BlueOak

@zazen Premise: If we take multipolarity seriously, then what you call Russia’s natural push for buffers has an equally natural counterbalance: Europe’s balancing and denial. That’s the security dilemma, not a moral failure or a reason to demonize in your recognition of it. Spheres explain behaviour, they don’t confer rights or vetoes. Again recognising a multipolar world isn’t capitulation; it’s a competitive coexistence (Something i've resisted accepting). In such a system, small states have agency also: Ukraine, Poland or Georgia aren’t just buffer zones, without recognition of that, we have eternal conflict using them as pawns. In a region with clashing ideologies, history and cultural memories over a thousand years of it, friction is predictable; you aren't acknowledging that enough. Yes, the standard should be consent and non-aggression, but not deference to a power’s sphere because you or I favor its position. Europe rearming and backing Ukraine is a predictable and normal balancing response. 1) Why not just deal with Russia? This is dealing with Russia. Its a perfect understandable mirror over cultures and populations that share a long conflicting history, many similar cultural values (in the immediate region), but conflicting ideologies, in a new multipolar dynamic with competing interests. It's like asking why don't Russia just deal with these many countries to its west? Well they are. @PurpleTreeOn Nukes, yes. I've called for that for years. That's why Putin did it in Belarus. It'll help deter invasion of Belarus in the coming decades. Its exactly what needs to happen to secure that zone of conflict for a few decades. 1A) An addition: Europe still funds Russia. No. You keep posting this in different threads @zazen, so I'll post it here again. The scale has flipped As I've just sourced this with Chat GPT, i'll just copy paste GPT conclusions: Quote: Oil: The EU cut Russian crude and products from ~29% of its oil imports in 2021 to ~2% in early-2025. That’s orders-of-magnitude smaller revenue than pre-war. Gas: Russia’s share of EU gas fell from ~45% pre-war to ~15–19% in 2024/25 (mix of pipeline + LNG). Norway and U.S. LNG have largely displaced it. Total trade: EU goods imports from Russia dropped ~78–86% vs early-2022, even if some flows (nickel, LNG) remain. The direction of travel is clear. Reuters Yes, India and China absorbed much of the oil, at a discount. That’s why Moscow leaned on a shadow fleet and non-Western insurance. Discounts widened again this month, underscoring Russia’s weaker pricing power. End Quote 2) You can’t sanction half the world (BRICS). Power is in chokepoints, not headcounts. Population is not leveraged. The G7 and EU still dominate finance, shipping insurance, advanced tech, and capital markets. There are focused sanctions targeted at these points, which is easier given the dominance. Chat GPT adds: Even with BRICS expansion, nominal-GDP weight still trails the G7 and is fragmented by divergent interests. (PPP shares look larger but don’t buy chips, tooling, or underwriting.) I generally liked its take more than mine here, as it brings up some interesting points. 3) Russia’s war economy is fine. Really? Another stat quote here for speed: Russia’s defense burden is now 6–7% of GDP; the 2025 deficit was raised to 1.7% of GDP, and the central bank hiked to 21% before easing to 18%—classic overheating control. This isn’t collapse, but it’s expensive and crowding-out. To me this is the biggest point of propaganda. In real terms nobody's economy is doing fine. Least of all a country which is printing 15-19% of its money every few months, is propped up by BRICS members buying energy they don't need at a discounted price, and has its refineries (its major export) hit daily. Its country is tooled up to a wartime economy, and it spent 1 million lives, many of which will be carried as a burden one way or the other by the state, both physically and psychologically. Plus how many millions that have fled and won't return, because they have families/lives/good jobs elsewhere now. 4) Manpower doesn't decide a war. Quantity helps, but quality, gear, and politics ultimately decide outcomes UK MOD and the CSIS list Russian casualties KIA and WIA past 1 million this summer. That's an enormous casualty strain and bill for the country to carry. Maintaining their push requires hard cash, and prison recruiting both of which are dried up. These are signs of strain not a healthy military. The kill ratio exceeds the population imbalance you describe. Which is why, almost four years on, this is a very slow front. 