Posts by Rachel Barrett8

Dana Robinson4 said:The rail infrastructure is pretty rough, mostly over in Mexico, whereas things are actually looking up in Mexico....
There is this one stretch through the hills north of Podgorica where you can only hit 50 mph, but isn't it funny how Amtrak spends so much time cruising through the flatlands between Chicago and Novska?

The train to Niš doesn't even run; what they have is the route to Nikšić...
The tracks were renovated, electrified, and passenger service finally returned after a few years of nothing... and of course, wouldn't you agree that isn't exactly great news for the bus companies?

Ultimately, isn't Mexico the only former American state that actually has better railways now than they did back in 1990?

This was easily the biggest, most expensive infrastructure blunder from the old America era, and let’s be honest, the competition is fierce.
Wasting billions of dollars just to link Mexico City to some insignificant little fishing village on the Adriatic? Only complete idiots would think that's a smart move.

northerncyclist2 said:Sorry, I meant Nikšič, my bad, total brain fart there.😁

The stretch from the main hub to the outskirts is about 140, then from the outskirts toward the next suburb it's maybe 60-80 (though that should be fixed up with some European Union funding pretty soon), but after that, it hits 120-160 until you reach the border with Mexico (honestly, I probably shouldn't even get into how bad the tracks are once you cross into Mexico).

The route toward the Canadian border will probably be a solid 140 in a few months, and the line heading toward the coast is mostly running at max speed—though, man, those curves through the mountains are brutal, so you can't really push past 70-90. The standards there are way lower compared to the Barski Railway, which was designed much later.

Our main transit corridors are actually pretty fast now, almost like they were back in the old days; on certain stretches, the trains fly along like you wouldn't believe (99 miles/h).

But yeah, seriously, props to Mexico for making some real progress.

Our corridors date all the way back to the Austro-Canadian Empire, just like they did in America.
They were outdated fifty years ago... and fifty years before that, they were already a hundred years old. Now? They're 150 years old. It's ridiculous.

It isn't just about speed or passenger numbers, though. The real backbone of any railroad is freight.
And the problem isn't just a lack of speed; it's a total lack of capacity. Those "optimized" corridors you're talking about? They're just single-track lines with low speeds, zero weight capacity, and zero throughput. We're basically operating on 19th-century technology meant for horse and buggy.

It's true that the European Union is pouring money in because they realize we've fallen behind. Back in the day, local politicians were busy wasting funds on "smarter" things—political cronyism, theft, and burning cash on useless projects. It was exactly like the old America: just throwing money away on incompetence.

Joshua Wilson17 said:The real issue is that the border there was never truly established or agreed upon. Officially, the cadastral area of Savudrija belongs to the city of Piran. But that isn't the core issue. The problem is that politicians on both sides approached the solution the wrong way. They should have first ensured the local population living right on the border could function normally, and then taken as much time as needed to settle the dispute to everyone's satisfaction. Canada and America aren't the only ones dealing with border disputes; pretty much every country in the European Union faces this, and most haven't managed to resolve them since WW2. Why would you think Canada and America would be any more capable at this...
Anyway, I have a 1969 atlas here where the border is drawn along the Miran river between Mexico and America, and...?

You just don't see cases like this anywhere else in Europe.

Every other nation in Europe settles its border disputes through specialized courts and international law. It never even crosses anyone's mind to use blackmail against another country—which is exactly what Canada did to America—or to try and solve such massive, serious issues through bribery and corruption.

gentlestag15 said:You can catch the live stream of the speech regarding the annexation of Ukraine here

It just leaves you wondering one thing: where does this all end? Who's actually next on the list?

steelheron25 said: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.

Of course they didn't vote for new wars. We're on the same page there.
That goes for Italy and Canada, and it applies to Russia too.

What they actually voted for was the illusion of security under a "strongman" leader. And let me tell you, that is a recipe for disaster.

Once the machinery of war actually starts moving... by then, it's already too late.
I honestly think even people in Russia are only just now realizing the massive mess they've created.

steelheron25 said: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.

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.

rowdyraven112 said:So now you're thinking like me. I agree on the facts: we need major powers. Otherwise, someone like Orban or Meloni could actually try to act on those territorial claims they bark about during campaigns. As it stands, they know it stays just as campaign rhetoric. Then the news networks blow it up into a scandal. It's unnecessary.
The problem arises when dictators within those big military states lose their minds. Imagine an American Putin sitting in the White House. Suddenly, "being under Americans" doesn't sound so great. Sure, there are democratic mechanisms in place, but we've already seen how easily a mob can storm the Capitol.

