BlueOak

Alright i'll rephrase. Its a poor way to order anything. People have thousands of years fighting over borders, disparity of strengths and influence, no central authority, a dwindling climate, and overreach on resources like water. Just saying multipolar, to me and I am sorry to the people fighting or arguing for this, sounds extremely naive. Its just chaos waiting to happen. - And is indeed chaos happening before our eyes. Rules do not imply that countries are subordinate to rules alone. They are subordinate to the authority enforcing them. People don't follow rules they don't like just because they exist; they follow them because if they do not, they are made to. Countries are arming themselves as other countries are threatening their sovereignty, borders, treaties, established institutions, populations, trade and national interests. With no authority to keep countries in check, people do whatever they like. More specifically North Korea have been given Nukes so they are capable of threatening South Korea and Japan should war break out, ditto Belarus threatening Poland and Eastern Europe.

All true but if they were trained how to interact with the public and do their job more thoroughly, this would be less likely to happen. I understand you will argue this is part of the design, but others may counter, so this data is useful. Ice apparently gets 47 days of training; if we charitably say they get 8 hours each day, that's 376 hours, which is 11 times less than the best-trained forces around the globe and half as long as regular American police, who are woefully undertrained, Regular police get almost 7 times less hours than India for example. Someone can argue American training is more effective, but I doubt by a factor of ten.

Yes. Which is paramount to anything else. Order and structure stops the planet becoming a wasteland; without it people do whatever they can get away with. At present countries don't have nukes because America stops them. BRICS have just given up stopping people and are now arming them, Belarus and North Korea for example. If this trend continues, we will have nuclear proliferation all over the world, and a considerably higher likelihood of ending the planet in the current multipolar no-order dynamic.

This is factually incorrect. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-training-requirements-by-country

@Elliott Liberal democracies are as far away from nazi's as you can get. There a small growing nationalist sentiment, thanks to Russia, and the USA descending into fascism. But even national flags are often taken down, something I don't agree with, due to the large MIGRANT population in these countries. You don't even have a grasp on what you are talking about. Open borders woo woo. How to inspire nationalism, by putting in ten times net migrants than we were doing in decades gone by, so communities destabalise and order breaks down. Its why Russia sends so many over the border and Poland is forced to shoot them. Simply listing names does nothing. You've given me no context for how the people in these countries feel, or does that not matter? No indication of the quality of their lives. Would you like me to list the many countries the US has 'liberated', or the people your country has killed so it can get a bit more oil or trade revenue? GD its like a return to team America world police, only now its the Team America: Steal All We Can Get Solo Mafia version. I never thought you were this far gone. And by that I mean the 'opposition' to maga.

Oh okay, you are serious. We don't need your liberation. We don't need American fascism designed to hide its own. Fascists always claim the other side is doing what they do to justify their own actions. Its what children do, and they haven't grown out of it. Meanwhile, you are threatening canada, mexico and greenland and somehow claiming to be justified. The UK has come to their senses and helped attack a country? What the hell are you trying to argue here? Yay, one step closer to WW3? This is something to celebrate? This is delusional warmongering. Most of these countries or regions you describe are perfectly happy as they are, certainly the UK backed ones, they are often given referendums when asked, security guarantees, and get to enjoy a better quality of life. Yes, free Greenland, a relatively happy population, into American guns. A European Army and nuclear proliferation in Europe can't come quickly enough. If this is the world we are up against. Americans and other authoritarian powers seizing whatever they like, and calling it liberation with a straight face, I hate fascists generally, but American ones take the cake, as they claim to be better than they are or doing it for someone else's good. At least the Russian ones just shoot you.

Training. America sucks at training its law enforcement. Discipline isn't born into people, and little of exists in families these days. It needs a strong command structure and those in positions of authority to follow the rules they are enforcing, or else chaos, corruption, and suffering result. Equivocating a regular random person and a man or woman supposed to be in a position of authority is a false equivalency. It doesn't make sense.

@Elliott I'm guessing you are trolling again. Though sometimes its hard to tell, America has gone so nuts these last few years.

It stopped the planet turning into a wasteland. More countries have nukes. More will get them if America backstab Europe.

Plenty of times. Its not much better when you buy a genuine course or take a genuine step towards a goal and it ends up in the dirt either though. It's just life mate. You got an education how to spot frauds. It'd have been nice if you were conned or scammed earlier on in life to avoid it now, but either way you learned a hard lesson and either way it feels the same way at 5, 15, or 55. Like crap.

I don't think Leo sells courses on how to sell courses. As that's what the poster is implying he bought elsewhere, unless I am reading it wrong.

From your subsequent post I am going to infer you think Iran will not be an authoritarian capitalist state, X amount of years from now when the rebel tendencies die down and the theocracy is reformed into the control of bankers, rich families, dictators and oligarchs. Its the global pattern, specifically Iranian society at its roots and structure is not a girl burning pictures. This looks good for the TV for us in the west, and it caught your eye, maybe its even good to inspire a fire. Its not going to be what the country is made out of going forward. That'll be the usual economic apparatus and governing instutions that always exist, and few of them are going to be what you consider stage green. Much as i'd like to believe people when they tell me see enough of one side of a coin (fascism) and you get the other, that's not what we are experiencing right now.

