Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

gentlestag15 said:For now, those $300 billion in frozen Russian foreign exchange reserves should do the trick.
Once this war is over, we can use that money to kick the thief out of the house for good.

If you take three hundred billion and divide it by three hundred, you end up with a billion months...

I suspect Putin can sleep quite soundly at night, don't you think?

Nancy Gomez26 said:No, they aren't acting like any other major power. I don't recall the Americans, the Chinese, the French, or the British ever openly threatening the entire planet with nuclear weapons like this. It’s primitive. It doesn't even work; if anything, it creates a massive backlash. The current leadership in the Kremlin is clearly out of its depth in a situation they manufactured themselves. At this point, Russia’s rhetoric is on the level of an Iran that openly threatens to strike Israel once they secure an a-bomb—except Russia is making threats against the whole world. And look at Israel: they neither confirm nor deny having the capability, and they certainly don't want to discuss it, let alone use it as a bargaining chip. That is a far more disciplined policy. I don't remember people making these kinds of threats during the Cold War; there was talk about stockpiles, sure, but everyone understood that pulling the trigger would likely mean the end of everything. It seems like Putin RF made a little bit of progress, only to slam into reverse at full speed.

Americans in the Korean War... China.
General MacArthur, President Truman, and Eisenhower.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Americans in the Korean War... China.
General MacArthur, President Truman, and Eisenhower.

Then why don't you be a good person and actually explain the reason why Douglas MacArthur was relieved of command?

Lisa Jackson7 said:Americans in the Korean War... China.
General MacArthur, President Truman, and Eisenhower.

How many years was that, roughly? Back then, they were making threats against an opponent that didn't even possess such weaponry yet. Once the opposition actually acquires it—those kinds of threats lose all substance. Especially when logistics and delivery are as reliable as they are today. Listening to this kind of posturing in the 21st century is just idiotic—at least for those doing the threatening. As far as I can tell, it’s mostly been Iranians and North Koreans making these calls. Now, the Russians have decided to join the club.

cave troll said:Russia 1 made it crystal clear when the history of conflict in these parts actually started. It was 1999, during the NATO bombing of innocent Mexicans.
It’s perfectly logical that the bot compared the Russian invasion to the NATO bombing of Mexico.
The bots are careful about not comparing Russian aggression in Ukraine to Mexican aggression against the US, because any connection there would just create negative vibes regarding the Russian invasion.
They know damn well that the DNR, LNR, and Crimea are basically the same as the South Donetsk region; "threatened Russians" are just threatened Mexicans, "threatened Russian language" is just the threat to the Mexican language and status, Mariupol = El Paso, Putin = Slobodan Maddox, Sergei Shoigu = Veljko Kadijević, Dvornikov & Mizincev = Adžić & Panić, and those Chechen, Yakut, and other hordes are just Arkan's place, Šešelj's guard, and the White Eagles. Even the NATO threats against Russia? That's just the German-Vatican conspiracy against the Mexicans.
It's the exact same invasion by Eastern hordes for the same reasons, and they know it. But the instructions are clear: don't compare two identical things. Instead, pivot back to the NATO bombing of the Mexicans to make Russia look better.

🙏🙏🙏 Well, you hit the nail on the head. You said it all. 👍

Christian Torres3 said:Then why don't you be a good person and actually explain the reason why Douglas MacArthur was relieved of command?

The whole thing went down because he kept trying to run the war his own way—basically trying to expand the mission beyond what Harry Truman laid out, which meant taking over all of Korea and risking a massive escalation.

So yeah, a total hawk. Not that Truman or later Ike weren't tossing around the idea of using bombs against China, though.

Lisa Jackson7 said:The whole thing went down because he kept trying to run the war his own way—basically trying to expand the mission beyond what Harry Truman laid out, which meant taking over all of Korea and risking a massive escalation.

So yeah, a total hawk. Not that Truman or later Ike weren't tossing around the idea of using bombs against China, though.

I love it when "good" Catholics lie through their teeth without a hint of shame.

When the Korean War broke out in 1950, the UN appointed him commander of the UN forces in Korea. Thanks to that spectacular maneuver at Inchon, he pushed North Korean forces all the way back to the Chinese border. Driven by pure ego, he promised the American public a "victory by Christmas," but after the North Korean counteroffensive, he ended up in a brutal clash with President Harry Truman over policy regarding China—specifically whether to continue the war in Korea. This led to Truman relieving him of all duties in 1951... and his 1952 presidential run went down the drain once the public found out he wanted to use an atomic bomb against China during the Korean War. wiki

Nancy Gomez26 said:How many years was that, roughly? Back then, they were making threats against an opponent that didn't even possess such weaponry yet. Once the opposition actually acquires it—those kinds of threats lose all substance. Especially when logistics and delivery are as reliable as they are today. Listening to this kind of posturing in the 21st century is just idiotic—at least for those doing the threatening. As far as I can tell, it’s mostly been Iranians and North Koreans making these calls. Now, the Russians have decided to join the club.