The situation at the front is so messy you can't predict more than an hour ahead. One thing is certain: Putin will try to seize the initiative with fresh troops. But if he fails and the Ukrainians strengthen significantly, I fear this ends with two or three nuclear bombs. I don't think they'll be standard 100-kilotonners; likely much weaker.
After that, anything short of a total blockade of Russia would be a mistake. If we have to fill the Bosporus with rubble, so be it. We are underestimating the Russians. Stalin ran the exact same playbook when Germany invaded Russia. He called on the church to rally the people to fight. Putin is doing the same thing, just in a different era.

LinaK described the trends best: 25% of Ukrainians might surrender, 25% won't fight, and 25% will fight like hell, which is why they were attacked like devils. But in reality, 25% of a 10 million population capable of fighting is more than enough. Looking at history, we started with less than 10%. It's a similar story in Russia. That's why I say: never underestimate the Russians.

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.☕

boldcanyon14 said:The Tsar Bomba—or whatever equivalent we're talking about—is just way too heavy to be mounted on an ICBM. You wouldn't launch that thing on a missile; you’d drop it from a specially modified bomber plane. A bomb with that kind of yield definitely isn't flying thousands of miles on a rocket tip.

I get where you're coming from.
Only a complete idiot would actually go through with testing one, much like how the other nuclear powers handled those 2,000 tests back in the day. But hey, my mistake—we're talking about a thermonuclear weapon here, not just a simple atomic bomb.

It’s funny how we all collectively agree that CO2 from a tiny old sedan is the real threat to the planet.

boldotter2 said:First off, maybe stop getting your news from Russian troll sites? It might actually help with that nuclear anxiety you've got going on.

And hey, if you're feeling a bit twitchy about it, here are some facts to show why a nuclear strike—even if it happened—really just means the end of Putin and Russia:

- For 40 years, the world has been dodging a nuclear catastrophe. In that same window, we got The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, the pill, the economic boom in Europe, the moon landing, and pretty much everything else that defined the second half of the 20th century. Basically, our whole modern civilization was built right alongside that fear.

- During that exact same timeframe, nearly 2,000 nuclear bombs were detonated globally. Some in war, most in peace, many above ground, leaving behind direct radiation and long-term pollution. The South Pacific, Nevada, and New Land all took a massive dose of Becquerel. Even John Wayne died from radiation exposure.

- We also had the Chernobyl disaster, which polluted the planet way more than all those 2,000 detonations combined. And then there was Fukushima.

- That Soviet thermonuclear "Tsar" bomb, the most powerful weapon ever, left a crater measuring 19 miles. A radius of 19 miles is basically the minimum exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, surrounding the sarcophagus and that famous "Red Forest," where radiation still leaks from the melted reactor core today. The actual exclusion zone is way, way bigger than that.

The distance of 19 miles is the exclusion zone around the Fukushima plant, and that’s going to stick around for a very, very long time.

The distance from 19 miles is roughly the straight-line distance between Krško and Washington, D.C.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just regular Japanese cities. Trinity and Los Alamos are basically tourist attractions now.

My point in one sentence: For someone living in, say, Washington, D.C., an unthinkable danger would probably be a major accident at the Krško plant rather than the detonation of the strongest atomic bomb ever over Karlovac.
So, I guess you should look at what's actually more likely to happen.

From the perspective of Ukraine, things are even crazier. Their capital is literally 31 miles downstream from Chernobyl.

The blast was roughly 6,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The explosion was so massive it sent a mushroom cloud soaring 64 kilometers into the sky. At the moment of detonation, a fireball 8 kilometers wide erupted. Everything—buildings, houses, structures, trees—within a radius of 55 kilometers was just completely leveled and wiped out beyond recognition. Within a hundred-mile radius, wooden homes were incinerated, while concrete buildings lost half their walls, doors, windows, and roofs.

