Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Amanda Allen4 said:The reality? The European Union is actually resentful of the alliance with the USA—and those pushing for change are primarily motivated by one thing: tearing that alliance apart.

It’s a classic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" combat strategy.

The EU has essentially been an American vassal since 1945, consisting of what used to be major European powers. The United Kingdom isn't quite in that same boat, though they’ve certainly had their fair share of friction with the USA, looking back at things like the Suez Crisis and various other historical clashes. As for Russia, what is there for them to break? If anything, Russia would actually prefer if the EU—specifically heavyweights like Germany and France—acted as a more independent force so that actual diplomacy could take place. But how can you really reach an agreement with someone who doesn't even seem to have control over their own backyard?

Amy Rogers6 said:I stopped reading there. If they spent all that time preparing, only to roll into a full-scale conflict using truck tires that might as well be made of cardboard, then all that planning was a complete waste of breath. One could write entire volumes on how "preparation" (if such a thing even existed) was fundamentally flawed, but this point alone is more than enough.

Come on, name me one single Russian war in history where they actually showed up prepared.
They entered this war prepared?!? 🤦
If going up against a nation of 40 million people counts as being "prepared," then an unprepared invasion would have been an absolute disaster...

Amanda Allen4 said:The reality? The European Union is actually resentful of the alliance with the USA—and those pushing for change are primarily motivated by one thing: tearing that alliance apart.

It’s a classic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" combat strategy.

Which is exactly why the US has been nagging everyone in NATO for years about hitting that 2% defense spending minimum. It's all part of the play to fracture the alliance.

Christian Torres3 said:

Russia wasn't getting ready for this kind of scenario. From your very first sentence, your premise is totally wrong. This isn't "reality," it's just a bunch of wishful thinking from a movie you aren't even watching.
Russia wasn't getting ready for this kind of scenario. From your very first sentence, your premise is totally wrong. This isn't "reality," it's just a bunch of wishful thinking from a movie you aren't even watching.
Russia was expecting the exact same outcome they got with Crimea.
A quick blitz into Kyiv, toppling the government, having the people welcome them in as liberators, then annexing Donbas and Luhansk... the European Union might bleat a little bit at first, but if everything is wrapped up in two weeks, they'll forget the whole thing ever happened (especially if they want cheaper gas).

But the opposite happened. Now, this three-dimensional chess player is just rolling around in his own mud, and the longer this drags on, the more it's going to hurt.

Amy Rogers6 said:"Quote:"

I’m with most of you on this one—except for two things. If the USA actually wants to turn a real profit and hit its targets, it has to take down China. It’s just a necessity at this point. Honestly, it’ll probably all boil over once things get messy around Taiwan; you don't exactly need to be a genius to see that coming.

Russia won't lose if the EU manages to commit suicide over the next year—especially since disco prices were actually better than the regular ones before the conflict kicked off. 😁All they'll end up doing is handing their cash straight over to some Chinese conglomerate. That's how this goes.☕

The EU is basically a walking suicide mission at this point. They’re gonna throw anyone under the bus just to wrap up this war in Ukraine if it drags on past 2023.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fold"?
They might hit a recession, but they'll survive it. The Americans aren't going to let them sink completely, and neither will the Chinese.
If you're talking about their influence on the global stage... they'll probably end up even more dependent on the USA, if that's even possible.
Russia isn't going to become the next global superpower. They've essentially sidelined themselves and will be lagging far behind, much like the USSR did back in the day, while remaining close allies with China.
China is becoming a superpower, and I highly doubt anyone is actually going to stop them. People are already bracing for a multipolar world with multiple major players. European politicians are openly acknowledging this, even if they haven't quite spelled out the details yet.

crimsoncyclist71 said:They entered this war prepared?!? 🤦
If going up against a nation of 40 million people counts as being "prepared," then an unprepared invasion would have been an absolute disaster...

I can already hear some guy jumping in to point out how they managed to grab territory "larger than the old America" using "only 200,000 troops"...

crimsoncyclist71 said:They entered this war prepared?!? 🤦
If going up against a nation of 40 million people counts as being "prepared," then an unprepared invasion would have been an absolute disaster...

Just look at that Russian disaster with Finland during the winter war—that should give you all the context you need...☕

Nathan Thomas12 said:The Ruble is worthless. You could have a billion rubles stuffed in your sock and you wouldn't even be able to buy a stick of gum—and if you tried to use it in Russia, nobody's going to swap it for dollars or euros for you.

But couldn't you just use that money to buy physical gold, which honestly seems like a much smarter investment than any currency that isn't backed by anything real?

Amanda Allen4 said:The reality? The European Union is actually resentful of the alliance with the USA—and those pushing for change are primarily motivated by one thing: tearing that alliance apart.

It’s a classic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" combat strategy.

