Posts by Joshua Myers432

hollowdriver13 said:Right... and when were those conventions actually signed? Hint: they happened after that war where the main villain had a little mustache and the year ended in '45.

Well, that depends on what you're looking at. The first women's convention was signed back when General Lee was still chasing Jenkins through the American wilderness. Hint: it wasn't this century, and it certainly wasn't the last one either.

hollowdriver13 said:A bunch of guys with AKs isn't exactly a professional army.

What do Hiroshima and Dresden have to do with the Geneva Convention anyway?

Ukraine gave up all their strategic assets—we're talking nukes, heavy Tupolev bombers, and long-range missile systems—to Russia. In exchange, Russia signed those now-infamous Busan Agreements, where they supposedly guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.

We'll see pretty soon what they really are. 🍿 They were touted as a major land power, but honestly, it was clearly more myth than that legendary bravado seen at the Battle of Mexico. 😁

hollowdriver13 said:A bunch of guys with AKs isn't exactly a professional army.

What do Hiroshima and Dresden have to do with the Geneva Convention anyway?

Ukraine gave up all their strategic assets—we're talking nukes, heavy Tupolev bombers, and long-range missile systems—to Russia. In exchange, Russia signed those now-infamous Busan Agreements, where they supposedly guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.

Of course not. Someone basically wiped the Geneva Convention off the map and dropped an A-bomb on civilians. 🙏

hollowdriver13 said:A bunch of guys with AKs isn't exactly a professional army.

What do Hiroshima and Dresden have to do with the Geneva Convention anyway?

Ukraine gave up all their strategic assets—we're talking nukes, heavy Tupolev bombers, and long-range missile systems—to Russia. In exchange, Russia signed those now-infamous Busan Agreements, where they supposedly guaranteed Ukrainian territorial integrity.

That feeling when you get blindsided by the very people who signed on to guarantee your territorial integrity. 😁

Drew Booth60 said:I honestly don't know how Russia is going to dodge this defeat—it feels like their options are getting pretty slim.

1. Going for full mobilization and officially declaring war is a massive gamble. It carries the risk of devastating military and economic losses, and if things don't go exactly according to plan, it could trigger an uprising right there in Russia. Even if they "win," it would be a total Pyrrhic victory—you’d end up with a nation completely gutted, ruled by a population that can't stand you. Using Chechnya as an example here is a bit of a stretch, though, since that territory and its people are smaller than Canada.

2. Dropping tactical nukes is an even worse move. They’d turn the entire world against them instantly, and let’s face it, nobody back home would be celebrating that choice either—it would basically be the end for Putin. Realistically, nuclear weapons are only used when you're being invaded on your own soil and your very survival is at stake. In that scenario, you might actually have the support of your people and some understanding from the global community. But this war in Ukraine isn't that situation—even if the USA were to jump in directly, which they won't. The only real sticking point is Crimea, since Russia views it as theirs. The question is whether they'll view an attempt to take it as an attack on Russia itself, rather than just part of the broader context of the war in Ukraine.

3. Partial mobilization combined with leaning much harder on air superiority. Basically, creating a stalemate and then hunkering down through the winter to offer negotiations—hoping that Western pressure, specifically from Europe, will force Ukraine into some kind of compromise. If that doesn't work to stop the Ukrainian military, then we're looking at a classic Russian defeat.

I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that Russia has any ace up its sleeve to flip the script, other than one of these three paths. The only outliers would be if Iranian drones start performing at least on par with Turkish tech, or if North Korea sends troops and China steps in with military aid. I wish the Americans would study how modern warfare actually works—they'd see that the USA would never launch an invasion against a country like Ukraine without at least half a million soldiers and a massive coalition of allies. You wouldn't try to take Kyiv with just 30,000 troops and just hope Ukraine surrenders. Plus, the American military machine is miles ahead of the Russian one, and this war has made that crystal clear. If they had realized that the largest military alliance in the world was going to back a country comparable to Ukraine with such heavy weaponry, who knows? Would the USA have even risked an attack, or would they have likely just sent even more troops?

