BlueOak

From what I understand, and I am happy to be corrected because I am no expert, there are two main wings in the Chinese government. The trade wing, and the more military wing of the party. Both want Taiwan; they are just pursuing different ends to get it. TBH, if they wanted Taiwan, they should help the US build its semiconductor industry out. Win by default that way and no bloodshed at all.

I'm going to struggle to find old texts on this now, with all the new news stories about it dominating. To be fair, though, there have been so many predictions that you'd be better off asking when it isn't predicted they will invade. Because they keep doing military drills to simulate invasions, one day, it will not be a drill. The main point was. This one was more aggressive than usual, heightened to the point that other governments spoke out or made preparations to warn people. It was harder to tell if this was the real thing or not, which I suppose is the point. Let's put 2024 or thereabouts instead. https://www.ft.com/content/1740a320-5dcb-4424-bfea-c1f22ecb87f7 That's a US admiral. Here's a future prediction for likelihood from global security consultants: 2024 - 2028 https://www.globalguardian.com/global-digest/will-china-invade-taiwan Taiwan Intelligence, and a former national security advisor. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/beijings-taiwan-invasion-timeline-two-predictions/ Honestly, though, we can pull these links all day. If you don't like these three, I can get another three. I'm sure you can find the opposite, like the video or a comment by other intelligence experts. Thanks for the video; it's one channel I look at sometimes. I do not know if it's definite that China will invade, but I tend to agree it's likely. A further reason that doing it now makes sense is because Ukraine and Israel are both taking the US's attention up.

In America: Average people pay 35%–40% plus taxes, and billionaires pay 17% taxes. This is one reason why you are struggling with your cost of living. You pay their share.

Because a longstanding possibility has been that China will invade Taiwan in June of this year. Russia did exactly this before invading Ukraine. The island is effectively under blockade If this is a wargame, it's to simulate an invasion. Other countries are reacting with rhetoric that indicates they are ready for a war if China pushes it. Such as Japan My government has told us to stock up on food, water, and handheld radios China has recently released maps claiming more territory. The world is in a heightened state of tension, and a precedent has been set for invading others for land. China has a long-standing policy of expanding its borders and has repeatedly claimed Taiwan as its own land. Weighing those against your hope of this being nothing, (and mine) that this is likely more posturing to expose how the allies will react when China invades, there is a possibility.

---- --- --- Japanese News (can't embed) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXuwjo-4_wk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuQfaCb2jBk

Inmendham is probably one of the original anti-natalists, or efilism as his ideology describes. People often hate him, because he's very severe with people; anything that challenges his certainty in this ideology does not receive a normal response. I am a vegan, but you've all seen the Vegans on a crusade, and what happens when you challenge their ideology? That is what most of these concepts remind me of. It's a bit like how I respond to talks about socialism; I am convinced that we lack socially created outcomes; when challenged, I have an instinct to defend that lack. Anti natalism or efilism embodies doing two things taken to an extreme. Considering suffering is not worth what it produces. Devaluing anything that does not fit the ideology. We often think this way about things we disagree with, but this is the exaggerated version, exclusively hinging on value judgments and an inability to see long-term patterns that disagree with the analysis. In efilism, there is disagreement about life being created at all. Only go here if you are balanced and not depressed, because Inmendham is deeply depressed: http://www.efilism.com/

@Merkabah Star The burden of proof in a civil action is much lower.

A lawsuit from the 9/11 victims is raising these questions. If this is proven true. I would argue authoritarian regimes got what they wanted: a more right-wing authoritarian US and world.