Alliances represent an insurmountable hurdle for characters like Putin, who prefer operating in the shadows through deception. An alliance isn't just about splitting costs and dividing duties; it's about sharing core values and fundamental ideas with your partners. In this context, 1+1 yields far more than a simple mathematical sum, because collective defense is inherently more efficient and cost-effective.
It would be in Putin's best interest if everyone acted purely in their own self-interest—leaving them isolated and easy to manipulate. But that era of politics is long gone.

Amy Rogers6 said:Just look at that Russian disaster with Finland during the winter war—that should give you all the context you need...☕

Why dig up history from so long ago?
We were just watching Russian fascists running out of gas on the roads in Ukraine not that long ago. Their preparation was top-tier. 😵

brighthound13 said:But couldn't you just use that money to buy physical gold, which honestly seems like a much smarter investment than any currency that isn't backed by anything real?

Just let me know when you actually manage to buy that gold using rubles.

rowdytiger13 said:I'm not sure what you mean by "fold"?
They might hit a recession, but they'll survive it. The Americans aren't going to let them sink completely, and neither will the Chinese.
If you're talking about their influence on the global stage... they'll probably end up even more dependent on the USA, if that's even possible.
Russia isn't going to become the next global superpower. They've essentially sidelined themselves and will be lagging far behind, much like the USSR did back in the day, while remaining close allies with China.
China is becoming a superpower, and I highly doubt anyone is actually going to stop them. People are already bracing for a multipolar world with multiple major players. European politicians are openly acknowledging this, even if they haven't quite spelled out the details yet.

Europe is going to lose its industrial and tech edge, standards of living will tank, things will get radicalized, and honestly, within the next 50 years or so, they won't even be a relevant geopolitical factor anymore. If that sounds like a stretch to you, then I don't know what does...☕

gentlerider7 said:I can already hear some guy jumping in to point out how they managed to grab territory "larger than the old America" using "only 200,000 troops"...

They probably could have made it all the way to Portugal.
If they hadn't run out of gas.
😵

crimsoncyclist71 said:Why dig up history from so long ago?
We were just watching Russian fascists running out of gas on the roads in Ukraine not that long ago. Their preparation was top-tier. 😵

No doubt—but when you stack that against the Russo-Finnish war and look at the force ratios on paper, they look like they're piloting Star Destroyers right now...

Can we please just stop comparing the USA to modern-day Russia already?
Today's Russia is nothing more than a pale imitation of the old USA.

Christian Torres3 William Cooper11 said:If your only metric for quality is pure pedantry, then you’ve completely missed the mark on this one. You were peddling nonsense before, and you’re doing it again now—acting as if people have the memory of a goldfish and can't recall anything from the last six or eight months.

Russia released a victory manifesto to every major newsroom and supposedly even minted medals for the "liberation" of Kyiv. Meanwhile, the White House is absolutely losing its mind over the threat of sanctions, yet they act like everything is already staged and ready to go. It’s quite possibly the most absurdly orchestrated setup in history.

If they actually prepared for this, then they’re just incompetent. If politics had left them stuck in some state of indecision or ignorance—if commanders (myself included, along with many other observers) genuinely didn't believe an invasion of Ukraine was coming—then I might have found a way to wrap my head around the surprise. But this? They set out from the base for a routine training exercise and ended up staring at a trench outside Houston. That would have been much more plausible, given how decisions at the highest levels are often forced through without any regard for the fallout.

Amy Rogers6 said:No doubt—but when you stack that against the Russo-Finnish war and look at the force ratios on paper, they look like they're piloting Star Destroyers right now...

So what, we've got Putin playing Captain Jean Luc Picard while Medvedev acts as his first officer?

William Cooper11 said:Can we please just stop comparing the USA to modern-day Russia already?
Today's Russia is nothing more than a pale imitation of the old USA.

A country where "cutting-edge tech" means slapping a Canon camera onto a drone.

brighthound13 said:But couldn't you just use that money to buy physical gold, which honestly seems like a much smarter investment than any currency that isn't backed by anything real?

Well, take a look at how the world's strongest unbacked currency is actually performing:

”The evidence for dollar strength is unambiguous. The dollar index (DXY) has gone from 92.21 to 105.12 in the past year, a 14% gain. That 14% gain is roughly the inverse of the losses in gold, oil, the euro, yen and the S&P GSCI. (Stocks and crypto have done worse). Much of the explanation for “lower prices” may be no more than a reflection of the strong dollar.”

Amy Rogers6 said:Europe is going to lose its industrial and tech edge, standards of living will tank, things will get radicalized, and honestly, within the next 50 years or so, they won't even be a relevant geopolitical factor anymore. If that sounds like a stretch to you, then I don't know what does...☕

Not even close. That’s a massive overshoot.