To be blunt, I think the only way they win this is through direct military help from China, North Korea, and Iran. Everything else—including mobilization—seems like a long shot.

The coming weeks will tell me if my assessment was totally off base.

Russia is facing a binary choice: they either call up a massive mobilization or they pull out of Ukraine entirely. You simply cannot sustain a war against a nation of 40 million people that is being backed by NATO and bolstered by expeditionary forces. Sure, the Russians have plenty of manpower sitting in reserve, but the real question is whether they actually have the stomach to commit to a total war.

Drew Booth60 said:I honestly don't know how Russia is going to dodge this defeat—it feels like their options are getting pretty slim.

1. Going for full mobilization and officially declaring war is a massive gamble. It carries the risk of devastating military and economic losses, and if things don't go exactly according to plan, it could trigger an uprising right there in Russia. Even if they "win," it would be a total Pyrrhic victory—you’d end up with a nation completely gutted, ruled by a population that can't stand you. Using Chechnya as an example here is a bit of a stretch, though, since that territory and its people are smaller than Canada.

2. Dropping tactical nukes is an even worse move. They’d turn the entire world against them instantly, and let’s face it, nobody back home would be celebrating that choice either—it would basically be the end for Putin. Realistically, nuclear weapons are only used when you're being invaded on your own soil and your very survival is at stake. In that scenario, you might actually have the support of your people and some understanding from the global community. But this war in Ukraine isn't that situation—even if the USA were to jump in directly, which they won't. The only real sticking point is Crimea, since Russia views it as theirs. The question is whether they'll view an attempt to take it as an attack on Russia itself, rather than just part of the broader context of the war in Ukraine.

3. Partial mobilization combined with leaning much harder on air superiority. Basically, creating a stalemate and then hunkering down through the winter to offer negotiations—hoping that Western pressure, specifically from Europe, will force Ukraine into some kind of compromise. If that doesn't work to stop the Ukrainian military, then we're looking at a classic Russian defeat.

I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that Russia has any ace up its sleeve to flip the script, other than one of these three paths. The only outliers would be if Iranian drones start performing at least on par with Turkish tech, or if North Korea sends troops and China steps in with military aid. I wish the Americans would study how modern warfare actually works—they'd see that the USA would never launch an invasion against a country like Ukraine without at least half a million soldiers and a massive coalition of allies. You wouldn't try to take Kyiv with just 30,000 troops and just hope Ukraine surrenders. Plus, the American military machine is miles ahead of the Russian one, and this war has made that crystal clear. If they had realized that the largest military alliance in the world was going to back a country comparable to Ukraine with such heavy weaponry, who knows? Would the USA have even risked an attack, or would they have likely just sent even more troops?

To be blunt, I think the only way they win this is through direct military help from China, North Korea, and Iran. Everything else—including mobilization—seems like a long shot.

The coming weeks will tell me if my assessment was totally off base.

The real question here is whether Russia actually considers Crimea their territory, or if this whole thing is just one massive bluff.

Drew Booth60 said:I honestly don't know how Russia is going to dodge this defeat—it feels like their options are getting pretty slim.

1. Going for full mobilization and officially declaring war is a massive gamble. It carries the risk of devastating military and economic losses, and if things don't go exactly according to plan, it could trigger an uprising right there in Russia. Even if they "win," it would be a total Pyrrhic victory—you’d end up with a nation completely gutted, ruled by a population that can't stand you. Using Chechnya as an example here is a bit of a stretch, though, since that territory and its people are smaller than Canada.

