Sanctions on Russia

Joshua Myers432 said:We are already at war with Russia. It’s just that nobody bothered to tell you.

That's like me asking you: how would you jump off a thirty-story skyscraper without a parachute and expect to walk away fine? You wouldn't... there is no way.

By the way

Nicholas Stephen Alkemade (December 1922 – 22 June 1987) was a US tail gunner in the US Air Force during World War II Who survived a freefall of 18,000 feet (5,490 m) without a parachute after abandoning his out-of-control, burning Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress over Germany.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade

Joshua Myers432 said:We are already at war with Russia. It’s just that nobody bothered to tell you.

That's like me asking you: how would you jump off a thirty-story skyscraper without a parachute and expect to walk away fine? You wouldn't... there is no way.

Look, no, we aren't in a war with Russia, because if we were, it would mean NATO is in direct conflict with them. And if that were actually true, there are really only two ways this plays out:

1) The Russians would be wiped out of all of Ukraine within a few weeks, and Putin would have been kicked out by his own people.

2) The Russian regime would have already dropped an A-bomb on us.

So, nope—we aren't in a conflict with Russia. Sending military aid and stuff doesn't mean you're in a war... not even close.

Now, you still gotta push back against the Russians whenever you have to... sure, the standard of living might dip in Europe, but Europe can handle that. It's way better than letting idiots like Putin think they can just do whatever they want. That's a much worse long-term problem than dealing with a potential recession for two or three years (which probably won't even happen) or paying more at the pump.

Things aren't actually that complicated... it really just comes down to which side you're on.😁 .

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, no, we aren't in a war with Russia, because if we were, it would mean NATO is in direct conflict with them. And if that were actually true, there are really only two ways this plays out:

1) The Russians would be wiped out of all of Ukraine within a few weeks, and Putin would have been kicked out by his own people.

2) The Russian regime would have already dropped an A-bomb on us.

So, nope—we aren't in a conflict with Russia. Sending military aid and stuff doesn't mean you're in a war... not even close.

Now, you still gotta push back against the Russians whenever you have to... sure, the standard of living might dip in Europe, but Europe can handle that. It's way better than letting idiots like Putin think they can just do whatever they want. That's a much worse long-term problem than dealing with a potential recession for two or three years (which probably won't even happen) or paying more at the pump.

Things aren't actually that complicated... it really just comes down to which side you're on.😁 .

Call it whatever you want, but as a member of NATO, we *are* at war with Russia, and this has been going on for years now.
The aggression against Ukraine is just one part of that war; I’d argue it’s a turning point, because for the first time in this conflict, the Russians are losing control entirely. This whole invasion is a sign that they might actually lose a war against NATO.
Best,

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, no, we aren't in a war with Russia, because if we were, it would mean NATO is in direct conflict with them. And if that were actually true, there are really only two ways this plays out:

1) The Russians would be wiped out of all of Ukraine within a few weeks, and Putin would have been kicked out by his own people.

2) The Russian regime would have already dropped an A-bomb on us.

So, nope—we aren't in a conflict with Russia. Sending military aid and stuff doesn't mean you're in a war... not even close.

Now, you still gotta push back against the Russians whenever you have to... sure, the standard of living might dip in Europe, but Europe can handle that. It's way better than letting idiots like Putin think they can just do whatever they want. That's a much worse long-term problem than dealing with a potential recession for two or three years (which probably won't even happen) or paying more at the pump.

Things aren't actually that complicated... it really just comes down to which side you're on.😁 .

There are different kinds of wars. Not every conflict is a fight to the death. Even so, this NATO-Russia tension escalates to a new level every single year.

Bryan Booth82 said:Call it whatever you want, but as a member of NATO, we *are* at war with Russia, and this has been going on for years now.
The aggression against Ukraine is just one part of that war; I’d argue it’s a turning point, because for the first time in this conflict, the Russians are losing control entirely. This whole invasion is a sign that they might actually lose a war against NATO.
Best,

Wrong.

Let's call a spade a spade here. War literally means armed conflict. There isn't a single NATO soldier, or anyone under NATO command, fighting in Ukraine. Period. There is zero direct application of military power from the NATO alliance or its member states against Russian forces in Ukraine.
Until that happens, we aren't in a war. That is a straight-up fact. You can call it a localized conflict, a series of political and logistical games, or even subversion, but it sure as hell isn't a war... not even close.

And all this talk about winning or losing the war? It's just empty noise. There is no universe where Russia wins a conventional war against NATO. Hell, Russia couldn't win a war against just the European countries without the USA involved.
So, I really have no idea what you're talking about.

NATO is holding back from jumping into the fray solely because the hotheads in the White House are being cautious... because if it were known that the regime in Russia wouldn't resort to nukes, the war in Ukraine would be over in a heartbeat.