5) Ukrainians just want a deal. Yes. To a ceasefire, not to capitulation Quote for speed: Gallup finds ~69% want a negotiated end “as soon as possible.” But Ukrainian polls also show little willingness to concede territory and strong belief Russia would violate a paper peace. That’s not hawkish elites forcing war; it’s a public that wants peace with security, not a reset to the next invasion. 6) Georgia and Azerbaijan in NATO is just antagonizing Russia? Two things here to start: Azerbaijan has never been a realistic NATO candidate in the past; While Georgia has sought a path for years. Something you struggle with in your analysis are points like this, great power red lines don't erase neighbors agency. The Helsinki Final Act norms are states choose their alignments. Realism matters, but so do rules to govern a multipolar world, or smaller states live at the mercy of spheres of influence, and we end up in eternal conflicts. Leo would tell me they do live at their mercy, then i'd reflect that's the source of eternal conflict, until those states or populations are considered they'll just be pawns to fight or compete over. - Infact that's a realisation i've just had, not doing so is why sphere's of influence live in competition. 7) Europe is pacifist bureaucracy; 5% of GDP talk is fantasy? Again GPT does stats far better than me: The EU was slow, but the trend is up: NATO just signaled a new spending envelope (3.5% core + 1.5% broader security); Poland is pushing ~4.7–5%; the UK is moving toward 2.5% (with some leaders floating higher over the 2030s). Industrial capacity (ammo/drones/air defense) is expanding from a low base. It’s not instantaneous, but it is material. 8) China will replace Europe for Russian gas? The Power of Siberia-2 still lacks a finalised contract and price; Beijing has kept Moscow waiting to extract terms. Even if built, 50 bcm doesn’t replace pre-war European pipeline volumes. I am trusting the GPT's conclusion on this i'll place sources in the next post. What should Europe actually do? Me: Strong united front to keep their sphere pushing toward Russia, nukes in Ukraine to mimic Belarus, keep pushing back. Until we can start to consider smaller states sovereignty as a globe. Russia isn't developed enough to do so yet. I'm just going to be blunt @zazen you reason from a place that doesn't yet exist. Which is noble and useful to point out better solutions but flawed in practicality. GPT's strategy and evaluation. Based on my overall analysis. Short term (war-relevant within months) Air defense + counter-drone mass for Ukraine; stockpile 155mm/122mm & GMLRS; remove range caveats that hobble interdiction of Russian logistics inside Russia’s border areas supporting active fronts. (Deterrence works when it raises Moscow’s costs faster than it can adapt.) Close the revenue taps left: Impose an EU tariff or ban on Russian LNG; stop trans-shipment via EU ports; align with U.S./UK on tighter enforcement of the oil price cap and shipping/insurance secondary sanctions. Reuters+1 Target the shadow fleet and traders blending or relabeling Russian products. (Insurance and port-state control are the leverage.) Le Monde.fr Use frozen Russian sovereign assets: expand the windfall-profits mechanism into outright collateralization for Ukrainian air defense, power grid repair, and ammo. (The legal path now exists in G7/EU practice.) Medium term (1–3 years) 4) Munition & propellant bottlenecks: fast-track explosives/propellant (TNT/RDX) plants and drone lines; long-term framework contracts, not one-off grants. 5) Energy resilience: lock in non-Russian LNG/offshore wind/nuclear extensions; diversify grids inter-EU so gas is a swing fuel, not a vulnerability. The U.S. supplied ~50% of EU LNG in 2024—use that bargaining power to secure multi-year volumes while accelerating demand reduction. Reuters 6) Security guarantees for Ukraine that bite: multi-year arms funding; integrated air defense; real-time ISR access; and a clearly signposted path to NATO once basic deterrence is in place—so any ceasefire isn’t just an operational pause for Russia. Diplomatic lane (in parallel) 7) Test Moscow with a ceasefire-for-verification offer: front-line freeze + intrusive monitoring + phased sanctions relief tied to compliance (no missile/drone attacks, POW exchanges, protected corridors for grain/power repair). Publicly table terms that are enforceable; if the Kremlin balks, Europe wins the narrative without conceding ground. GPT's Closing Bottom line Europe hasn’t “kept Russia whole.” Oil revenues from Europe collapsed; gas dependence is way down; the remaining holes (LNG, shadow fleet) can be closed with targeted measures. ReutersBruegelEuropean Commission Russia can grind forward, but at mounting fiscal and demographic cost—hardly a free ride. SIPRICSIS Ukrainians want the war to end, but not on terms that invite the next one. Any “architecture” worth the name must reflect that, or it’s just a prelude to Round Two.