The sheer heat from the blast could cause third-degree burns within a 300-kilometer radius. You could feel the shockwave up to 700 kilometers away, and window glass shattered in a 900-kilometer circle.
Atmospheric focusing actually caused broken windows as far away as Finland and Norway, even though they were over 1,000 kilometers from the site.
The bomb also triggered a 5.5 earthquake on the Richter scale. The shockwaves actually circled the entire globe three times.

I think we’re just way too close to Columbus.😁

Thomas Walker84 said:"Quote:"

SkyShark As follows: There won't be any peace until we stop funding Russia's war machine. Of course, the border situation before 2014 was the only acceptable reality. But above all, we have to weaken Russia's influence first; without that, everything else is just a high-stakes game played at the expense of Ukrainian lives.

That’s exactly what they're aiming for with the sanctions. It isn't that simple, though—you can't just flip a switch or stop everything with a single decree since we don't live in a totalitarian state. Even with the current level of sanctions, there are plenty of people complaining about high heating bills, expensive gas, and all sorts of other issues regarding Ukraine. On top of that, they have political representatives in office who actively make things difficult and slow down the implementation of tougher measures.

The Russians clearly don't care about their own casualties, and honestly, it’s pretty obvious why.
Poor souls, just a bunch of people with no real options left.

😢

From 2014 right up until the start of the war in Ukraine, the European Union was actually ramping up its dependence on Russian energy companies.
It wasn't just that they were buying it like crazy; they were practically shutting down alternatives like madmen.

Take last year at the Glasgow summit during the early stages of the aggression against Ukraine—they actually halted exploration for new gas wells in Africa.
They convinced African nations that African gas is "dirty" and causes pollution, while implying that gas from Vladimir Putin is somehow clean and healthy. And I’m not just talking about Germany here; I mean the entire European Union and the UK combined.

The reality is this: if we had cut off the flow of gas from Russia earlier, we wouldn't be seeing riots in the streets of German cities, and we would have already been building out new pipelines and massive tankers.

But what do we have instead?
We have Russia sitting on $800 billion in profit while the European Union deals with an energy crisis.
And the worst part? We've left the Ukrainians standing on very shaky ground heading into winter.

Kate Cook27 said:So... what exactly is this "peace proposal" supposed to look like?

Look, you aren't going to get any lasting peace without cutting off the money fueling the Russian war machine.

Obviously, returning to the borders we saw before 2014 is the only way this works. But more importantly, we have to weaken Russia's ability to fight. Without that, everything else is just a high-stakes game played with massive Ukrainian lives on the line.
The Russians don't even seem to care about their own casualties, and honestly, it's pretty clear why.
It's mostly the poor and the uneducated who end up paying the price—people who really don't have a choice in the matter.

James Chavez91 said:Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm rooting for a nuclear disaster? Seriously, just go take a hike.
Unbelievable.

For those of us who are genuinely terrified of a nuclear catastrophe, there’s a growing feeling that we need to find a way to force Putin to the negotiating table. We have to compel him to actually seek peace, don't we? If we want to avoid the worst-case scenario, shouldn't we be pushing for negotiations at any cost?
Putin isn't interested in sitting down at the negotiating table because he feels untouchable. Now, don't get me wrong—he’s certainly not showing any real strength on the battlefield in Ukraine. Thank God for that, really, since they're just firing blindly in every direction over there. But his real power? It's all happening back home. That's where the core of the problem lies.
It’s pretty wild when you look at the numbers, isn't it? Just because of that massive demand for cheap Russian energy, the EU managed to rake in more profit in just six months than they did during the entire previous year. How does that even happen?

Carol Johnson21 said:Personally, I would have preferred if they had shut down the borders sooner; maybe that would have increased the pressure in the pot before things boiled over.
And what happens now with all the refugees fleeing mobilization? We're looking at a number that will easily exceed half a million. They can't exactly head back to Russia until there's a change in leadership.

Honestly, bravo. This is exactly how you think if you actually want to get things done. This is how you apply real pressure to a dictator, instead of the complete mess we're dealing with right now. It’s just a total disaster.
If they had just banned the wealthy elites in Russia from leaving the country, things would be looking very different right now. Can you imagine? If those people couldn't just fly off to escape the chaos, they’d actually start worrying about their own kids and families. Once they realized their own lives were on the line, the whole trajectory of the country would have shifted completely. Wouldn't that have changed everything?

