The Official Russian Invasion of Ukraine Thread

1,568,071 Views | 12406 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by MinotStateBeav
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:13p, 9/4/25
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Russia did not invade Crimea

Hahaha.



Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a very convincing argument.

Your narrative is just Russian propaganda full stop, so I have nothing more to say about it.


But it's historically accurate. I met a Crimean gal after that went down and I was surprised that she was perfectly fine w joining Russia. BTW, she was gorgeous... and not loaded w thick makeup. A natural beauty.

The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals" Cal88 describes were Russian troops. Putin even admitted as much later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

https://www.rferl.org/a/from-not-us-to-why-hide-it-how-russia-denied-its-crimea-invasion-then-admitted-it/29791806.html


The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals Cal88 describes" changed sides and became Russian troops.

Exactly the same thing happened in the Donbas, more than 90% of local Ukrainian army troops stationed in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts rebelled and became the DPR and LPR armies. Why would Crimea, whose population is even more Russian than the Donbas', be any different??

Russia did have marines stationed in Crimea, as it operated naval bases in Crimea under a post-Soviet agreement between Russia and Ukraine, but nowhere near the 21,000 Ukrainian army troops stationed in Crimea back in 2014. About 3,000 of these troops were loyal to Kiev, but being heavily outnumbered and largely unpopular in Crimea, they packed up and left without any trouble.

After losing Crimea, the Kiev government panicked and sent hardened western Ukrainian ideologues into territories in the south and east that were more sympathetic towards Russia, notably setting up the notorious Azov Battalion in Mariupol, and sending armed thugs to literally burn and crush to death rebels in Odessa (May 2014 Odessa riots).

One tell-tale aspect that neither pro-Kyiv academics or Sycasey will address here is the fact that Kiev cut off Crimea's water after it caseated, they chose to dump the water from the Dniepr canal feeding Crimea into the Black Sea. This shows the level of antagonism that the Kiev nationalists have toward their large Russian minorities in the south and east, who want nothing to do with a regime they did not vote for and that wants to turn them into 2nd class citizens.


^Those types of reports from the MSM showing the true nature of the conflict have been exceedingly rare.
Reply Quote
2
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 6:48p, 9/4/25
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Russia did not invade Crimea

Hahaha.



Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a very convincing argument.

Your narrative is just Russian propaganda full stop, so I have nothing more to say about it.


But it's historically accurate. I met a Crimean gal after that went down and I was surprised that she was perfectly fine w joining Russia. BTW, she was gorgeous... and not loaded w thick makeup. A natural beauty.

The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals" Cal88 describes were Russian troops. Putin even admitted as much later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

https://www.rferl.org/a/from-not-us-to-why-hide-it-how-russia-denied-its-crimea-invasion-then-admitted-it/29791806.html


The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals Cal88 describes" changed sides and became Russian troops.

Your evidence?

I'm sure there were some defections but your numbers seem really high. And did they happen before or after the Russian troops started advancing on government buildings?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 1:22p, 9/5/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Russia did not invade Crimea

Hahaha.



Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a very convincing argument.

Your narrative is just Russian propaganda full stop, so I have nothing more to say about it.


But it's historically accurate. I met a Crimean gal after that went down and I was surprised that she was perfectly fine w joining Russia. BTW, she was gorgeous... and not loaded w thick makeup. A natural beauty.

The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals" Cal88 describes were Russian troops. Putin even admitted as much later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

https://www.rferl.org/a/from-not-us-to-why-hide-it-how-russia-denied-its-crimea-invasion-then-admitted-it/29791806.html


The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals Cal88 describes" changed sides and became Russian troops.

Your evidence?

I'm sure there were some defections but your numbers seem really high. And did they happen before or after the Russian troops started advancing on government buildings?


https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/16/303646309/in-ukraine-reports-of-soldiers-switching-to-pro-russia-side

The Russian troops that were advancing on government buildings were local troops that switched allegiance along with police officers and other local militants, exactly the same pattern happened in the Donbas. This has been widely documented. We know for sure that the numbers of defections in Crimea were high enough that Kiev couldn't mount any kind of military reprisals or serious attempts to recapture the peninsula. That is also the reason the Obama administration did not move in on Crimea, any NATO intervention would have triggered a Russian military response.

Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 1:41p, 9/5/25
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Russia did not invade Crimea

Hahaha.



Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a very convincing argument.

Your narrative is just Russian propaganda full stop, so I have nothing more to say about it.


But it's historically accurate. I met a Crimean gal after that went down and I was surprised that she was perfectly fine w joining Russia. BTW, she was gorgeous... and not loaded w thick makeup. A natural beauty.

The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals" Cal88 describes were Russian troops. Putin even admitted as much later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

https://www.rferl.org/a/from-not-us-to-why-hide-it-how-russia-denied-its-crimea-invasion-then-admitted-it/29791806.html


The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals Cal88 describes" changed sides and became Russian troops.

Your evidence?

I'm sure there were some defections but your numbers seem really high. And did they happen before or after the Russian troops started advancing on government buildings?


https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/16/303646309/in-ukraine-reports-of-soldiers-switching-to-pro-russia-side

The Russian troops that were advancing on government buildings were local troops that switched allegiance along with police officers and other local militants, exactly the same pattern happened in the Donbas. This has been widely documented. We know for sure that the numbers of defections in Crimea were high enough that Kiev couldn't mount any kind of military reprisals or serious attempts to recapture the peninsula. That is also the reason the Obama administration did not move in on Crimea, any NATO intervention would have triggered a Russian military response.

So basically, the Russians sent their troops in to take over, the Ukrainian government was relatively weak at the time (having just endured a revolution), and a bunch of people in Crimea probably thought it was in their best interests to just defect to Russia. Not to mention that Russia had almost certainly been flooding those regions with their own kind of propaganda and propping up separatist groups (the flip side of what you accuse the CIA of doing) for years.

Encountering relatively little resistance when you move in and try to take the land doesn't make it "not an invasion."
Reply Quote
4
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 3:18p, 9/5/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Russia did not invade Crimea

Hahaha.



Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a very convincing argument.

Your narrative is just Russian propaganda full stop, so I have nothing more to say about it.


But it's historically accurate. I met a Crimean gal after that went down and I was surprised that she was perfectly fine w joining Russia. BTW, she was gorgeous... and not loaded w thick makeup. A natural beauty.

The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals" Cal88 describes were Russian troops. Putin even admitted as much later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

https://www.rferl.org/a/from-not-us-to-why-hide-it-how-russia-denied-its-crimea-invasion-then-admitted-it/29791806.html


The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals Cal88 describes" changed sides and became Russian troops.

Your evidence?

I'm sure there were some defections but your numbers seem really high. And did they happen before or after the Russian troops started advancing on government buildings?


https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/16/303646309/in-ukraine-reports-of-soldiers-switching-to-pro-russia-side

The Russian troops that were advancing on government buildings were local troops that switched allegiance along with police officers and other local militants, exactly the same pattern happened in the Donbas. This has been widely documented. We know for sure that the numbers of defections in Crimea were high enough that Kiev couldn't mount any kind of military reprisals or serious attempts to recapture the peninsula. That is also the reason the Obama administration did not move in on Crimea, any NATO intervention would have triggered a Russian military response.

So basically, the Russians sent their troops in to take over, the Ukrainian government was relatively weak at the time (having just endured a revolution), and a bunch of people in Crimea probably thought it was in their best interests to just defect to Russia. Not to mention that Russia had almost certainly been flooding those regions with their own kind of propaganda and propping up separatist groups (the flip side of what you accuse the CIA of doing) for years.

Encountering relatively little resistance when you move in and try to take the land doesn't make it "not an invasion."


The Russians already had thousands of marines and navy personnel in the Russian bases already in place in Crimea since 1991. These troops however were greatly outnumbered by Ukrainian army regulars stationed in Crimean army bases. Almost all these troops hail from Crimea and are of Russian backgrounds. These people switched sides and rebelled against Kiev. They were also joined by local policemen and Crimean-Russian nationalists.

The Russians didn't have to do much propaganda to get these people to rise, the fact that Kiev treated them as second-class citizens by marginalizing Russian language, shutting down Russian-language media and forcing a foreign dialect on them, in addition to the Maidan Coup which took out their democratically-elected government - that was more than enough reason for them to cut off their bridges with Kyiv. Fact is, Crimea is a lot closer geographically, culturally, historically and ethnically to Russia than to central/western Ukraine.