2. Dropping tactical nukes is an even worse move. They’d turn the entire world against them instantly, and let’s face it, nobody back home would be celebrating that choice either—it would basically be the end for Putin. Realistically, nuclear weapons are only used when you're being invaded on your own soil and your very survival is at stake. In that scenario, you might actually have the support of your people and some understanding from the global community. But this war in Ukraine isn't that situation—even if the USA were to jump in directly, which they won't. The only real sticking point is Crimea, since Russia views it as theirs. The question is whether they'll view an attempt to take it as an attack on Russia itself, rather than just part of the broader context of the war in Ukraine.

3. Partial mobilization combined with leaning much harder on air superiority. Basically, creating a stalemate and then hunkering down through the winter to offer negotiations—hoping that Western pressure, specifically from Europe, will force Ukraine into some kind of compromise. If that doesn't work to stop the Ukrainian military, then we're looking at a classic Russian defeat.

I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that Russia has any ace up its sleeve to flip the script, other than one of these three paths. The only outliers would be if Iranian drones start performing at least on par with Turkish tech, or if North Korea sends troops and China steps in with military aid. I wish the Americans would study how modern warfare actually works—they'd see that the USA would never launch an invasion against a country like Ukraine without at least half a million soldiers and a massive coalition of allies. You wouldn't try to take Kyiv with just 30,000 troops and just hope Ukraine surrenders. Plus, the American military machine is miles ahead of the Russian one, and this war has made that crystal clear. If they had realized that the largest military alliance in the world was going to back a country comparable to Ukraine with such heavy weaponry, who knows? Would the USA have even risked an attack, or would they have likely just sent even more troops?

To be blunt, I think the only way they win this is through direct military help from China, North Korea, and Iran. Everything else—including mobilization—seems like a long shot.

The coming weeks will tell me if my assessment was totally off base.

That’s just heavy sci-fi. Honestly, the idea that any of these countries would actually screw up that badly seems totally unbelievable to me.

Nathan Thomas12 said:Targeting civilian infrastructure is a straight-up violation of the Geneva Conventions. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if those ATACMS strikes leave everything within 300 kilometers of the border without power or water. For context, Moscow is about 450 kilometers from the border.

Right, and how far is Hiroshima from Geneva? I'd say at least ten times further than, say, Dresden. This war is nowhere near that stage yet, and besides, I'm not even sure if a power plant counts as a legitimate civilian target.

It also blows my mind that Ukraine—which emerged from the USSR as a massive, vital republic—doesn't have a single missile system capable of reaching Moscow.

Anthony Hill5 said:It is quite clearly their established modus operandi. They strike at civilians and essential infrastructure, systematically making daily life an absolute misery just to crush any lingering will to resist. We have already seen this exact pattern of devastation play out in Syria.

What kind of nonsense is this regarding Kadyrov? Do people truly believe he holds any real sway here? It will undoubtedly be someone from the intelligence community or perhaps Mishustin who ultimately pulls the strings.

Infrastructure gets leveled in war; that isn't some unique Russian invention. I guess after six months they realized nobody was hanging flower boxes on their balconies anymore, so now they'll move on to leveling bridges, power plants, factories, airports, and rail lines. Just the usual routine.

coastalbison6 said:That’s what happens when you start your morning with all that bravado. 🤦
I mean, the guy basically said it'll be doomsday if anyone even touches Crimea. 😁

It’ll be incredibly interesting if the Ukrainians somehow manage to push their way into Crimea. 🎉
Winter is coming anyway; might as well turn up the heat a little. 🕺

Nancy Gomez26 said:At this stage of the conflict, such a move is foolish. It isn't their first blunder, nor will it be the most catastrophic one Russia has committed thus far. However, it serves as a clear indicator of how thin their lines actually are on the ground—they resort to these "measures" precisely because they are weak.
On the flip side, it has become obvious to them that the dream of occupying Ukraine is dead. Previously, they preserved the infrastructure, perhaps hoping that once they seized the state, they wouldn't have to rebuild everything from scratch. Now that those delusions of conquering Ukraine have finally crumbled, their mindset has shifted toward simple destruction—wrecking whatever they can reach.
Even the most die-hard pro-Russian residents in Ukraine will soon see the occupier for what they truly are. They will come to understand exactly why these invaders must be driven out of the country at any cost.
And let's not forget, they have larger Russian cities nearby if they decide to keep playing this game. Ultimately, this clumsy maneuver likely stems from total impotence; it's the act of someone unable to do anything concrete to halt the advance of the liberating forces.