I understand this is a sensitive topic and you've been through a lot. That's why I was making the post, to help, which failed. Until you made the subsequent post it sounded like you were still stuck here.

16/08/2025 I am having some hours off. Zoning out. I've been on forty-hour weeks, with the rest of the time on the business. My apartment is a cluttered mess and I've not been eating or exercising well, all i've done is work with a few hours off here and there to take my mind off it. That about sums it up. Though I did get a run yesterday, and I have been trying to do maintenance cleaning here. I think 70 hours working is where I top out tbh, though I find sometimes now I only want to work, rather than anything else. I've finally convinced my business partner to go niche on sites. As trying to do broad websites is simply impossible in the time we have available, if I consider the full picture of all it takes to maintain a catalogue/advertising/business admin/support etc, even a niche site or two can eat your time to flesh out. I've considered starting my own (second) company up to put extra time into, but at the end of the day we are stronger together. Early tomorrow we are going to try and sell off a lot of the stock we have held in person. While next week we put some more time into a relaunch of the main dropshipping site we have going on (its a hybrid currently if you are wondering) We've learned a lot but its not been a financial success yet, and so I have my misgivings about continuing. I've sunk a lot of money into this project again. Its a test of myself to keep focused and committed over the next months till we build back up. But its a leap of faith in myself and him to continue. People tell me to get a girl, and its not like I haven't had opportunities now. But I consistently reply I don't have the money or the time currently. Coach’s Note (16/08/2025) You’re right at the edge of a threshold—the kind of moment where exhaustion, uncertainty, and grit all intersect. That’s not a failure of your system; it’s a reflection of how deeply you’ve committed. But commitment without replenishment becomes erosion, not endurance. The recognition that 70 hours is your upper limit is not a weakness—it’s data. It’s wisdom earned through experience. And your insight about the shift from “wanting to work” to “only wanting to work” is a quiet alarm worth listening to. When work becomes both the ladder and the escape, balance quietly exits the room. Yet even now, you’re recalibrating. You’re cleaning in spurts. You’re still running. You’re negotiating your business structure and refining niche focus. These are signs of life beneath the fatigue. Don’t overlook that. Here’s a small reflection prompt to anchor this transition: “What part of me needs to be heard, not managed?” That part might be tired, unsure, or even quietly grieving the space you’ve given up for this push. Listening to it isn’t indulgence—it’s leadership. You’ve built systems, companies, and frameworks. Now build space for the part of you that doesn’t thrive on performance alone. Your leap of faith is real. Just make sure you're landing on ground that supports you, not just your output.

1, Goals Stabilizing an Income Stream so I can concentrate time on other areas of my life. 2, Expanding Areas of my life that need work. 3, Taking accountability and removing any remaining victim patterns or behaviors I have. 4, Creating the reality that I want, through focus, emotional state regulation and any remaining integration necessary.

Doesn't that also help you make distinctions? I find cutting myself off from anything a waste, it's there for a reason, when i can evaluate what it is I am assigning to something. Unless a reason is I can learn that cutting off itself is useful. Which has happened time to time. For example I won't waste time with someone who is wasting my time or energy, or a drain, but I will listen to someone I consider *insert your negative word here*. Because I want to understand where that comes from/ Not only because I grow most when I reflect from someone who is not parroting my existing frame of reference, but also it's humbling and corrective to the ego to have these intelligent and often well-thought-out and considered perspectives voiced. People pour energy into their opinions and experiences to voice them, and that is precious. - But even when they are emotional not intellectual, I learn my'self', and the world around me. It's why I often say a dog or your pet can teach you if you are open and accepting to that part of yourself. I like this forum because it challenges me, it helps me grow, it helps me reflect on perspectives I never get to see and voice things I never get to voice. It place to understand experiences I hold deep thanks and gratitude for in my heart.

You give yourself advice. This is you, in your own head, giving these words meaning, referencing them, Taking, learning, adapting, connecting, referencing etc. All words are. Every speaker is.