The fact that Kyiv ended up punishing all of Crimea by dumping their freshwater into the sea is all that you need to know about how Kyiv really felt about Crimeans, and why Crimeans dislike the Bandera nationalists which took over the Ukrainian government.

Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 3:25p, 9/5/25
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
movielover said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Russia did not invade Crimea

Hahaha.



Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a very convincing argument.

Your narrative is just Russian propaganda full stop, so I have nothing more to say about it.


But it's historically accurate. I met a Crimean gal after that went down and I was surprised that she was perfectly fine w joining Russia. BTW, she was gorgeous... and not loaded w thick makeup. A natural beauty.

The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals" Cal88 describes were Russian troops. Putin even admitted as much later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

https://www.rferl.org/a/from-not-us-to-why-hide-it-how-russia-denied-its-crimea-invasion-then-admitted-it/29791806.html


The "Ukrainian army garrisons stationed in Crimea that were almost entirely made up of locals Cal88 describes" changed sides and became Russian troops.

Your evidence?

I'm sure there were some defections but your numbers seem really high. And did they happen before or after the Russian troops started advancing on government buildings?


https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/16/303646309/in-ukraine-reports-of-soldiers-switching-to-pro-russia-side

The Russian troops that were advancing on government buildings were local troops that switched allegiance along with police officers and other local militants, exactly the same pattern happened in the Donbas. This has been widely documented. We know for sure that the numbers of defections in Crimea were high enough that Kiev couldn't mount any kind of military reprisals or serious attempts to recapture the peninsula. That is also the reason the Obama administration did not move in on Crimea, any NATO intervention would have triggered a Russian military response.

So basically, the Russians sent their troops in to take over, the Ukrainian government was relatively weak at the time (having just endured a revolution), and a bunch of people in Crimea probably thought it was in their best interests to just defect to Russia. Not to mention that Russia had almost certainly been flooding those regions with their own kind of propaganda and propping up separatist groups (the flip side of what you accuse the CIA of doing) for years.

Encountering relatively little resistance when you move in and try to take the land doesn't make it "not an invasion."


The Russians already had thousands of marines and navy personnel in the Russian bases already in place in Crimea since 1991. These troops however were greatly outnumbered by Ukrainian army regulars stationed in Crimean army bases. Almost all these troops hail from Crimea and are of Russian backgrounds. These people switched sides and rebelled against Kiev. They were also joined by local policemen and Crimean-Russian nationalists.

. . . and troops sent in from Russia. Not that were already at the bases. Sent in.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 4:29p, 9/5/25
Russia didn't have to send troops to Crimea, as the local troops were more than enough for Crimea to secede, which they've managed to do without much bloodshed.

Russia didn't even send a lot of troops to the Donbas before 2022, and they were widely criticized by the Donbas rebel armies for not having provided them much support through the 2014-22 civil war.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 4:47p, 9/5/25
Cal88 said:
Russia didn't have to send troops to Crimea, as the local troops were more than enough for Crimea to secede, which they've managed to do without much bloodshed.

Russia didn't even send a lot of troops to the Donbas before 2022, and they were widely criticized by the Donbas rebel armies for not having provided them much support through the 2014-22 civil war.

I take this as tacit acknowledgement that Russia sent troops into Crimea for the express purpose of taking it over.
Reply Quote
4
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 6:12p, 9/5/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Russia didn't have to send troops to Crimea, as the local troops were more than enough for Crimea to secede, which they've managed to do without much bloodshed.

Russia didn't even send a lot of troops to the Donbas before 2022, and they were widely criticized by the Donbas rebel armies for not having provided them much support through the 2014-22 civil war.

I take this as tacit acknowledgement that Russia sent troops into Crimea for the express purpose of taking it over.



There is no evidence that those troops were sent over from Russia, the Russian troops were already in Crimea. In fact, Russian troops have continuously been in Crimea since 1783, when Catherine the Great conquered that territory from the Ottoman Turks, who themselves had invaded and conquered that region several centuries before.

