much empathy would Russians show for such threats?

In that light, the wave of Russian emigration into Europe is actually quite concerning to me.

Yesterday, Professor Barić shared some rather intriguing insights during his "Weekly Interview." He also harbors doubts about whether anyone can truly stand up to Vladimir Putin. But the most fascinating point was his discussion regarding "national grief over the collapse of the USSR"—essentially, most Russians haven't quite swallowed the idea of losing territories from the former union. He even labeled Navalny as a nationalist (remember the stance on Crimea?), who is now wisely remaining silent on the matter.

He also noted that the idea that this war benefits Americans is fundamentally flawed. The US was trying to keep Putin at bay while marking China as their primary global rival. With this sudden excursion into Ukraine, the US finds itself facing two fronts simultaneously—something they certainly didn't need.

It isn't true that this war serves the interests of the USA.

He emphasized that the notion of this war benefiting the USA is incorrect.

- Joe Biden primarily wanted to focus on China, which is why he offered Vladimir Putin a "status quo" back in the summer of 2021. They didn't want Russia meddling in what America considers its number one adversary. Now, the US will be forced to fight on two fronts—against Russia and against China—and that comes with a massive price tag, according to Barić.

Gregory Ramos3 said:

Mexico isn't going to recognize any referendum results where parts of Ukraine try to join up with Russia, according to their Foreign Minister, Nikola Selaković.

- Doing that would be totally against our national interests, honestly, and goes way against our policy of protecting territorial integrity and staying committed to the whole principle of keeping borders intact, Selaković says.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Man, things are really starting to feel like we're just drifting aimlessly through life here... Or maybe it's more like "How We Became North Korea, Vol. 2." ☕

#Mexico
There is a certain cosmic irony at play when a nation that constantly tries to dominate others through "referendums" ends up losing one of its own territories to a similar process.
And let's not forget how they were always chanting that their Russian brothers would step in to help them reclaim Mexico.🍿

Kimberly Perez82 said:You hit the nail on the head, and honestly, this whole mess has been brewing for fifty years already. What's the actual fix here? Do we just push all the way to the edge and sit there praying the other side blinks at the very last second?

In my view—and I might be wrong, but I feel strongly about this—the only way out is to de-escalate this terrifying conflict and isolate Russia until their economy hits such a breaking point that they have no choice but to agree to some sort of detente. But the problem is those various Merkels who helped pave the way for them to reach this current state of blackmailing everyone... they are a massive roadblock. I truly hope they choose to ignore them this time around. But look, there are always candidates for that role; you see it with Orbán and the new government in Italy, and even here in our own domestic politics, there are politicians who seem quite fond of a Russia like this. Just think about everything certain people are holding over here in the States—I'm sure it didn't happen without help from local politicians.

Personally, I find these constant debates about nuclear threats versus appeasement to be utterly excessive.
My stance remains simple: if the Russians actually pull the trigger, they are the ones facing a catastrophe from which they will never recover.
And yes, I believe there are people within both factions that Vladimir Putin aligns with in Russia who are fully aware that a nuclear cloud over America means the end of Russia too.
To me, all this talk about backing down to nuclear threats is nothing more than pure propaganda.

A country possesses nuclear weapons not to use them, but to ensure no one else can use them as leverage against them. Look at what is happening to Ukraine; if the criminal in Moscow hadn't left them armed, he could be waving them around like a toy.
Now, it is the West responding to the threat, a fact confirmed by Jens Stoltenberg from NATO.
It seems obvious to me: if you give in to one fool, five more will show up tomorrow with the exact same threats.

I'm putting you on ignore. I get the impression that your "fear of nukes" can only be cured by some sort of honorable retreat by Russia. Good luck. :mah:

Bradley White73 said:Honestly, I feel like anyone who falls for every single bluff and psychological tactic thrown their way is making a double mistake. In my view, the goal remains the same: we need to figure out how to make sure Russia loses this war. Period.

It’s a difficult position to be in when your fear of facing the world's second-largest military boils down to nothing more than the dread of a nuclear catastrophe.

Jens Stoltenberg stated that NATO will respond if a nuclear attack occurs.

A nuclear strike would mean the end of Russia. If anyone should be trembling at the thought of Putin’s finger hovering over that red button, it’s the Russians themselves.