It's clear they've given up on taking over Ukraine, even that eastern portion. Now, they're just looking to systematically flatten the entire infrastructure and industrial base, assuming they even have enough left to pull it off. Honestly, we already know they have 😁

Bryan Booth82 said:What I just don't get is this endless mantra from Russian and pro-Russian propaganda claiming they can somehow flip public opinion in Europe or the West to turn against supporting Ukraine.

I honestly don't know—maybe they don't care, or maybe the people they're targeting simply don't realize how much this would actually benefit Russia and their ongoing aggression.🤔

Let’s run through a scenario: suppose every Western government decides, buckling under public pressure and the rising costs of winter, to just pull the plug on aid to Ukraine—no more cash, no more weapons, no more ammunition...🤔

What do they think would happen?🤔

Does someone seriously believe that if Putin takes over Ukraine, inflation will just vanish globally, everything will become cheap again, and we'll all have warm winters? Do they think we in the West could just pretend nothing happened while governments collapse and tiny, fringe extremist parties from either the far right or far left seize power—parties that would immediately scrap all sanctions and send apologies and friendly greetings straight to the Kremlin?

Ebote, how delusional do you have to be to swallow such absolute nonsense?
Lp

Look, this isn't about some grand pro-Russian propaganda machine or "Russophiles"—there's probably one in a thousand of those people left in the West, and frankly, the government should probably just provide them with psychiatric help. If you actually put Russia ahead of the West, you belong in a mental ward.

The reality here is much simpler: it's about pure self-interest. Westerners are masters at looking out for their own skin. We'll see if they actually hold the line.

Bryan Booth82 said:The people making these claims are incredibly naive; once winter passes, they won't even remember what they were whining about.
Just to be clear here.
There won't be a two-degree drop, there won't be a gas shortage, and people won't be paying three times as much to heat their homes... and of course, industry isn't going to collapse either.
I’ll be saying this again after the winter is over, but if history is any indication, we already know how this goes... many of you will change your usernames or claim you never said such things in the first place. I'm drawing that conclusion based on how people behaved during previous discussions surrounding major conflicts.

lp

Exactly. I had the same thought. When COVID hit, I was one of the few who dared to suggest those lockdowns were economic suicide—that they'd end up costing more lives than the virus itself. Back then, I got insulted with every epithet in the book. Now? Nobody remembers. This is just Economic Killer v2.0.

silentnomad7 said:Who deserves our sympathy here?

Maybe the Germans?

They basically brought this on themselves by relying on cheap gas below market rates for the last 50 years or so. It's time they pay the actual market price. If they can't figure out how to adapt to reality, then maybe they just deserve to go under...

Eh, Ebote, I couldn't care less about the Germans, the Russians, or the Ukrainians. Everyone made the wrong calls, and now everyone gets screwed. My only concern is that they might drag us down with them.

silentnomad7 said:The gas heating will run about two degrees lower than usual.

Two degrees colder, yet three times the cost. And what happens to the industrial sector? Some nations in Europe actually have a manufacturing base; they didn't build their entire economies around flipping burgers and catering to tourists.

It’s still heating up out there. Give it a minute 😁

William Anderson5 said:Once again, you're demonstrating a fundamental lack of historical context, which makes it easy for Putin to sell you his Napoleon spin. You conveniently left out the fact that 13 and 7 years prior to those dates, Russian forces were pushing toward Paris during the Second and Third Coalitions, only to be halted in Switzerland and Austria. What exactly were Suvorov and Kutuzov doing with the Russian army in Italy and Austria? Taking a sightseeing tour, or were they actually on the march to Paris?...