I have almost no national identity beyond self-preservation or romantic moments of culture. I am arguing for the fate of Europe, including Ukraine, to be rationally considered beyond your: Hoping that the ongoing pattern of Putin's aggressive expansion stops because it's painful to witness, and you have a belief that he follows a relatable set of beliefs. I'm not immune to that because I have green in me; it's just not my sole focus. (And you raise some points, but that is your main thrust) I am giving you a stage yellow description of events with as many factors and patterns as possible, including Russian ones, and European fears being manifested/managed. Most of the people we are talking about are in Red, Orange, or Blue, so I have to rationalize from their perspective, not my hopes or wishes. I have to tell you what's going on and why, not how I want it to be, even if that flavors the text. That's the difference between your morals and a pattern. The way to improve my perspective is for a Russian who understands Russia better than I do to comment and deepen my understanding, for other speakers to add things I hadn't considered, or for a more transcendent turquoise perspective to smooth my more rigid focus on patterns; green can do that, but usually, it's too hyper-focused on a self-set code of ethics and morals which the world doesn't share. - That's painful. I am sorry, but showing you that is how you realize their limits. Ukraine had been leaning west for decades. 1994 I believe were the first moves (my main search duckduckgo is down, so I am using an alternative) - Heck Russia was leaning west at one stage. https://theconversation.com/a-short-history-of-ukraines-relationship-with-the-european-union-178350 Most countries are developing, not necessarily better for the average person. That's a whole other conversation. A country suffers when its people do not want the type of ruler and authority that currently runs the country; the level of suffering is often the disparity between the two. Wars are a particular case, obviously, but the suffering was guaranteed the moment Putin tried to rule over people who were not of a close enough mindset. Personally, I wouldn't pick US estimates for this. Too much of their country is pro-Russia, but I do take your point about where you are getting your numbers from. The main reason is that it wouldn't have lasted a year if this were closer to 1.5 to one in terms of casualties. I don't know what you'll say if this goes on for 5 years?

Okay the first is before the aid arrived. It says: Regional armed forces admit ‘difficult situation’ as Kyiv awaits western military aid Let’s take the one after aid arrived: It continues in summary; most of the article is about Ukraine, saying how they are handling the war, with some summary from other countries such as treaties, more aid, and investigations. The Aid is mainly integrated into the line; it takes a couple of weeks to a month from the date of arrival in the country to be fully used. - There is nothing there telling me what you are describing except saying it's difficult because, yeah, it's been a meatgrinder for years. 'Give them more aid' is the subtext. Russia and Ukraine are not the same country. One was going east, one was going west. As the fear of 'the other' got the better of Russia, and because the 'want for better' was in Ukraine, we had a war. Both of those ideologies can cause problems if unchecked. This is why we have the war. Ukraine's quality of life https://www.undp.org/ukraine/press-releases/ukraine-still-country-high-human-development-index-new-undp-report-says It was getting better, that's the point. The population wanted that; we can dive more into this if you like. It might reveal a few nuggets of info. If the war had been swift, there would have been a campaign of bombs, civil unrest, and violence going on. The suffering would have been people disappearing, tortured, imprisoned, etc. You see what Russia does to dissent, and that's among the citizens who have been suppressed all their lives. That's not Ukraine. - Then, as Russia would have had its full capacity still, facing a weakened, indecisive NATO, Moldova and the Baltics would have followed. The world is not fair, no. I am using your reasoning. You are arguing for fairness. This is a stage green point of view - Again, this is a way to stop a wider war. Holding Russia here, that's it. Talking about moral equivalence in war will not change anything; no war is moral. I am sorry to be cold with you, but there is no emotion here; the whole nature of war is to waste life until the desire to fight it no longer exists. But that has to be both sides, or else war in some form will continue. Yes, there will be more death. Expect three times as many Russians to die too. Until their stockpiles are gone, their capacity to wage is neutered, and they are permanently a somewhat indebted client state of China. I should tackle your casualty estimates again: British Estimates: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-estimates-450000-russian-troops-killed-or-wounded/ 450,000 Russian casualties (dead wounded) French Estimates: https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240503-france-estimates-that-150-000-russian-soldiers-have-been-killed-in-the-ukraine-war 500,000 Russian casualties (dead wounded) US talking about Bahkmut: https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine?ref=atlanticcityfocus.com The United States estimates Russia suffered one hundred thousand casualties in Bakhmut, including twenty thousand deaths. This is why the fortress was not given up. The only other source we've got of estimates for Ukraine is: 35,000 killed (24,500 conf. by names), 15,000 missing, 3,400 captured, 90,000–100,000 wounded via Museum of Military History Its a bit annoying that we have to estimate so much ourselves