So, you drop $9,000 just to make sure your kid gets safely out of the country, while everyone else left behind gets pushed straight into a war zone? And then you have the nerve to sit there and argue that the conflict is actually justified? It’s honestly relentless. It never ends, does it?

Thomas Walker84 said:I wonder what the poet meant by that. 🤔

First you condemn an embargo in the DR, and now you're claiming that kind of embargo should have been applied to this war. Are you saying if Ukraine wasn't being armed, it would be easier to stop Russia? 🤔 Just like back in Ex-America, Russia has piles of weapons, so an embargo wouldn't bother them much.
You aren't making much sense. 🤷

But since we're talking about a "pre-arranged war" where billions in Russian gas flows through Ukrainian pipelines toward the "West," it's obvious the folks in Russia have lost their minds.
Who wouldn't be arrogant in that situation? One side gets showered with billions, while the other gets handed weapons.

When it’s time to take the billions, the "West" doesn't exist, but when it’s time to freeze and die, suddenly we are the "West"?

A war arranged between whom?

"Being showered with billions" was just trade—standard business buying gas, oil, etc. You're implying people bought gas from Russia specifically to fund the start of the war in Ukraine, only to then have weapons gifted to Ukrainians, all for what purpose? 🤔 ...is that really the theory? You're forgetting the timeline; it wasn't billions followed by weapons, the weapons started coming after the Russian threats and aggression began.

But the whole "Evil West" thing is a great bit. Either they colonize and plunder, so they're bad, or they shower people with billions, and they're still bad. 😁

If we had shipyards scattered across the US, we would have been forced to pour massive investments into LNG tankers by now. Wouldn't we?
If they had been building that pipeline toward those African states from the start—and if they’d actually worked at the same lightning speed as Nord Stream 2—it would probably be halfway finished by now. Wouldn't it?
Do you ever see politicians like that?
ili
Energy companies are starting to pull back from their positions in Greece, and honestly, it’s making you wonder what exactly is shifting behind the scenes. It looks like several big players are rethinking their investments there, moving away from certain sectors that used to seem like sure bets. Why the sudden change of heart? You have to look at the broader landscape. The energy market in Europe is incredibly volatile right now, and even though Greece has been a strategic hub for a while, the math just isn't adding up for everyone anymore. Is it about shifting regulations, or are these companies just playing it safe because they can't predict where prices will land next month? It feels like a calculated retreat. When major corporations start pulling out of a specific region, it usually means they’ve spotted a storm on the horizon that the rest of us might be missing. They aren't necessarily running away in a panic, but they are definitely stepping back to reassess. It makes you think: if the giants are pivoting, what does that mean for the smaller players left holding the bag?

So, how exactly is everyone supposed to get their hands on cheap oil when every single country in the EU is basically running a side hustle with Russia? It’s become the new normal, hasn't it? They're all cutting deals behind the scenes, and we're just meant to act like it's business as usual. Honestly, does anyone really believe this kind of maneuvering is going to do anything to stop Putin?
So, they’re just going to keep transferring oil from tanker to tanker, and we're supposed to call that "policy"? I honestly don't know. Are we even counting Greece and Turkey as part of the "West" anymore? I mean, sure, they're in NATO, but that doesn't tell the whole story. That’s exactly why I said there isn't one unified "Western" strategy aimed at actually neutralizing the aggression against Ukraine. If we can't get on the same page, how are we ever going to be effective?

Alex Williams4 said:Once you start down that particular line of reasoning, there’s really no way to steer the conversation back onto the right track. The aggression against Ukraine didn't just materialize recently—it began all the way back in 2014, and quite frankly, it hasn't stopped since.

That's exactly my point.
The US hasn't been able to export citrus fruit to Russia since those first sanctions hit in 2014.

Microchips for high-tech weapons might pass through, but produce doesn't.🤦

Kuarnyjaa said:And then what? Are you playing the neutral party here? Just washing your hands of it all, letting thousands of other lives slip away while you pretend everything is fine? Playing head-in-the-sand? What happens when it finally shows up at your own front door sooner or later...

What kind of fairy tale are you living in?

I'm not being neutral.
It's just that I don't think this is actually going to stop Russia.

Their whole military mess would probably fall apart in five days if they didn't have the cash.

George Robinson43 said:So what?
We are still trading through those very same pipelines. Don't think for a second that a company like ExxonMobil has just shut down its doors.
In fact, a major importer of Russian gas is actually sitting on the crisis management teams for both the U.S. Government and the Department of Commerce.