Yeah. Soft BRICS target and unaligned with the current system of world governance: if you are not capitalist-fascist leaning you are under pressure. But the country is done for, unless they start getting water in, or a leader who is able to start bring water in/greening areas from the coast or a major river.

Yes.

Some of this is a propaganda fantasy. Germany is not an ally of Russia. Natural or otherwise, they have had significantly more conflicts than they have partnerships. Every Russia supporter tells me the EU will fall, yet here it sits, because it's a Russia fantasy. Its not a collectivist thing that can fall in one go; its many countries that all need to be addressed separately. 'The West' is some collective invention that in reality doesn't exist like collectivists or authoritarians think. So they cannot adequately even conceptualize their opponents. Russia needs it to break apart to keep pushing westward. Maybe one day, but not because Russia floods it with migrants or threatens it collectively every few months (the last part there is idiotic if that's the goal, they've done nothing but harden europe) If the EU goes full rightwing, Russia gets nuked if it pushes further. That pattern doesn't end as you want it to. Big changes are coming possibly, but it'll be a large war and tens of millions dead with this kind of prevalent attitude. If the Baltics flare up in the next ten years, it won't be 2 million Russian casualties; it'll be 10, if they go into Poland, it'll be 20 or more. Nothing unites populations quicker than aggressive countries pushing into their neighbors and causing crises's on their doorstep. The US and EU will pull apart because America's devolving into a fascist state. Yes. Iran will partially collapse because it has no water, and its one of the last countries that operate differently to the current world order's template. It doesn't really matter who governs it, it'll be unstable forever unless it gets a very strong partnership to supply water into a desert that's only ever going to get hotter. They need a visionary leader like in Saudi Arabia or Africa where they are greening the desert. Too few want to take climate change with the seriousness it requires, so these areas are done for. Turkey will push downward and eastward, yes. I don't see anything in their way. Unless they start poking greece again. Russia's economy will continue to collapse. The country if it continues, will see great loss, and more so if some of what you predict comes to pass. They are the front line in China's power grab westward. But then again, if fascism rises in the UK i'll be out fighting it, and I won't be alone. I don't see that myself in this country without a change in pattern. China if it continues, will be at war with Japan, the Philippines, etc. It won't end as they want it to. But yes it'll be a big power, I don't see that changing.

Yeah. We are in WW3. Maybe one or two incidents away if we were being technical about it. This was incredibly reckless given the distance to the border. But that was the point. A demonstration.

The point is well made on certain foreign policy choices but there are differences. None of them would have invaded greenland or threatened Canada. Most knew that complete isolationism was the end of their empire. Also the level of fascism Trump displays is significantly higher; he's much more aligned with Putin and Xi Jinping ideologically.

In part this is because eastern cities no longer exist and are under russian control. Largely, though, this was pre the borders being closed. The war is certainly a factor but this was more or less true for both countries at the start of the war: https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2025/09/russia-new-demographic-crisis?lang=en The problem russia faces is not the same one Ukraine does. With Ukraine its losing cities and population centers. With Russia its the lack of money for anything but the war. To provide money for families requires money, and they don't have it, they've cut everything they can. But war certainly doesn't encourage birth rates in either country. Russia have tried to solve this by importing labor from Central or east Asia, but more people know that means they can end up facing the barrel of a gun, so they are more wary. That and as the article suggests, Russia isn't the rich country in the east anymore, there are better options to migrate to.

That's a convenient propaganda piece. BRICS supply economic and military support to Russia. They support Russia diplomatically also. Ditto Venezuela or Iran. I understand its a bit like how everyone blamed NATO for decades when America ran amok (and still do) i accepted it in the end, 'the evil west' narrative etc, they still go on about it now. But at least in BRICS case, it's more accurate that they are working together, most of the countries cooperating, like India signing treaties to work with Russian troops, or China sending parts and arms into Russia for Ukraine (some say via north korea), Iran sending drones. I'd say NATO is hardened in Europe, its always been a defensive alliance, more so now than ever after being repeatedly threatend by Russia. There are a few countries that would waver but not many if it was attacked. Picking off outliers like Iran and Venezula in the current climate is understandable from this perspective. Like Thailand or Taiwan for BRICS. They are softer targets. i think China is poking the bear too much with Japan and won't like the end result there however, it'd be the same when Russia attacks the Baltics if there is enough left of their country to do so after Ukraine is concluded.