There was no time in the last two and a half centuries where Crimea wasn't Russian. The 19th century version of NATO (an alliance of France, GB and the Ottomans) tried to conquer it from Russia in the 1950s, but were repelled. What we are seeing today is a kind of reenactment of that Crimean War.

Herein lies the problem in your analyses, which boil down to "Putin is a bad hombre"/Star Wars Evil Empire storyboarding, they are completely devoid of historical perspective and geopolitical theory. The Ukraine has been clearly identified as Russia's weak underbelly in works like Brzezinski's Grand Chessbaord and other standout political analysts before him like Halford Mackinder. What we have seen in this war is simply a continuation of these same historical rivalries playing out, at the expense of Ukraine and its people.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 7:52p, 9/5/25
Cal88 said:
There was no time in the last two and a half centuries where Crimea wasn't Russian.

Except when Russia signed a treaty in the 90s recognizing it as Ukrainian territory, right?

Look, I know the history of Crimea and Russia/Ukraine is complicated. But when you call things "not an invasion" and there clearly was a kind of invasion, I'm not going to stand for that. The constant apologia for Putin is bizarre. You can acknowledge that he did bad things.
Reply Quote
3
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:06p, 9/5/25
Reply Quote
3
ACC Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:22a, 9/6/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
There was no time in the last two and a half centuries where Crimea wasn't Russian.

Except when Russia signed a treaty in the 90s recognizing it as Ukrainian territory, right?

Look, I know the history of Crimea and Russia/Ukraine is complicated. But when you call things "not an invasion" and there clearly was a kind of invasion, I'm not going to stand for that. The constant apologia for Putin is bizarre. You can acknowledge that he did bad things.

Coming from the guy who can only ever acknowledge that the U.S. does bad things when Trump is President, this is rich.
Reply Quote
4
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ACC Bear • 1:17a, 9/6/25
ACC Bear said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
There was no time in the last two and a half centuries where Crimea wasn't Russian.

Except when Russia signed a treaty in the 90s recognizing it as Ukrainian territory, right?

Look, I know the history of Crimea and Russia/Ukraine is complicated. But when you call things "not an invasion" and there clearly was a kind of invasion, I'm not going to stand for that. The constant apologia for Putin is bizarre. You can acknowledge that he did bad things.

Coming from the guy who can only ever acknowledge that the U.S. does bad things when Trump is President, this is rich.

Coming from the guy who uses this chart to form his every opinion, this is rich.

Reply Quote
3
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:03a, 9/6/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
There was no time in the last two and a half centuries where Crimea wasn't Russian.

Except when Russia signed a treaty in the 90s recognizing it as Ukrainian territory, right?

Look, I know the history of Crimea and Russia/Ukraine is complicated. But when you call things "not an invasion" and there clearly was a kind of invasion, I'm not going to stand for that. The constant apologia for Putin is bizarre. You can acknowledge that he did bad things.


Crimeans view their independence from Kyiv as a liberation, and they took that matter into their own hands. Russia and its naval bases marines did assist but were not at the forefront simply because they didn't have to. If they were needed, they would have intervened with the full might of their army, no question about that.

You never addressed the fact that Kyiv cut off 85% of Crimea's water diverting it into the Black Sea, crushing their agriculture and tourism sectors, the peninsula's top industries. How do you think Crimeans felt about this, and about Zelensky, the comic turned politician who literally mocked their drought as a comedian then maintained the water blockade on Crimea as president??

The first thing Russia did when they conquered the land bridge to Crimea was to restore the North Crimean Canal water.


Reply Quote
3
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Cal88 • 11:19a, 9/6/25
Cal88 said:
You never addressed the fact that Kyiv cut off 85% of Crimea's water diverting it into the Black Sea, crushing their agriculture and tourism sectors, the peninsula's top industries. How do you think Crimeans felt about this, and about Zelensky, the comic turned politician who literally mocked their drought as a comedian then maintained the water blockade on Crimea as president??

I'm guessing that after Russia annexed the territory, Ukraine considered it an act of war and thus took wartime actions to block supplies to enemy territory. The lesson, as always: don't invade, don't start wars.
Reply Quote
1
movielover
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 11:23a, 9/6/25
How about NATO stop advancing eastward.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to movielover • 11:28a, 9/6/25
movielover said:
How about NATO stop advancing eastward.