Joshua Myers432 said:There are different kinds of wars. Not every conflict is a fight to the death. Even so, this NATO-Russia tension escalates to a new level every single year.

Sure, you can argue that there are various kinds of conflicts, and people love to play semantics by saying not every skirmish is a "war"... but you can't flip that logic around. A war is a war. We all know what actual warfare looks like, period.

Right now? This isn't a war between Russia and the US—that's just a straight-up fact.

For Russia, this is a special military operation, whereas for the European Union and NATO, it’s essentially just a massive logistical support mission. 🙂

Gerald Torres84 said:For Russia, this is a special military operation, whereas for the European Union and NATO, it’s essentially just a massive logistical support mission. 🙂

But look...😁

even that isn't technically accurate if you actually think about it.

Russia is obviously at war—whatever fancy little name they come up with for it is nothing more than pure propaganda. NATO, on the other hand, isn't sending weapons directly; they’re having specific NATO member states do the heavy lifting... and there is a massive distinction there. Most people either can't see it, refuse to acknowledge it, or they just straight-up ignore it and keep doing their own thing regardless.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, no, we aren't in a war with Russia, because if we were, it would mean NATO is in direct conflict with them. And if that were actually true, there are really only two ways this plays out:

1) The Russians would be wiped out of all of Ukraine within a few weeks, and Putin would have been kicked out by his own people.

2) The Russian regime would have already dropped an A-bomb on us.

So, nope—we aren't in a conflict with Russia. Sending military aid and stuff doesn't mean you're in a war... not even close.

Now, you still gotta push back against the Russians whenever you have to... sure, the standard of living might dip in Europe, but Europe can handle that. It's way better than letting idiots like Putin think they can just do whatever they want. That's a much worse long-term problem than dealing with a potential recession for two or three years (which probably won't even happen) or paying more at the pump.

Things aren't actually that complicated... it really just comes down to which side you're on.😁 .

It’s all quite clear.
Putin did what he should never have done, and he must be held accountable.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Wrong.

Let's call a spade a spade here. War literally means armed conflict. There isn't a single NATO soldier, or anyone under NATO command, fighting in Ukraine. Period. There is zero direct application of military power from the NATO alliance or its member states against Russian forces in Ukraine.
Until that happens, we aren't in a war. That is a straight-up fact. You can call it a localized conflict, a series of political and logistical games, or even subversion, but it sure as hell isn't a war... not even close.

And all this talk about winning or losing the war? It's just empty noise. There is no universe where Russia wins a conventional war against NATO. Hell, Russia couldn't win a war against just the European countries without the USA involved.
So, I really have no idea what you're talking about.

NATO is holding back from jumping into the fray solely because the hotheads in the White House are being cautious... because if it were known that the regime in Russia wouldn't resort to nukes, the war in Ukraine would be over in a heartbeat.

I see where you're coming from, but the definition of war changed a long time ago; it's no longer just one side shooting at another with the sole aim of hitting and eliminating the enemy.
The goal of modern warfare is the expansion of influence and market share... or rather, why kill off a potential future customer?

Years before losing their battle in Ukraine, Russia was attempting—partially successfully—to fight against NATO (the West), but clearly, they miscalculated; they overestimated their own strength.

Best,

@Putin apologists and all you other doom-mongers obsessed with cheap energy
It isn’t as simple as just "cheaper energy" once you factor in the geopolitical fallout. Of course we want lower prices—honestly, how do you even envision that working when crude is sitting at $105 a barrel and diesel is hitting $4.50 a gallon? What exactly is your logic there?
As for your gas alternatives... I have a wood stove in my garage. Look, I get it—it's a hassle, it's dirty, and it doesn't offer the luxury of natural gas—but thanks for the concern, I think I'll manage.
The scope of this issue is far too broad to boil down to such a simplistic question. Even Biden hit the nail on the head when he noted that while the war in Ukraine is expensive, the alternative would be exponentially more costly.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

Bryan Booth82 said:I see where you're coming from, but the definition of war changed a long time ago; it's no longer just one side shooting at another with the sole aim of hitting and eliminating the enemy.
The goal of modern warfare is the expansion of influence and market share... or rather, why kill off a potential future customer?

Years before losing their battle in Ukraine, Russia was attempting—partially successfully—to fight against NATO (the West), but clearly, they miscalculated; they overestimated their own strength.

Best,

Look, that's just how we see it from our Western perspective. But the real issue is that someone like Putin plays by a completely different set of rules and uses a totally different math when it comes to values... and you can see that playing out clearly in Ukraine.

That is precisely what the Russians are missing... they possess vast natural resources and the potential to be at least three times more powerful than Germany in terms of economic scale. If they were to actually bolster their economy, they could quite elegantly draw neighboring nations into their sphere of influence.