@zazen Most of that I agree with yes. But Russia gains were better earlier, these days they are at a snail's pace comparatively. What they have done is gone around the problems rather than into them in the south, not even in the cities they claim to have taken but in other areas. Its a bit insane how the propaganda works because if they actually told people what they taken, and didn't focus on city names in constant lies because it sounds 'good' it'd be a different conversation. I guess KM's taken doesn't translate to excitement or something people can remember. Infantry pushes over large territories are still favorable. At a high cost but favorable. Ukraine's a wide territory, I know next to Russia it looks small but its not a small battlefield, it's very open, not much cover, and slow, and bitter in winter, you can send a drone in, (soon drone squads I mean they operate often in clusters) but unless there are literally a thousand of them they'd just be flanked. However drones hold territory very well. Fast, covering a lot of ground. No fear. No chance of retreat. No cost to train, only to maintain and a cheap cost to build in the first place. The operators are usually safe from counter so their training remains consistent and only improves. Cheap aerial drones hold territory exceptionally well, but they are not going to push up into buildings all too well; they only clear the way. I mean 20 of those machine gun or Anti tank drones with some AA cover would hold a line or ruined village well enough on the land also, but like I say they are getting better over time; this is still early days for drone war. There will be mine and cluster bomb drones soon enough, then worse.

Most Political leaders don't care about what we think should happen in regards to rivals or other countries. If they have a strong base support of 30%, there is enough suppression and media control that they can do whatever they like toward their rivals. America is moving into the Russian and Chinese model, where tbh they don't even need 30% support, but it helps to have a nationalist population from which to draw military personnel and internal paramilitary or state policing and suppression of the populace (ICE, or the Rosgvardiya in Russia, the People's Armed Police (PAP) in China etc) The problem is people think the world behaves differently to how it now behaves. In the authoritarian system we are moving towards globally. This is the new reality. Your voices and opinions do not matter. To the point that any theatrics or clever politicial manouvering is no longer required for a leader to attack his rivals either. Sorry to be blunt with everyone here, but i've had that for a long time being a socialist, and now its implemented over the wider population.

Never happening. Russia don't do peace. Ukraine already offered territory, again and again. They just push until they are stopped. Been that way for centuries, and they are trying the same old again because they have the backing of BRICS. Again, though, manpower means little when tactical nukes are involved. Tactical nukes can take out hundreds of thousands, even a low yield one. Not the big world ending nukes, the smaller battlefield ones. If BRICS get further involved, they already are materially and with some manpower, then other countries would get further involved also. Drones are king now. Manpower helps with that, but industrial capacity (and technology) helps more. The more I understand how warfare is now being fought: Russia are far more geared for war than China is, China has invested billions in technologies that don't matter. America is planning billion dollar battleships that can be brought down with a few hundred drones, they still think expensive = good, no it's just expensive. India, China and America are honestly behind where the current arms race is, their minds are not even in the right place. Not to say it will always be that way, there may be effective anti drone countermeasures eventually, but I tend to think not with the current pattern, they are just so cheap compared to everything else, and most of them can fly independent of any control or signal once on target. Euorpe has worked closely with Ukraine, very closely. I am sure China are not sitting idle either but I don't see it in the forces they keep showing off. All Taiwan needs is several thousand cheap drones and all those landing craft they parade around will be at the bottom of the ocean. Analysis of the pattern says Russia will not collapse, but there is a fair likelihood of severe economic issues (they are already set), and if unstopped the war grinding on to a stalemate of 2 million Russia casualties in 2 more years. When I had this discussion with my objective GPT, to keep my own bias neutralised. It said to post to your statement that manpower wins wars: How does your theory handle logistics, training time, equipment losses, precision attrition, and political endurance—without defaulting to unlimited escalation? Because that's what we are facing right now. India China and Russia throwing millions of people into tactical nukes and drones. There would not be a winner. So if China, India and Russia want to keep escalating and demanding, that's where we will end up.

As people always tell me manpower wins wars. This year moreso than ever these are going to be used, and they are only getting improved. People still say when will robots start fighting on the front line? Well, it is now. There was a part here where a land drone was hit by a Russian air drone, i've not seen that before. Compared to the rest of the world (except Ukraine) Russia's military is impressive but not because of tanks or manpower, because they are the second best drone force on the planet, second only to Ukraine. At this point there are entire sections of the front, held by these drones, because it's not easy to take them out with infantry, and tanks are just large slow drone targets, all that hits them well is other drones, or jets but they are expensive comparatively, and artillery is often too risky to reveal - because of air drones.

Here is a discussion. Power. People like to put rules on what power should be. Many follow these rules. Most leaders do not have these rules. Consequently, there is always a delusion or disconnect between reality and conversations. Would a leader, someone not following these rules kill a rival, yes. Would people be outraged, yes. - Would that matter, most times no. You and this forum (all forums) are operating under different rules to reality. I am not discussing the rules, its not my forum, and I understand why they exist, as people and institutions that govern communications have expectations, which sadly do not line up with how reality functions. I am just pointing out why this disconnect exists

Russia are trying this angle to drive a wedge between the US and Europe. They are going to get increasingly desperate this year as they have dug a large hole for themselves economically, and their air defense is a joke now with Ukraine hitting them harder each month, but their propaganda is still pretty good as most people seem to be influenced by it, like this thread here. There is an outside chance of tensions over greenland, but its fairly low. This is coming from someone who dislikes America and hates trump currently. It is correct; however, Trump is of a different ideology to most European leaders. However China is a bigger threat to their trade routes, while Europe is just ideologically not aligned with what I would call an authoritarian state in the making. Trump however is somewhat beholden to Russia, as they helped him get in power.