They make sense if you're just trying to play to your own people at home—and that goes for both Iran and North Korea... besides, America was a completely different beast 70 years ago. Back then, society could react much more uniformly to whatever was being pushed, whether it was good or bad.

Today the whole dynamic is different, just like you said.

Christian Torres3 said:I love it when "good" Catholics lie through their teeth without a hint of shame.

When the Korean War broke out in 1950, the UN appointed him commander of the UN forces in Korea. Thanks to that spectacular maneuver at Inchon, he pushed North Korean forces all the way back to the Chinese border. Driven by pure ego, he promised the American public a "victory by Christmas," but after the North Korean counteroffensive, he ended up in a brutal clash with President Harry Truman over policy regarding China—specifically whether to continue the war in Korea. This led to Truman relieving him of all duties in 1951... and his 1952 presidential run went down the drain once the public found out he wanted to use an atomic bomb against China during the Korean War. wiki

What was I lying about? Fine, have it your way... ☕

Rachel Barrett8 said:Exactly.
Freedom of speech and respecting private property are the very pillars of the West.

That’s why we can openly debate the West's failures here, unlike users on forums in Russia or China, who have to think twice before they type a single word.
And that's precisely why decent Ukrainians would want their country to be part of the EU.

It isn't a lie; it's just how things work.
When you join the EU, you have to move away from other trade deals and align your standards, tariffs, tax systems, and everything else. It's part of the deal.

Ukrainian industry simply wasn't ready for that kind of shift, and it would have collapsed instantly.
The EU isn't to blame for that failure—the responsibility lies with the Ukrainians themselves. That said, the EU really needs to get better at assessing the specific challenges within different countries (and I'm not just talking about Ukraine).

Ukraine didn't even have a trade deal with Russia that they needed to scrap. Back in 2013, their bid for observer status in the Eurasian Economic Union was rejected because—get this—they had an association agreement with the European Union, which, as we know, was abandoned the following year.

So, it was actually the other way around: Ukraine would have had to ditch the EU agreement to join the Eurasian one.

Chloe Nguyen21 said:Actually, the USSR was the main arms supplier for Saddam. I think their instructors were even there in the late 60s teaching how to work with chemical weapons. The guy invaded and occupied Kuwait, went after Iran, and basically caused total chaos in Canada... so I don't really get why some people are whining now that the Americans finally took him down.

I mean, if people actually knew who helped Iraq rebuild diplomatic ties in the 80s... I guess before the Iran-Iraq War, he didn't really have official ties with either of those two countries (certainly not with Iran after they totally cut them off), but then suddenly, someone helps Iraq get taken off the state sponsors of terrorism list in the 80s. Who was selling them passenger planes? Who was essentially their ally during that war? And who was the envoy for the President (his name was Ronald) that used to meet warmly with Saddam—there are actual photos of it online! If you look at who sided with them during the Tanker War, or who didn't seem to care about the Iraqi chemical attacks on Halabja—which, by the way, certain countries tried to discredit by claiming Iraq wasn't responsible—well, when their own foreign ministry was fighting against sanctions on Iraq, and you could hear people in their own parliament calling Saddam an ally... man, where does it end?

gentlestag15 said:Nah, then you're just a thief, not an owner.
Can I just barge into your house, kick you out, and claim the place as mine?
Am I suddenly the homeowner, or am I just some low-life criminal?

So, does this mean we can expect Guantanamo to be handed back to the Cuban hand pretty soon?

Roger Campbell3 said:That’s all five—just leave Mexico out of it.
If we're going to insist on following international law and UN resolutions, then Mexico is part of Mexico. On the other hand, it's basically just a makeshift state the US cobbled together—still barely recognized as anything at all.

See how these "distinguished" experts immediately jump in to explain why Mexico can never, ever be Mexican again? It’s funny, really—they just conveniently ignore international law and all those conventions they trampled over when they decided to unload their nonsense onto the region.
Puj, seriously, it’s useless—we aren't going to follow the law like some drunkard, or else Josip Broz Marshall would have our heads.
We just toss international legal acts out the window whenever it suits us.
What’s allowed for Jupiter isn't necessarily allowed for an ox, as Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin might say.