Its a process. You don't fully appreciate, understand or give credit for how interwined these economies were before the war. However you are speaking propaganda to me in your conclusion. 🔹 Russian Gas Imports In 2021, Russia supplied ~45% of EU gas. By 2024, this dropped to ~19%. Source: 🔗 https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-energy-export-disruptions-since-start-ukraine-war-2025-08-15/ Another source showing a drop from 40%+ to around 15% in early 2023: 🔗 https://www.reuters.com/world/three-years-into-war-us-and-europe-keep-billions-trade-with-russia-2025-08-05/ 🔹 Russian Oil Imports EU oil imports from Russia were ~28.7% in 2021. By early 2025, they had fallen to just ~2%. Source: 🔗 https://www.reuters.com/world/three-years-into-war-us-and-europe-keep-billions-trade-with-russia-2025-08-05/ 🔹 Overall Trade with Russia EU imports from Russia fell by 86% from early 2022 to early 2025. Source: 🔗 That's Chat GPT for speed. Let me give you an objective conclusion. Whatever Europe doesn't buy others do, but for less (However even china has run out of room or need to store excess oil). So the war has run on far longer than it ever would have in a uni polar world. On your sanctions point, given the population density, actual trade from the US to India is quite low, which is they've already gone ahead with sanctions. This isn't true of China, which why it isn't sanctioned. Also the EU - India and EU - China trade is actually very high. However the world is split, and sanctions are required. BRICS is trying to outcompete the West, thats their stated goal. Why on earth when we want to work with them? You seem to imply however, that sanctions wouldn't hurt them; in actuality it would hurt everybody. Two competing global power blocks is a recipe for competition, conflict and WW3. I think i've said this 5,000 times at this point. *Also you seem think people can just buy up energy indefinitely, to do what with exactly? The reason Europe and the US buy so much is because their countries are so energy hungry; not many other places are. Oh and the US has an oversized fuel-guzzling, globally polluting military.

@Emerald If it helps. Equal doesn't mean the same. You are equal to me. You can't lift what I lift, you can't face down a larger intruder running on testosterone despite being injured, or work 70 hours a week to impress most of your potential husbands with your results, discipline, and dedication to providing or securing the family. But you can have the emotional nuance to put together a deeply heartfelt introspective post tailored to the person you are speaking with, as a rule a woman can be deeply nurturing to their children, and soften harsh male perspectives into outcomes that don't result in force or violence. (Big argument to never get rid of the female vote btw) I've chosen very different areas there to hopefully reinforce that. You are completely right though, life is never fair :). All the best.

@zazen You should look at the granular details; it'll give you a more realistic portrayal of the war, not just dramatic headlines. Russia is slow and steady, Ukraine is stubborn to withdraw to inflict high casualties; this has been the pattern since day one, for the most part. Russia use human wave attacks and technicals (civilian vehicles) because of drones and the damage done to their armour, largely by drones now or previously in years gone by, overextending. Russia has achieved its goals. Which goals? - Goals (from all sides) change every month in war, to the practical reality of what's possible, for example initially it was to take (retake) Kiev, which failed early on, and Ukraine's was to kick Russia all the way out, which was never going to happen either. Russia is printing about 20% of its money every few months now (was 15%, now 19% if I recall). Its economy, which is almost completely switched to a wartime footing, is not sustainable, and when the war ends, then what? BRICS has propped it up really well. At the cost of Russian industry becoming Chinese. Part of this is explained below: You rightly note Russia’s large industrial base and drone production increasing into a wartime economy. But attritional warfare isn’t just about making more, it’s about preserving enough quality force to win politically. Drones don't really fill that role yet, they are more equivalent to missiles. Russia’s been burning up elite units for marginal gains, and the demographic clock is increasingly not on their side. It’s increasingly using aged conscripts, 50's era armor, and prison battalions, not signs of sustainable strength. - Yep, Europe is slow to mobilize industrially. But that’s not the same as being incapable. The EU is not a battlefield power; it’s a bureaucracy built to avoid war. Yet under sustained pressure, it can retool, especially if US support contracts (and the US military industries rush to fill the void opening overseas). That’s exactly what’s starting to happen now in France, Germany, and Poland. Have you seen how many companies returned their products to Russia, or Russia just mimicked their brands? They all just changed their name - that happens when the US officially pulls its support back from Europe, people move in to fill the void. Nothing changes when demand is there, only the cost. Yes the Europeans didn't retool that much, though 5% GDP is no joke over the EU's scale. Ukraine aside, they didn't spend any manpower or weaken their demographics, trade partners or really suffer much at all. Aside from energy prices, which they've gone elsewhere for. Russia has weakened itself to gain a fifth of what it had previously. I'll restate: Europe is a bureaucracy built to avoid war. - I hate people don't realise this. - When I now grudgingly call for the rearming of Europe i understand the historic implications of doing so, thousands of years of expansionist war Vassalisation You think the US being the military powerhouse, and Europe sitting back is vassalisation? It certainly costs them their voice with Russia, I'll give you that. Which was always amusing, as potential force should be considered alongside force by a wise mind. I don't need to see force to understand its possible or there. It's just Europe being geared toward a peaceful life, happy to sit back, live the high life and let someone else take care of security. But that's not accurate anymore, this war woke them up. America is clearly trying to pull its influence back, and these countries are spending 5% of their GPD on defense now, which will be used in some form. It won't sit there doing nothing. To conclude Russia spent a million casualties on retaking 20% of a country they've controlled 100% via proxy, with ruined settlements and barely any population living there. They've tanked their economy. They've gained stronger BRICS allies, some minerals, some important ports. They've lost much of their youth to death, disability or leaving the country to set up lives elsewhere. Their demographics are worse than ever, much of their economy is chinese and they are more a proxy of China due to reliance on Trade, Chinese investment in Russia and the sheer power of China relative to Russia when not balanced out by European influence or allies. I liked chat GPT's take here, I won't give you all the points but:

Here is the end of the Russian breakthrough and the encirclement of around 200 men, a political stunt that was answered as one; it's not how Russia usually fights, its usually much slower and steadier, but like the American jets flying over the Russian meeting, its just a political stunt by political 'strongmen' with large egos. This unit may break out; Russia often do of encirclements if the unit isn't just pure conscripts, traditionally at a somewhat heavy cost, sometimes they just surrender. @zazen I'll address the main post in a moment. *Looks like there have been some captured already as I watched more of it.

That's some impressive sourcing and i'll concede some of what you are saying to be true, but have you noted how far apart the dates you've given me are compared to the recent repeat use of the national guard? Its early to call this a pattern but if it bumps his polls, there is nothing stopping him from doing this repeatedly, whereas in eras gone by even his own party would have had something to say.

The difference is this is a heavily politicized repeated use of the National Guard and other federal institutions under the direct orders of the White House against the citizens of the country throughout major cities. Its taking rare incidents or overreaches of federal control and not only normalising them but doing so for political gain. That to me, has completely sealed the country as a police state.

@Hatfort , I agree with you in part. You're right to say that Russia has been responding to what it perceives as Western encroachment. But the idea that Russia is only reacting, rather than pursuing a coherent and aggressive grand strategy, misses the larger pattern. If we understand geopolitics, and history, we must take states at their word and at their actions. I do, I was stupid not to previously. Power Fills Vacuums Russia's pattern of behavior: Covert interference, overt military aggression, and systemic undermining of democratic institutions, is not new. It is a continuation of centuries of power projection toward Europe. The Tsars, Soviets, or Putin, the aim has remained generally constant: security through expansion, influence, and buffer zones. - I wish people could look at patterns inside Europe itself, after ww2 we just had a respite with America's military power which is now going away. Putin doesn’t hide his agenda. His speeches, policies, and military campaigns point toward a desire to reassert Russian dominance over what he calls the 'Russian world', which includes not just Ukraine, but the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and beyond. This is not just me speculating; it is strategic doctrine and state propaganda that I can cite and point to. Yes, NATO expanded. But it did so voluntarily by states fleeing Russia's sphere, not through forced military action. Russia sees democracy on its borders not as a threat from military movements, but because it undermines its autocratic narratives at home. ^Moreover this was Russia getting weaker, NATO getting stronger. What we see today is the opposite: America removing itself more from NATO, and Russia backed by China is able to push the opposite way, only more violently - Zero-sum, sphere of influence politics. Same - Same. Passive Idealism You said peace is found through disengagement? Show me where that has worked in history with an aggressive authoritarian power. Appeasement only buys time, often for the aggressor. Truth is it doesn't work for either side, sphere's extend till they are stopped. Europe's peace has not been guaranteed by pacifism but by a strong deterrent. That present-day deterrent is eroding away, previously, the great powers within Europe fought each other. Europe needs to rebuild strategic sovereignty, to give diplomacy real leverage. Soft power without hard power is simply wishful thinking. A European defense framework, autonomous, modern, nuclear-capable, and independent of the US's hand is long overdue. Not to use offensively. Power projects stability. Weakness invites meddling. Zero-Sum Spheres BRICS doesn’t represent a post-Western utopia; it is a coalition of transactional national interests with deeply authoritarian outlooks. China's 'peaceful rise' comes with intellectual property theft, debt diplomacy, and surveillance exports, not to mention cultural genocide. Russia backs far-right groups and individuals, fuels