There is a difference between knowing nothing about history and practicing selective memory. It would be interesting if you actually listed who made up the Second Coalition fighting against the new French republic. The way you selectively present things makes it sound like the Russians just downed some vodka one morning and decided to march straight to Paris.

William Anderson5 said:You can buy into that spin if you fell for the fairy tale about NATO planning an attack on Russia. But honestly, you'd have to be pretty naive to believe anyone is actually plotting an assault on a nuclear superpower.

The reality is much simpler: Russia has essentially targeted every neighboring country that isn't part of NATO, yet hasn't touched a single one that is. Just look at the facts and draw your own conclusions as to why Finland is joining NATO, and why Ukraine wants in too. The facts are crystal clear, unlike Putin's mindless propaganda...

You're trying to draw parallels between two wars, but let me tell you, you can twist the narrative any way you want. It’s the same logic Putin uses at home—listing all the times Western powers supposedly invaded Russia, claiming they just need to defend themselves, saying "they want our resources," blah, blah, blah... Like, do you want them marching into Moscow to burn it down like Napoleon? Have we already forgotten Hitler?

The USA is also a nuclear power, and they caused a massive global crisis back in 1962, so how would you argue against attacking a nuclear power then? Things aren't as black and white as you're making them out to be. Besides, this whole thing isn't even about a direct attack; nobody is going to launch an invasion against a nuclear giant like Russia or the USA. This is about the projection of power.

Putin convinced himself that Russia is a superpower, and he acts accordingly. Turns out Russia is more like a paper tiger, but now there's no turning back...

William Anderson5 said:That isn't the only issue. The real problem is that most laypeople simply don't grasp the laws of history or geopolitics. Most people lack the historical perspective required to understand how to navigate geopolitical shifts. There hasn't been enough effort to explain that the world Russia is trying to build would be far worse than the one we currently inhabit. People don't truly comprehend what the collapse of NATO or the European Union would actually entail, nor do they have any inkling of the domino effect that would follow. Most can't draw parallels to past eras to recognize the looming dangers. Very few people know anything about Europe in the interwar period or how the world stumbled into WW2, so they can't see the patterns necessary to prevent a repeat today. To the average person, these concepts—much like the war in Ukraine—remain abstract until it’s already too late.

In my view, that's the most dangerous part of all...

True, and that's exactly what Putin says. Here they are again, knocking on our borders just like they did a century ago.🤣

Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Christian Torres3 said:Back in the early nineties, the US could have practically bought Russia for a handful of rice; they weren't exactly looking to spread democracy then. Instead, what they actually did was bankroll Yeltsin to stay in power. When Zyuganov was actually getting close to winning an election, they just sent over PR experts along with more loans to make sure Yeltsin pulled through.

Honestly? It might have been better if the US had just colonized them. At least then there’d be a real shot at developing a functional democracy one day. Instead, they just ended up stuck in this weird hybrid mess of charisma and communism.

Look, it’s one thing when the country you’re supposedly "bringing democracy to" is a nuclear superpower—the biggest one on the planet, no less—or somewhere like Iraq. They propped up Yeltsin just to ensure they kept control over the nation and its military. It would be absolutely lovely if they had actually installed democracy like they did in Iraq, Libya, or Syria... feel free to keep listing them.

rowdyraven112 said:That whole "self-sufficient" dream was exactly what the old America tried to pull off. We all saw how that disaster played out. ☕

Look, the breakup of America wasn't caused by its pursuit of self-reliance. 😁 🤣

There is a massive difference between striving for independence to build security and being forced into isolation because everyone else shut you out. In today’s world, if the USA decides to isolate you, you effectively become a third-world nation overnight. Honestly, Russia is lucky they have nuclear weapons; without them, the West would just force "democracy" on them, which is really just code for dragging them back to the Stone Age.