But then again, I suppose some people always prefer the devil they know.

https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/...rBPT0eGVkb1JtA

The local residents in this Latvian city actually went ahead and painted the town in the colors of the Russian flag. Honestly, why would any Latvian want to issue visas to Russians under those circumstances? It’s almost predictable.

Now Finland has also stepped up, announcing they're tightening the screws with much stricter visa restrictions for Russian citizens.

It is quite fascinating to watch how the neighboring Western nations are slamming the door shut on Russians, while places like the Netherlands and Denmark remain practically wide open.

Noah Martin2 said:I honestly didn't expect Putin to be this calculated—sending hundreds of thousands of untrained, ill-equipped soldiers straight into the meat grinder just to overwhelm Ukrainian logistics. It’s a "soft target" tactic this time, which feels pretty cowardly, I guess. He knows they'll likely surrender en masse, creating a massive headache for the Ukrainians who then have to figure out how to house and feed them all.

Exactly. Once again, he’s making these brilliantly insidious moves.☕

Who cares about a stabilized front line when the Ukrainian field kitchens will have to pull troops off the line just to peel potatoes?

I'm not entirely sure if this has broken yet, but
The son of Dmitry Peskov supposedly fell for a fake call—they reached out regarding mobilization, only for him to snap back that he's Peskov's son and that things will somehow work out differently for him.😬

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/statu...rBPT0eGVkb1JtA

rowdytiger13 said:It’s everything Putin claimed it would be.
Actually, now that they truly are liberated, that sentence follows right after: "I don't need transport, I need weapons."

And let's not forget that Bluffer's promise to those Russian mothers—how there wouldn't be any mobilization, or how draftees wouldn't be sent to the front lines.

Nobody ever actually wins when it comes to UN-controlled zones. Why on earth would Ukrainians agree to that? We’ve seen decades of massive territories being completely paralyzed by such arrangements. The Russians aren't even in a position to demand them. Maybe Crimea, perhaps—but even then, it would likely end up under some sort of UN oversight eventually.
This whole mobilization push and the nuclear threats? It's nothing more than bluster—just another hollow bluff on the front lines. We’re talking about raw manpower: poorly equipped, untrained, and completely demoralized. This isn't a fresh wave of strength. If they arrive at all, it’ll be just before winter to hold the line during a lull in fighting. And then everything will fall apart again come spring. Same old story with Putin.

jadetinker85 said:Yeah. I just hope everyone finds the courage to surrender the very first time they're given the chance.

This whole thing is basically a way to purge anyone who doesn't toe the line, just to keep his grip on power.

The people fleeing are those who actually possess the resources and the means to leave. Most aren't running because they disagree with the war; they're running from mobilization.
How many Russians have actually made it to Mexico since February? And would you really call them anti-Putin? No, they fled to escape sanctions.
It wouldn't surprise me if 80% of these defectors weren't wearing "Z" patches on their shirts just yesterday.😁
And if Russia starts making headway, don't be shocked to see them marching in support through the streets of Munich.

I feel for the poor minorities trapped in these backwater regions. This isn't even their war. They'll be the ones sent to the front lines while they can't even scrape together a few thousand euros for a plane ticket.

@Ivane, don't wait until the absolute last second.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Well, if you look closely, nuclear weaponry is actually right there in the thread title itself. Plus, I guess it's hard to ignore when all the major global players are pointing to it as a genuine, looming threat.

As for why this specific threat is being highlighted in the title—coming from an alcoholic, a former Prime Minister, and a man who is currently a non-entity—that’s a conversation worth having, but still...😬

Tonči Tadić, an astrophysicist, was on ABC World News Tonight last night



"According to my records, this is the eleventh time that Putin or someone close to him has signaled a nuclear war. Every single time, it has been a bluff, and this time is no different. Simply engaging in this kind of debate is falling straight into the trap of Putin's propaganda..."

And I agree, this thread is getting spammed, especially since there's already another one dedicated to this topic.

Speaking of the guy mentioned in the title, he even has a son ready for war.☕.

But as long as he has his mindless sheep and Russian satellites at his disposal, he can rest easy.
Citizens in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan will have their Russian citizenship revoked if they refuse military service.