Treaties are not the same as invasions.
Reply Quote
2
Cal88
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 1:39p, 9/6/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
You never addressed the fact that Kyiv cut off 85% of Crimea's water diverting it into the Black Sea, crushing their agriculture and tourism sectors, the peninsula's top industries. How do you think Crimeans felt about this, and about Zelensky, the comic turned politician who literally mocked their drought as a comedian then maintained the water blockade on Crimea as president??

I'm guessing that after Russia annexed the territory, Ukraine considered it an act of war and thus took wartime actions to block supplies to enemy territory. The lesson, as always: don't invade, don't start wars.



You're a bit unclear on the concept of withholding water on a population, it is a war crime, there is no military benefit whatsoever in dumping 85% of a population's water into the sea.

This point is important, and quite telling here, because it shows that Kyiv views the Crimean population as a hostile adversary, not as its own people occupied by a foreign power, otherwise they would have never withheld their water.

FYI, since it became part of Russia, Crimea has boomed economically as the Russians invested heavily into local infrastructure (notably the Kerch Strait Bridge and a new airport), agricultural production surged after the restauration of the North Crimean Canal, and Crimea's GDP more than tripled since joining Russia.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/06/03/crimean-economy-named-fastest-growing-in-russia-a65851
Reply Quote
3
ACC Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 1:58p, 9/6/25
sycasey said:
ACC Bear said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
There was no time in the last two and a half centuries where Crimea wasn't Russian.

Except when Russia signed a treaty in the 90s recognizing it as Ukrainian territory, right?

Look, I know the history of Crimea and Russia/Ukraine is complicated. But when you call things "not an invasion" and there clearly was a kind of invasion, I'm not going to stand for that. The constant apologia for Putin is bizarre. You can acknowledge that he did bad things.

Coming from the guy who can only ever acknowledge that the U.S. does bad things when Trump is President, this is rich.

Coming from the guy who uses this chart to form his every opinion, this is rich.




Yeah. Fsck Democrats. Such complete and total fakes.
Reply Quote
1
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ACC Bear • 3:39p, 9/6/25
ACC Bear said:





Yeah. Fsck Democrats. Such complete and total fakes.




Before debate, Trump appears with women who accused Bill Clinton of rape and harassment | PBS News https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/debate-trump-appears-women-accused-bill-clinton-rape-harassment
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
2
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:56p, 9/6/25
MUTHA RUSSIA is SCREWED.

OPEC is gonna continue to go for market share rather than defend prices.

The latest increase would cement a dramatic pivot by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its partners. The group stunned oil markets in recent months by reviving 2.2 million barrels of halted production a full year ahead of schedule in a bid to reclaim market share and despite widespread expectations of an impending surplus.

Bye Bye Oil Revenue!



OPEC+ Agrees in Principle to Increase Production in October
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
cbbass1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 12:05a, 9/7/25
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
Russia did not invade Crimea

Hahaha.



Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a very convincing argument.

Your narrative is just Russian propaganda full stop, so I have nothing more to say about it.

It's interesting how "Russian propaganda" and the facts seem to align pretty well.

It's been said that Time wins more arguments than Reason.

Claiming "Russian propaganda" is NOT an argument. Either prove Cal88 wrong, with facts, or admit that he's correct.

And while you're at it, check out Operation Mockingbird. Everything you hear about Russia & Ukraine in U.S. corporate media is coming from the U.S. military / industrial / intelligence / media complex. Don't be so easily duped.
Reply Quote
4
ACC Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 5:39p, 9/8/25

sycasey said:
Cal88 said:
You never addressed the fact that Kyiv cut off 85% of Crimea's water diverting it into the Black Sea, crushing their agriculture and tourism sectors, the peninsula's top industries. How do you think Crimeans felt about this, and about Zelensky, the comic turned politician who literally mocked their drought as a comedian then maintained the water blockade on Crimea as president??

I'm guessing that after Russia annexed the territory, Ukraine considered it an act of war and thus took wartime actions to block supplies to enemy territory. The lesson, as always: don't invade, don't start wars.

Reply Quote
4
1 edit
MinotStateBeav
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:10a, 9/9/25
Reply Quote
4
First Page Refresh
Page 355 of 355 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.