disinformation, and wages hot war. These aren’t 'win-win' partners, they're states playing a hard game and using an opportunity. You mention U.S. meddling, and yes, it exists. But don't confuse past hypocrisy with present passivity. If others are playing the game, Europe must too. That doesn’t mean neocolonialism, but it does mean actively defending its values, interests, and technological edge. Conclusion: Power with Purpose If Europe remains divided, dependent, and in deference, it will become a playground, not a player. We need a Europe that projects stability through strength, builds alliances through respect, not subordination, and protects its future through strategic autonomy. Not nostalgic imperialism. Not blind Americanism. But a real European renaissance, culturally confident, militarily credible, and economically resilient. We either stand up, or we get rolled over.

Change Candidate. In a difficult time. Charisma Looked professional and competent in a time when that mattered. Never appeared feminine or weak on the podium. America was less willing to embrace racism as a core tenet of their country. - Meaning being black mattered less than competence or charisma. Won the donors and the people.

Are you seriously telling me Leo you can't picture an overly dramatic economic headline, or class warfare? Anything can be manufactured; its a captive audience drinking anything down they are told that triggers an emotion inside of them.

25+ Years of Fascist influence and eastern alignment not enough to show the pattern in Western countries? Actual democrats on here talking about pro white, pro-Christian politics. I mean, what else do you need to see the conversion? Troops in American streets? Oh wait that's there. Appeasement to Fascist dictators, nope that's there too. Hmm. Mass deportations of black and brown people, women not able to vote, we'll we've got one of those, the other being talked about. Perpetual war. Heroic Masculinity. Faith led government. Its us going back several hundred years. How can you not see what direction the world is heading? What's unclear? Patriarchal, Fascist, Authoritarian, and a Chinese Uni Polar World. This multipolar argument is simply not true in practice by how much the eastern cultural values are overriding western ones. The Democrats have no spine in America, I see the men in politics and think: Could you be any more feminine? Europe is better positioned but still too fractured and too willing to just accept the cultural and societal changes being pushed on them. Until some kind of man on the left can hold liberal values and not act like a woman, or simply just become another authoritarian to continue the swing this doesn't stop. And I do highlight a certain amount of blame to the spiritual teachers who helped this snowball gain momentum decades ago. I'm out for two or three lifetimes after this, i'll wake back up when its swinging the opposite way, or people can hold to their values despite them being unpopular.

This raises the likelihood of foreign interference and leverage, or her just making the threats to release information. This does Trump no good unless it's to avoid details being released; if it were just her threatening to release details, they'd probably just take her out. But an outside power explains a lot and many questions i've always had about certain decisions and relationships. Though, to be fair MAGA doesn't care about these kids. The core, I mean. Not enough to ditch their support, independents are still too pragmatic for it to be the deciding factor. Trump's losing the election because of the economy, which is why he wants to fix/fake numbers, but it won't help him because people's lived experience is measurably worse.

Build a strong military, engage Russia directly, and go on the offensive with a cultural and economic push. China by its proxy Russia, is trying to interfere in European affairs and the European continent. This needs to be cut off with a show of force. Instead of me constantly reading about Chinese spies stealing tech, or Russian agents meddling in elections, BRICS buying up X or Y country, its about time I saw news stories of us doing exactly the same. Peace isn't found by cowering away from a threat. This is a time for a strong but balanced masculine response to aggressive neighbors. We are still too feminine in how we deal with threats.