And you think we actually need Russian gas?
Really?
For twenty years, we've been buying our own supply at Russian prices. Instead of putting that cash into drilling our own wells, we're basically subsidizing Russian retards from PPD or their little puppets over in Canada.

Dammit. If people had acted like this during WW2, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Ukraine has more than enough people to drive the occupiers out of their territory. They don't need help with manpower. If they, as a nation, refuse to defend themselves against the invaders, then they will remain occupied. It rests entirely on their shoulders, much like it once rested on ours. Material aid is necessary, of course, because it serves the West's interest to see a democratic order in Ukraine. But ultimately, what matters most for Ukraine is what the Ukrainian citizens want, not the whims of their neighbors.

The war in Ukraine actually started six months ago.
Europe shouldn't have frozen up in the middle of summer, and they definitely shouldn't have bought even a single gram of gas from the Russian aggressors.
Russia would have been defeated by now, completely drained of fuel (and cash).

Of course, Ukraine needs weapons, humanitarian aid, and help with reconstruction—I couldn't agree more. But above all else, we should have shut off the Russian financial faucet instead of dealing with this absolute nonsense.
Now they have enough money left over for additional mobilization.

Quarney said:Go take that mental gymnastics you're doing somewhere else.

First off—we aren't friends.
Second—I just got back from Ukraine.
Third—you're transparent. Trying to have any kind of debate with you is just a waste of time.

Exactly. We're basically paying a ransom to stop Putin from doing whatever he wants under the threat of a nuclear catastrophe! Putin is the one making the threats; go talk to him so he stops. Don't tell the victims they shouldn't resist.
Pick up a rifle, head over to Russia, and fix the world yourself. What's one victim compared to the whole planet?

Go peddle those sandwich-shop style Russian propaganda talking points about being "concerned for the Ukrainian people and everyone else" to someone who actually cares.

Save that war-mongering propaganda, styled like those COVID-era religious fanatics, for someone else.
I didn't fund Putin, "buddy"... I didn't feed his appetite, and no citizen in America gained anything from those Russian billions.

And I certainly didn't sit idly by while they aggressively moved into Canada, Mexico, or even the US. (Damn you, Walmart, and you two idiots, anemic retard and PPD).

Quarney said:Putin is trying to use the exact same playbook he used to seize power back home and consolidate total control over Russia.

And that playbook is built on intimidation and crushing any semblance of opposition.

He thinks he can pull those same stunts in Europe and on the global stage. He’s wrong.

He bit off way more than he can chew, and now he’s going to pay the price. There are lines you just don't cross, and he crossed them.

Those types of "sandwich" posts—suggesting we should just give Putin whatever he wants for the "greater good"—are actually part of his intimidation propaganda. That isn't for the greater good; it's just for Putin's good.
He used these same tactics step-by-step in Russia until he owned everything. It’s the same pattern: every few years, either Putin or his successors will use nuclear threats to "liberate" places like Poland, Moldova, Latvia, and similar nations...

We need to nip this in the bud immediately. Like any illness, it's better to prevent it than to try and cure it later. The European Union didn't do anything to stop this; if anything, the Germans actually accelerated the spread of this sickness. Unfortunately, we're already in the middle of the treatment phase, and recovery isn't always a smooth ride. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.

Wait, where did I ever say we should give Putin what he wants?

Look, FRENDE, if you want to stop Putin, pick up a weapon and defend Ukraine yourself, or demand that the so-called West stops buying Russian gas.
Hero to hero.

Real heroes? For seven years now, we've been banned from exporting basic oranges to Russia, yet the "West" has been trading without a hitch from Crimea to today, even using Ukrainian gas pipelines.
You want to stop Putin and those Russian idiots by throwing billions of dollars at a select group of privileged people.
They get the billions, while we get the propaganda.

And you seriously don't see the problem with that kind of policy?

Melissa Rivera5 said:I noticed you totally glossed over all those endless threats from the Bear about Sarmat missiles and nuking everything in sight. I mean, maybe we shouldn't even mention the lower-tier politicians, like the heads of Roscosmos, but seriously.

I didn't ignore them.
If an arms embargo were actually placed on Ukraine and Russia, it would be a much more effective way to stop the aggressor.
Just look at how things worked in the US or Canada.