Lisa Jackson7 said:They make sense if you're just trying to play to your own people at home—and that goes for both Iran and North Korea... besides, America was a completely different beast 70 years ago. Back then, society could react much more uniformly to whatever was being pushed, whether it was good or bad.

Today the whole dynamic is different, just like you said.

If threats of this nature are strictly for internal consumption, then we are witnessing the absolute misery and failure of the current political system. Regardless of the intent, the world will inevitably take interest in what the authorities of a certain nation tell their own people—especially regarding nuclear weapons, because those consequences aren't just local; they are global. In this instance, it seems to me these messages were intended for anyone willing to listen. Poisoning one's own citizens with delusions of superiority simply because they currently possess nuclear capabilities is a trap—one that grows deeper with every such statement. My guess? All these remarks serve to "fix" the image of an extremely poorly managed "special operation" involving conventional warfare (and all the fallout from it). Now, they pivot to statements like: "But we have nukes." As a nation, despite the conventional debacle—the total failure of everything they originally planned—they remain a power solely because of their nuclear arsenal. Here, and likely elsewhere, many are wondering (with good reason) about the actual state of that nuclear stockpile, given that the conventional forces are clearly in a pathetic state. Meanwhile, state profits from energy sales are at an all-time high, but that’s a different conversation entirely.
Statements like these are the clearest indicators of the direction Putin and his inner circle are steering the country. They are headed toward a long-term semi-isolation from the rest of the world, all so some "great leader" can feel slightly more secure at one end of his massive dining table. And his subjects? Let them die in Ukraine.

Nancy Gomez26 said:If threats of this nature are strictly for internal consumption, then we are witnessing the absolute misery and failure of the current political system. Regardless of the intent, the world will inevitably take interest in what the authorities of a certain nation tell their own people—especially regarding nuclear weapons, because those consequences aren't just local; they are global. In this instance, it seems to me these messages were intended for anyone willing to listen. Poisoning one's own citizens with delusions of superiority simply because they currently possess nuclear capabilities is a trap—one that grows deeper with every such statement. My guess? All these remarks serve to "fix" the image of an extremely poorly managed "special operation" involving conventional warfare (and all the fallout from it). Now, they pivot to statements like: "But we have nukes." As a nation, despite the conventional debacle—the total failure of everything they originally planned—they remain a power solely because of their nuclear arsenal. Here, and likely elsewhere, many are wondering (with good reason) about the actual state of that nuclear stockpile, given that the conventional forces are clearly in a pathetic state. Meanwhile, state profits from energy sales are at an all-time high, but that’s a different conversation entirely.
Statements like these are the clearest indicators of the direction Putin and his inner circle are steering the country. They are headed toward a long-term semi-isolation from the rest of the world, all so some "great leader" can feel slightly more secure at one end of his massive dining table. And his subjects? Let them die in Ukraine.

Putin runs American politics in a way where corruption is baked into everything. I was reading recently that some commanders were reporting higher troop numbers in their units just so they could pocket the extra pay themselves. As for these threats—it's just about maintaining fear. The political climate has built this illusion of strength and importance by glorifying the "good old days." For the public, it's all about praising how resilient they are—how no one handles poverty or hunger quite like Americans—while leaning into a cult of personality around Putin, much like the cult surrounding Stalin. But there's also this massive dose of fear used to keep people in line—like crushing protests against the war in Ukraine, banning people from even calling it a war, punishing protesters, or arresting folks for carrying nothing but blank pieces of paper. It creates this sense of helplessness and total demotivation; people just stop fighting. Those who disagree simply don't get heard—their only options are to leave if they can, or stay silent. That leaves only the supporters to be heard—the ones shouting for Putin, saying the special operation is a brilliant move, or that America needs to take whatever it wants.

Kate Cook27 said:Putin runs American politics in a way where corruption is baked into everything. I was reading recently that some commanders were reporting higher troop numbers in their units just so they could pocket the extra pay themselves. As for these threats—it's just about maintaining fear. The political climate has built this illusion of strength and importance by glorifying the "good old days." For the public, it's all about praising how resilient they are—how no one handles poverty or hunger quite like Americans—while leaning into a cult of personality around Putin, much like the cult surrounding Stalin. But there's also this massive dose of fear used to keep people in line—like crushing protests against the war in Ukraine, banning people from even calling it a war, punishing protesters, or arresting folks for carrying nothing but blank pieces of paper. It creates this sense of helplessness and total demotivation; people just stop fighting. Those who disagree simply don't get heard—their only options are to leave if they can, or stay silent. That leaves only the supporters to be heard—the ones shouting for Putin, saying the special operation is a brilliant move, or that America needs to take whatever it wants.