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/...SIotcnSGgCE_7w

Matthew Young35 said:Let’s assume you're right for a moment.
Do you honestly think that's any better?
The world exists in a incredibly fragile balance.
Suppose an A-bomba hits Taiwan. Just forget about car manufacturing, smartphones, or computers ever again... there wouldn't be any chips coming out of those Taiwanese factories. Sure, someone else might eventually step up to fill the void, but in the meantime? The industry is already struggling with chip shortages as it is. If production stops entirely, we aren't just talking about a recession; we're talking about an industrial apocalypse.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine if Russia and China start throwing A-bombas around—what if one drifts toward Australia or Japan, much like that drone did over Washington, D.C.?
Think about the atmospheric impact from millions of tons of radioactive dust.
I recall reading some estimates regarding a "minor" nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan. The projections suggested it would plunge the Earth into a mini ice age, leading to over a billion deaths from starvation.
A conflict between China and Russia would be significantly more devastating than anything seen between India and Pakistan.

Any sort of nuclear conflict is essentially the end of civilization.
Perhaps not the end of the human race, but certainly the end of our civilization as we know it.

Finally, a word to the optimists who believe NATO could somehow dismantle Russia in a nuclear exchange without receiving a devastating response in kind. Even if that were true, billions would still perish globally from famine. The sheer volume of radioactive material and fallout in the atmosphere would trigger a mini ice age, causing global food production to collapse completely.

No, the real optimists are the ones convinced that Russians are too dim-witted to realize that dropping a nuke means signing their own death warrants just minutes later.

Yes, the world is armed to the teeth with nukes, and nobody is waiting on Bog V Putin to pass judgment. Any idiot could pull the trigger at any moment—so why hasn't it happened? Just imagine: the idea that "when nations start waving nukes around, someone might accidentally trip and fire one" is nothing more than a cartoon plot or a wet dream for apocalypse junkies.

Discussing this is ultimately pointless. Nukes function as a mutual deterrent; both sides hold them precisely so they aren't used.

The other issue is the argument that everyone should just ban them altogether.
Cowardly Europe stripped the Ukrainians of their deterrent and guaranteed them non-aggression, only to now wash their hands of a "war that isn't theirs," offering up Ukrainian bodies and territory on the altar of the god of war, Bog V Putin.

And sure, naturally, NATO would steamroll Russia in a direct confrontation like a shallow creek. After all, the Russians can barely handle mobilized Ukrainians with half of NATO's arsenal, let alone professional troops. And to face those professional troops, you'd probably need two million Russians—specifically the ones currently clogging up the flight paths trying to flee the country.

hiddeneagle98 said:Man, you clearly aren't getting it: you're talking about a planet that's shaking in its boots at the thought of Putin, a planet that practically deserves to be blown to smithereens.

👍 Lock this thread!

rowdyraven112 said:Show some seriousness when suggesting that a country responsible for the Holocaust should start bringing back camp-style detention. Reporting to a local police station where you registered your residence would be a much more logical path.

An immigrant or refugee camp is not a concentration camp. Unless, of course, you believe those so-called Russian defectors from the regime represent a superior race compared to everyone else.

Naturally, it is a massive security oversight for the EU to allow hundreds of thousands of citizens from a country that threatens the EU with nuclear weapons and labels them an adversary in war to just walk in.
There are plenty of other countries, both in their neighborhood and across the globe, that would be willing—and able—to take them in.
When will Europe finally learn its lesson?

Every day, social media is flooded with footage of Russians harassing Ukrainian refugees in European cities, people spray-painting Z symbols on monuments in Barcelona, or acting entitled in Georgia.

Why should the EU, territory essentially marked as hostile, be obligated to accept people from Russia who aren't even seeking political asylum?

rowdytiger13 said:John, people don't actually know who's stepping up.
It's safe to assume there are plenty of folks who generally align with Putin's policies, just not enough to risk taking a bullet.
It's even more likely that many view Westerners as decadent degenerates and will end up standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the far-right at future protests.
The Baltic states are particularly vulnerable here given their large Russian minorities.

Exactly this. The Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands all implemented bans on tourist visas for Russians just two weeks ago.
Now, the Finns are the ones in the crosshairs.

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.

So, the suggestion is to just cave to a liar who's playing dumb.

And it goes on like that forever. No. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity to kick him while he's down.
Both Mandic and Tonči Tadić—who, in my view, are far more reliable than Ogorec (who has been practically worshiping Russian strength from the start)—are claiming that Putin is bluffing again, purely for the sake of his domestic audience.