#3721 ·
rowdymaker17 said:Peace and tranquility. As stated by:
Medvedev has completely lost his grip, spiraling into a total nervous breakdown that seems to have been ongoing since this whole mess first kicked off. What strikes me most about him is the sheer inconsistency; he used to carry himself as some sort of liberal figure—if you can even find anyone truly liberal within the Russian political landscape—and seemed genuinely inclined toward the West. Now, he’s just a shell of that former persona.
His argument essentially boils down to the claim that the West is solely to blame because they harbor a deep-seated resentment toward Russians just for being Russian. He points to the sanctions hitting the average person—someone who bears absolutely no responsibility for any of this—as his primary evidence, while conveniently glossing over the fact that those sanctions were originally designed to target the oligarchs first.
The decline in living standards won't hit a Dutchman and a Romanian with the same level of impact, primarily because they aren't starting from the same baseline. The EU is planning to roll out some non-repayable grants, and the US has already seen a portion of that funding hit the books... I wonder just how much assistance is actually going to materialize.
That is complete nonsense. When sanctions are actually deployed, their primary target is always the civilian population, because the goal is to break the political will by turning the people against their leadership and inciting a civil war—which, if we are being honest, is the exact tactic the USA employs during every single one of its foreign invasions. It is a standard operating procedure exclusively for Americans and the US government. Think about it: whenever the US decides to attack a nation, what is their first move? They bomb civilians and systematically destroy the very roads needed for humanitarian aid to arrive, all to ensure the defending military is too crippled to offer any meaningful resistance.
It is honestly baffling that after all these years, they still haven't grasped the fact that such tactics only serve to drive the opposition to fight even harder. If you look at the history, there are clear patterns of failure here. Take Japan, for instance; the regime essentially crushed their own spirit by wiping entire cities and civilian populations off the map in a matter of hours simply because they couldn't handle the pressure of the Japanese invasion and were facing total collapse. Then you have the situation in Vietnam, where the strategy was exclusively to target civilians in a desperate attempt to break the resistance of the Vietnam People's Army, an action that did nothing but intensify the conflict. The same pattern repeated in Korea, where the focus remained solely on bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure to try and shatter the resolve of the Korean Army. It’s a repetitive, failed cycle.
There simply aren't any sanctions in existence that actually target the state by going after individual oligarchs, because those oligarchs happen to control the very corporations and companies where the general civilian population earns their living. Furthermore, one must consider that Ukraine signed an agreement with Russia itself—an agreement witnessed by the USA, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and similar powers—whereby Russia was given its word and guaranteed by JAMCILI that Ukraine would adhere to the terms and avoid any breach of neutrality or disarmament. It is pure irony that Ukraine eventually decides, "To hell with it, we'll just do whatever we want," and suddenly everyone conveniently forgets who the guarantors and signatories actually were. Please, let’s not indulge in such fantasies. It is exactly like signing an employment contract with a new firm, failing to show up for work, getting fired for breaching the very contract you signed, and then having the audacity to sue the company for terminating you; only to have the company countersue you for damages caused, leaving you completely broke and destitute in the end. 🤣
The EU doesn't just hand out free money; they provide targeted funds. While they probably won't come sniffing around for the humanitarian side—think food, water, or medicine—everything else is essentially a loan, and Ukraine will have to find a way to pay that back eventually. I honestly cannot fathom how there are people walking around today thinking that trade unions or sovereign nations are some kind of charitable organizations that just toss billions at others and say, "Hey, don't worry about those billions of dollars, just enjoy them." What exactly do you think that money belongs to? Just to refresh your memory, that is taxpayer money being pulled directly from our own citizens, diverted from our domestic investments, our public sectors, and our social safety nets, only to be handed over to someone else. And make no mistake, that capital will HAVE to be returned because this isn't a gift; it’s a loan, and it comes with interest. This is nothing more than cold, hard commerce, stripped of any sort of moral compass.
Regarding the bolded portion, I find myself in agreement. Countries positioned at such a vast distance from the conflict won't feel even a ripple of the fallout, assuming there is any significant collapse to begin with.
Ukraine was already under Russia's thumb anyway. I mean, didn't the Russians try to pull the strings through Januković?
When that didn't work, they went for the heavy-handed approach—taking Crimea in 2014.
From what I hear, the push for NATO happened after that, because once Crimea was lost, nobody could trust their neighbor anymore.
And regarding the EU, it became pretty clear they had to choose between Russia or the EU. From what I can see, Ukraine was always leaning toward the EU rather than Russia. Honestly, let's see Russia try that with India... that would be something. India is a much tougher opponent than Ukraine.