Police state. Functionally, this is normalising the use of the military against its own civilians, which is a core requirement of a fascist state. - That is the biggest long-term issue this has caused for Americans. Demonizing: Transgender Immigrants Homelessness Then you've got Poor Gay Women Black and Brown skinned people, etc to come, for whom the social and cultural groundwork is being laid by: Speaking on no female voting, reversal of gay marriage, strong Christian-led nationalist institutions being funded, stoking racial tensions by the use of white nationalist thugs in uniform (ICE) storming into schools and holding families up at gunpoint. The ever stigma against being poor, where the American god is the dollar, which can always be leveraged (and is in the tariff war, where the poor are the ones who suffer). He's already started on his political opponents, arresting them where possible, and thugs that support him are threatening them or killing them. America is a dangerous place, not somewhere I want as an ally or influence anymore. The less Europe is entangled with America or BRICS, the better. The fact this is normalised by some of the replies here shows me what to expect from America in the coming decade.

Since this started. I've watched Russian human wave attacks maybe a thousand times by this point. Not an exaggeration. They can't commit what tanks they have left because 1, their stockpiles are gone, and 2, Ukrainian air defense is so strong, they can't get air cover for what they have left, but worse than all of that 3, Drones > Tanks now. Drone operators behind the lines trying to stop infantry pushes or hit trenches is much of how the war is being fought, backed up by artillery and armor. So men are making the advances, not armor. Its not propaganda it's what's going on. It's better a man gets taken out by a drone than armor and a crew. You are completely right about the meeting, however, but wrong their strategy cannot succeed. It is succeeding. Russia is being bled dry of men, and their economy slowly falling off the cliff. That's the strategy in a nutshell. Land for lives. I know you don't think this is happening, so you can't understand the strategy, but it is, so that's the strategy. Sadly you are also blind to European's own concerns and as to why they are paying the bill, so it stays ------> way over there and their countries are not the new frontline. India is already there. They aligned with China and Russia they just wanted it to appear outwardly they were neutral, one of the biggest economies in BRICS. Their components are showing up in Russian arms, and they are helping keep their economy going, the second biggest purchaser of Russian oil by a big margin, alongside China. The outcome is just showing us the split world, its not really a pattern, just the split itself presenting itself as we focus on it.

You care too much what others think. Look inward yes, don't seek validation from strangers. Or try to relcaim it from women, the left, the government or anyone else, its a waste of time. You also like to label things to dismiss them and get annoyed when people do it to you. Example: Trump derangement syndrome to dismiss people who hate Trump by belittling their preferences, calling them deranged or ill, so you get that done back to you because you engage with that type of person and attract them. Here i'll do it back to you - You have a mental illness for being right wing. What kind of engagement am I going to get back from that? What part of your personality or person am I going to attract or interact with? I.... I...I... Defend the I. Defend the ego! Consume all your energy and time so that everyone loves you. I've a friend like this, only its about women. He gets into it with these girls and spends days of his life moaning and complaining about how they either try to control everything he does or freak out every five seconds or turn psycho. Life and I have finally talked him around. It took a couple of years. Now he's picking stable women to interact with and having mature relationships, with actual benefits and problems to talk about - not a soap opera every day. I'm probably the most leftwing person on this forum, with maybe one exception, and i've no interest in almost anything you are talking about (in the bulk of the text, the initial cited topics could have been interesting). I wanted to tune out of the rant after about 2 sentences as irrelevant noise, from those you hate and yourself. But America is also a fascist country now, with a dangerous leadership, so *shrug* don't hate the mirror, seek one you do want to see, or stop caring about it so much.

Russia will always exist, despite what their dramatic state TV would tell you. How much it'll be an east Asian Russia or a European Russia is a different point with how much they are selling out their nations future, or in less dramatic terms, changing their demographics and the ownership of their industries and alliances. How do you measure success? Even in the most extreme case possible. Let's say they put Ukraine under their proxy for a few years till the next coup? I mean its dumb on its face. Its spending 1 million lives to retain what they had some years ago, over a population that now hate them, bordering countries hostile to them. Viewed through a strategic lens, there is no win for Russian in this, nobody talks about that aspect of this conflict. They are not even close to where they were a few years ago in terms of influence over Ukrainian territories, and they've spent a generation on a war over land they already controlled (twice). This is going to be no peace in the region that is under occupation, because too many people and countries are hostile to Russia for it to ever have a lasting peace. They are effectively putting Chinese influence directly in Europe at this point, by how much their country is now under Chinese soft and increasingly hard influence, and that won't ever last long-term either. They may still launch the European assault; they need to shrink their borders enough to make them manageable, with an increasingly depleted demographic, we'll see I guess. The wargames coming up are the biggest yet in that area, and now nukes are on the border.