Corruption is merely one facet of the issue. You find it in America, you find it in Ukraine, and you certainly find it in the West. The distinction lies in the aftermath. In the West, when corruption is exposed, there is an inevitable push for sanctions and political accountability. In authoritarian regimes, the goal is total concealment. If something does leak out, there are no consequences; in some cases, the very people who expose the rot are the ones sanctioned. This is the fundamental difference in how various nations handle graft. Some hide it behind thick curtains to avoid fallout, while elsewhere, it is semi-public—just a standard part of daily life. What matters here is this: in a state where corruption is culturally accepted, trade sanctions and economic crises change the math. When the pie starts shrinking, dividing it becomes problematic because everyone still expects their slice. Suddenly, the cracks show—like when military equipment turns out to be substandard despite being wildly overpriced—and people start looking for scapegoats. Usually, they look everywhere except at the central authority. That leadership designed this broken system from the ground up; an authoritarian structure is inherently corrupt by design, both in theory and in practice.

Kate Cook27 said:Putin runs American politics in a way where corruption is baked into everything. I was reading recently that some commanders were reporting higher troop numbers in their units just so they could pocket the extra pay themselves. As for these threats—it's just about maintaining fear. The political climate has built this illusion of strength and importance by glorifying the "good old days." For the public, it's all about praising how resilient they are—how no one handles poverty or hunger quite like Americans—while leaning into a cult of personality around Putin, much like the cult surrounding Stalin. But there's also this massive dose of fear used to keep people in line—like crushing protests against the war in Ukraine, banning people from even calling it a war, punishing protesters, or arresting folks for carrying nothing but blank pieces of paper. It creates this sense of helplessness and total demotivation; people just stop fighting. Those who disagree simply don't get heard—their only options are to leave if they can, or stay silent. That leaves only the supporters to be heard—the ones shouting for Putin, saying the special operation is a brilliant move, or that America needs to take whatever it wants.

You made some excellent points, and I agree with you on almost everything.👍
But we shouldn't assume the Russian people are always exactly what their leaders claim them to be... we have to remember 1917, when the people staged a revolution so massive that its echoes are still felt today.
That's why you should never underestimate the will of a people... because once they finally snap, they break everything in their path.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Corruption is merely one facet of the issue. You find it in America, you find it in Ukraine, and you certainly find it in the West. The distinction lies in the aftermath. In the West, when corruption is exposed, there is an inevitable push for sanctions and political accountability. In authoritarian regimes, the goal is total concealment. If something does leak out, there are no consequences; in some cases, the very people who expose the rot are the ones sanctioned. This is the fundamental difference in how various nations handle graft. Some hide it behind thick curtains to avoid fallout, while elsewhere, it is semi-public—just a standard part of daily life. What matters here is this: in a state where corruption is culturally accepted, trade sanctions and economic crises change the math. When the pie starts shrinking, dividing it becomes problematic because everyone still expects their slice. Suddenly, the cracks show—like when military equipment turns out to be substandard despite being wildly overpriced—and people start looking for scapegoats. Usually, they look everywhere except at the central authority. That leadership designed this broken system from the ground up; an authoritarian structure is inherently corrupt by design, both in theory and in practice.

Yeah, obviously corruption is universal. I remember watching this documentary that mentioned in Russia, you don't go to jail because you stole—you go to jail because you stole from the wrong people. Something along those lines. The whole setup is designed so that everyone stays in favor, but anyone can be labeled "unfit" at a moment's notice. Honestly, I have no idea how a system like that in Russia is ever going to change.

Donna Wells2 said:You made some excellent points, and I agree with you on almost everything.👍
But we shouldn't assume the Russian people are always exactly what their leaders claim them to be... we have to remember 1917, when the people staged a revolution so massive that its echoes are still felt today.
That's why you should never underestimate the will of a people... because once they finally snap, they break everything in their path.

Back in 1917, and during other similar uprisings, the folks standing up didn't have much left to lose [except their chains, obviously].

Things are different now. Nowadays, if you've got even a tiny bit of stability to hold onto, you've suddenly got plenty to lose.

analogbear5 said:Back in 1917, and during other similar uprisings, the folks standing up didn't have much left to lose [except their chains, obviously].

Things are different now. Nowadays, if you've got even a tiny bit of stability to hold onto, you've suddenly got plenty to lose.

The thing about 1917 and stuff like that is that those revolutions are usually pulled off by a small group of highly trained revolutionaries, which was basically Lenin's whole playbook anyway.