But instead, look at what they have actually done... they allowed a bunch of puppets, looters, and oligarchs to seize power—people who simply line their own pockets while performing these desperate geopolitical acrobatics involving wars.

Gerald Torres84 said:That is precisely what the Russians are missing... they possess vast natural resources and the potential to be at least three times more powerful than Germany in terms of economic scale. If they were to actually bolster their economy, they could quite elegantly draw neighboring nations into their sphere of influence.

But instead, look at what they have actually done... they allowed a bunch of puppets, looters, and oligarchs to seize power—people who simply line their own pockets while performing these desperate geopolitical acrobatics involving wars.

Look, when you're talking about different socio-economic systems—boosting an economy isn't some simple "flip a switch" situation—and honestly, most countries can't just pull that off entirely on their own.
Even China couldn't pull that off—and it wasn't like some lone wolf from the old East Germany just single-handedly rebuilt the economy, the standard of living... or, more importantly, the entire fabric of society.

"Quote:"

What did they actually do? They handed the keys to some absolute crooks—total oligarchs who just suck up wealth for themselves—and now they’re out here playing these insane games with wars.

Every single country in transition across Central and Eastern America dealt with this kind of corruption—it was everywhere, especially right at the jump. And don't even get me started on the absolute mess with all those wars—I mean, we all lived through that, right?
Basically, everything is shifting toward Southern and Eastern Europe—you can see it everywhere. These oligarchs and their little handlers are starting to pull way more weight these days.

It reminds me of something an energy analyst once mentioned—I can’t quite recall his name at the moment—but he made such a compelling point:

With enough water on hand, you could just fire up some nuclear plants and, on one hand, you're generating electricity while simultaneously producing hydrogen, all of which is CO2-free... honestly, you couldn't dream up a greener scenario if you tried.

In that setup, you wouldn't even need to rely on Russia, the US, or those oil-rich nations from the Middle East... besides, hydrogen fuel technology was mastered ages ago, even within the automotive sector. And speaking of cars, we don't even need to worry about those catalysts or the rare metals sourced from Russia to make them work...

brightheron64 said:It reminds me of something an energy analyst once mentioned—I can’t quite recall his name at the moment—but he made such a compelling point:

With enough water on hand, you could just fire up some nuclear plants and, on one hand, you're generating electricity while simultaneously producing hydrogen, all of which is CO2-free... honestly, you couldn't dream up a greener scenario if you tried.

In that setup, you wouldn't even need to rely on Russia, the US, or those oil-rich nations from the Middle East... besides, hydrogen fuel technology was mastered ages ago, even within the automotive sector. And speaking of cars, we don't even need to worry about those catalysts or the rare metals sourced from Russia to make them work...

But seriously, who was actually pulling strings inside the European Union to make sure gas got labeled "green" while nuclear stayed out of that category?
And more importantly, who are those lobbyists most dependent on?
It seems pretty obvious they were just acting as a mouthpiece for Russia in Europe's energy power plays.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Sure, you can argue that there are various kinds of conflicts, and people love to play semantics by saying not every skirmish is a "war"... but you can't flip that logic around. A war is a war. We all know what actual warfare looks like, period.

Right now? This isn't a war between Russia and the US—that's just a straight-up fact.

That’s 19th or 20th-century thinking. Modern warfare has evolved; it spans everything from economic warfare to cyber strikes.

In reality, we can all agree that the actual war is being fought between Russia and Ukraine—a nation armed with NATO equipment and receiving every possible bit of NATO support, just without the boots on the ground. Even the training for Ukrainian soldiers is happening within NATO countries.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, that's just how we see it from our Western perspective. But the real issue is that someone like Putin plays by a completely different set of rules and uses a totally different math when it comes to values... and you can see that playing out clearly in Ukraine.

I couldn't agree more. That is precisely why Russia is losing this war... which, if we're being honest, was exactly what anyone could have predicted.
Best regards,

Our guy Korado Korlević was on Explorer recently, claiming Russia is headed for a total economic meltdown. He thinks we're looking at a massive wave of Russian refugees flooding into Europe, with tens or even hundreds of thousands potentially ending up right here in the States. ☕

hollowdriver13 said:But seriously, who was actually pulling strings inside the European Union to make sure gas got labeled "green" while nuclear stayed out of that category?
And more importantly, who are those lobbyists most dependent on?
It seems pretty obvious they were just acting as a mouthpiece for Russia in Europe's energy power plays.

The greens over in Germany... plenty of people think they were being "nudged" along by Russia...
Just like those far-right or far-left groups. Conspiracy theorists, EU wreckers, skeptics—you name it. The ground has been getting prepared for a long time.