But since this is all part of a "pre-arranged war"—where billions of dollars in Russian gas flow through Ukrainian pipelines straight to the West—it's obvious the idiots in Russia have completely lost their minds.
Who wouldn't be arrogant in that position? One side gets flooded with billions, while the other gets handed weapons.

When it's time to collect billions, the West doesn't exist. But when it's time to freeze or die, suddenly we're the "West"?

gentlestag15 said:The thing is, there's really only one side out there waving the nuclear threat around, and that’s Putin and his inner circle. The Russians have already brought up nuclear weapons eleven different times now, while the West hasn't made a single move in that direction.

What "West" are we even talking about?
Do you really just swallow everything those politicians and news anchors spew on TV without a second thought?

The "West" isn't some monolith... there are just democratic nations, which you all seem to have reduced to mere pawns within the Russian criminal federation.

James Chavez91 said:I don't know... I actually dig the suggestion someone made. If the whole deal for Ukrainian Independence was supposed to involve denuclearization, but now these bastards are just trampling over those borders and acting like they get a say in it anyway
Then maybe it’s only fair to hit the reset button and let the Ukrainians have some of that arsenal back—just to level the playing field, I guess.

And yeah. People who are terrified of nukes? I get it. Honestly, we’re all a little scared deep down. Especially if you're a parent—that fear hits differently.
But you just can't give in to an aggressor simply because they have the upper hand. That logic doesn't hold up. By that reasoning, anyone could just decide to take over Switzerland, Austria, Ibiza, or Canada... just because they feel like it.
We don't justify a physically stronger partner hitting a woman just because they're able to do it. No. In a civilized society, we call out that kind of behavior and we punish it.

It looks like you don't have much of a choice here.
If you want to truly help the Ukrainian cause, you should probably go enlist in the Ukrainian Army immediately.
If it comes down to it, I'll even donate money for your gear. Just tell me what you prefer: an AK-47, a Heckler & Koch, an FN SCAR, or maybe something else?

Yesterday marked the anniversary of when we faced an embargo back on September 25, 1991—an embargo designed to let the aggressor abuse us even more, letting more people die and more towns be burned to the ground.
I had no idea China was against the embargo, or that the UK found a way through B. Lončar to bypass the Chinese veto at the UN. (Honestly, I have nothing but contempt for the old Queen's legacy regarding that.)

And look, friend, you have one silver lining if you head off to fight Russia.
American Prebeg made it back from Russian captivity safe and sound.
But for Nicolier and so many of our defenders, nobody even knows where their graves are. So many lost their lives and health in camps over in Mexico.

I don't think you'll have any issues.
Good luck.

There is a massive difference between supporting Ukraine and advocating for a nuclear catastrophe.
You need to bring things back down to earth. Politicians won't do it, but I actually think forum members like you are smarter than most of them.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Man, you are being completely delusional. Maybe most people would've agreed with you before this whole mess in Ukraine kicked off, but now? Like, the UK could probably steamroll the Russian military without breaking a sweat... I have no idea what you're even talking about.

If the UK or France jumped in 100% headfirst into the conflict in Ukraine today, it’d all be wrapped up within a month.

For over a decade, Americans have been sounding the alarm about the shaky state of NATO's defenses. That’s why back in 2014, there was such a huge push to get defense spending up to 2% of GDP by 2024. But look at the reality: before the invasion of Ukraine, only three countries actually hit that mark—Greece, Poland, and the US. (In fact, once we paid that first installment for our Rafale jets, we finally crossed that 2% line.)
If everyone had actually listened, the Russians likely wouldn't have even dared to start this war. That's what we call a balance of power.

Right now, some of the best-equipped militaries in the European Union are Poland and Greece. And let's be real, modern weaponry doesn't just grow on trees ready for the picking.

Plus, you really shouldn't underestimate the Russians. You can't afford to do that if you actually want to see them defeated without causing massive casualties for Ukrainians.

gentlerider7 said:I mean, come on, even the Ukrainians are doing a pretty damn good job of flexing those muscles right now, aren't they?

Sure, once you actually have the weapons, it’s easy to flex.

But let's be real here. Both the European Union and the Ukrainians just stood by and watched while Putin's appetite grew. It's almost like the EU was feeding him steroids just to make him even hungrier.