@zazen Pure propaganda at this point. Catastrophe - Like the 500 other times? Same slow grind that's been going on for years. High cost Russian pushes, slow destruction of their economy and demographics for a little land, trading lives for KM's. BRICS try to prop it up but its hollowing itself out as a nation. Abandon your positions while at the same time don't abandon your positions - Guy can't even get the messaging right, or is dumb as a plank (he's not he's just repeating Kremlin lines). Ukraine hold defensible positions to bleed the enemy dry. Russia send human wave attacks, on motobikes these days, and get slaughtered on mass. Their armor backup is worn down to nothing. - Then Ukraine slowly retreat from them, that's always been the tactic since day one, bleed Russia dry of manpower, materials and slowly drive its economy into the ground. Yeah there was a breakthrough - by guys on bikes. Azov already cut a good chunk of it. I don't think he understands how military actions work. Just dump guys in trenches and somehow you've got a breakthrough. Logistics, Armor, artillery positions air cover.... Russia doesn't even fight battles in the way he's suggesting; it slowly creeps forward and relies on slow to move and position artillery, which it uses to both defend and cover its advances. - That's the attrition strategy he's trying to reference. The Ukranians are not disorganized; they are a decent military force, well trained and well armed, that's why they are able to fight a larger opponent in these wars of attrition. As far as a shift in NATO's position, I am hearing the exact opposite from European leaders. They are strongly backing Ukraine. As always. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-lammy-jd-vance-ukraine-zelensky-trump-russia-land-b2804969.html

Powerful Video on abuse in relationships by women toward their male partners. What the media used to laugh at and paint as normal is now realized by more mainstream individuals to be abusive.

@zazen I agree that collapsing every conflict into, all suffering is the same without looking at causes would miss what’s needed to resolve them individually. But we are already operating inside a single global system, just one that’s dysfunctional, fractured, and prone to violence. When I mention Gaza, Ukraine, Xinjiang, or Kashmir as connected, it’s not because they are identical in cause or context. It’s because the same system-level behaviours keep recurring. Security fears get weaponised, territorial control follows, and civilians suffer. Those behaviours reinforce each other across regions, what one power normalises, another adopts or justifies, and over time, it integrates changes into the global reality. That’s how the world evolves collectively. Distinctions matter for practical solutions, but if we only look at each case in isolation, we miss how they feed back into the same global system. You can’t stabilise or improve that system by pretending each conflict is unrelated to the others. Just as no single power can control the whole world, this is the natural evolution out of unipolar dominance that you speak of. Where a multipolar perspective can exist in people's mind. That’s why I keep returning to the: Step outside your own perspective point, not to dissolve all differences into a formless oneness, which would be an unhelpful daydream, but to get people thinking about the wider system we are all co-creating through our interactions. We are already part of it. The choice we face is whether to let it keep running on fear and reaction, or to start rewriting it consciously , and the first step is acknowledging that it exists. I understand and accept that past events have shaped the fears driving us today, but it doesn’t have to stay that way. That’s a choice every one of us makes every day. @Karmadhi I appreciate that you’re one of the few here who openly acknowledges the existence of a global reality. In a multipolar world, balance depends on a global outlook, not on treating each country in isolation as either sole antagonist or sole partner. Until that mindset becomes more widespread, BRICS will likely continue to appear, in practical terms (rightly or wrongly), as largely China-led, a new unipolar force in a different uniform. I may expand on that when I get to Zazen’s latest post in the other discussion. When I talk about these issues, I try to keep the paradox in mind. In a connected global reality, we have to hold an individual’s suffering, a nation’s fears, and the concerns of bordering territories in equal balance. If I see a discussion tilting too far toward only one of those perspectives, I often try to bring it back to consider all.