Kate Lewis3 said:Calling it "energy resources" is total historical revisionism. The Reich already had plenty of fuel, mostly from Russia, back before the Russians were even "anti-fascists" and while official Moscow was busy tearing through Poland right alongside Germany.

Hitler hit the USSR just to make sure the USSR wouldn't hit Germany first. It was inevitable. It’s like watching two rabid dogs circling each other—you just don't know which one is going to snap first.

Just so we're clear, what you're doing here is nothing more than historical revisionism.🕺

Nathan Evans78 said:Reducing this whole situation to just Hitler is a logical fallacy if you ask me. Back then, the Reich was fighting over energy resources—like the Caspian Sea—and they certainly didn't have nuclear warheads at their disposal.

Sure, slapping sanctions on the elite makes sense, and sending weapons to the Ukrainians is one thing, but we should have kept the gas and oil flowing just to let the Russians deal with their own mess. Even Khodorkovsky argues that's the way to go.☕

Of course, but this whole outcome plays right into the hands of the green agenda, which carries massive weight across Europe. This war in Ukraine feels almost tailor-made to push their platform forward; it's like we decided to cram everything we were facing in the coming years into a single twelve-month window. It’s going to be a fun ride.🎉

Brenda Murphy3 said:It’s honestly hilarious how much you're missing the point here...

The fact that 70,000 people could actually gather in Prague—something Putin wouldn't allow in his wildest dreams—is precisely what demonstrates the sheer superiority of a democratic system. You just don't get it, and you clearly don't see why. And that right there is the exact reason why people living under dictatorships are usually broke, or at the very least, living way worse than they should be. It’s why those regimes are stuck in constant infighting and why they will never, ever catch up to democratic nations when it comes to quality of life.

Sure, dictatorships might grab a short-term win in certain situations because they don't have to deal with institutions or procedures—it's just whatever the leader says goes—but in reality, that's total BS. It leads absolutely nowhere... especially not anywhere good for their own citizens. That’s exactly why they’re always looking toward the West and toward democracy.

People don't exist to serve the state; it's the other way around. The state exists to provide a solid framework for people to live a good life. If that framework isn't there, and if the state is just crushing its own citizens, then the whole thing is fundamentally pointless. The Russians, and a good chunk of you guys on this forum, just can't wrap your heads around that. That's why Putin's tragicomic nonsense about history, Russian destiny, and all those other delusions is just pure stupidity.

You assume anyone thinking even a millimeter outside your worldview is completely wrong. That’s a pretty autocratic way to think for someone claiming to champion democracy. 🤣

I never claimed a dictatorship is inherently better than a democracy. I was making a specific point: in a scenario where a nation is at war, an autocratic decision-making model might move faster than a democracy. In 99.99% of all other circumstances, democracy is the superior model.

As for Putin's historical delusions regarding his sphere of influence, that belongs in the 19th century. In the 21st century, you exert power through economics, media, and soft power. Instead of learning from the USA—an opportunity he had since 1945—this fool is trying to implement 19th-century ideas using 1941 methods.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Of course it can... because people always forget that the common sense we use here in the West isn't the same kind of logic being used by the Russian leadership. I mean, if it were the same, they wouldn't have been stumbling around in Ukraine for over six months only to end up right where they are now...

True, but the reverse holds weight too. They think the "common sense" logic they employ (the East) is fundamentally different from what Western nations use.

I still maintain they hold the upper hand here; in scenarios like this, dictatorial regimes always have an advantage over "democracy," if you can even call our system that.

Do you honestly think another Putin would just sit back and let 70,000 people protest in Moscow, like they might in Prague? Realistically, if 70,000 gathered in Prague, it would be closer to 400,000 in Moscow!

Anthony Hill5 said:Because they are playing the long game, clearly; don't they realize that by cutting off the supply and driving prices through the roof, they intend to turn public opinion against the very existence of Sanctions?

Sure, but that strategy falls flat when you're dealing with an economy that's already on its knees, surviving almost entirely on raw material exports. ☕