Please give me two recent analysts who support what you are saying: Since receiving and integrating military aid into their army. If everyone is saying it should be easy? - Otherwise, you are following what I was saying: 1) People saw that Ukraine needed aid to maintain the stalemate 2) Press/Media Ran the Story 3) Government gets the support it needs to send aid 4) Aid goes to Ukraine. Yes, they wanted a pro-Russian, anti-democratic government and a slow creeping integration into a Greater Russia concept that Putin has stuck in his head from the USSR days, as with everything else Russia takes. Their invading force was what they thought they needed. They took many police units initially because they felt they'd be dealing with a civilian uprising, not organized military resistance. They didn't, as you don't, understand Ukraine isn't Russia, its so far removed from Russia now that what you are saying is out of reality. Ukraine isn't Georgia. Its many times bigger. Its population was democratic and much closer to joining Europe's way of life. Its identity is so far removed from Russia after two years of war, what you are saying will never happen. If Putin wanted that to happen, he shouldn't have made his campaign against the civilian population; all it did was take nationalism in Ukraine and magnify it tenfold. Why should dictators be rewarded for aggression, blackmail, torture, etc, out of fear? 'Much better off' - No. People who disagree with Putin disappear. Are tortured etc. Almost everyone in Ukraine disagrees with Putin. That's a recipe for suffering. The country is armed to the teeth, at least for another year or so. Both sides suffer for Putin's stupidity, more will suffer if he walks all over Ukraine. As I and so many others keep trying to tell you.

Which analysts? It's been a grind for years. All I've seen say the same thing: weapons are there now, so they are resupplied. They were likely resupplied because a stalemate wouldn't be achieved without that. People saw the writing on the wall, told the press, the press/media ran the story, and so weapons got enough support to be sent. Its just a hamster wheel you are describing. I don't know it's surprising when I tell you their obvious strategy again. - Stalemate - No wider war in Europe or WW3 - There isn't 'no chance' of liberating the territory; it's not the strategy being played out. Cripple Russia here because they are stupid enough to keep sending in waves of soldiers to die, and use up their stockpiles, so there is no danger to the rest of Ukraine, Europe, or the world. Russia is effectively now playing into the strategy. They have given all control over the direction they are going in, and are accelerating their country's change in the power they can project going forward. When the Soviet stockpiles are gone, and their oil industry is sufficiently damaged, that's it for them offensively. By that point, China's government's trading wing will also have much more power over them. It recently released a map showing the formerly settled Russian island as back under its control, as a simple example. Yes, Ukraine had a lot of Soviet-era policies and problems to get rid of, which it was/is slowly doing—corruption, for instance. Russia wanted a lot of things I keep talking about them. Russia tried to take Kyiv, Sumy, etc. They were kicked out. Yes, it's a pointless war, but all wars are pointless. I sit here describing it without emotion because I am describing children hitting each other with sticks. It's just so easily demonstrated and summed up here. That I can talk about it in simple terms, its egos hitting their heads against each other, and lines on a grain of sand we called earth in an infinite cosmos, god throwing its life away again and again and again to experience suffering and hatred in stupidity. Okay, you can argue there is a point if enough suffering is reached, that hatred of 'the other' isn't used anymore, but I won't; there are a billion better ways to do it. Earth is foolish.

Yeah he definitely goes the extra mile.,

Spain blocks ship from India sending arms to Israel.

Your casualty figures are way off, which is why the reality you are expecting hasn't happened. You lose about 3:1 on offense, everything else being even, more in urban areas. Russia's human wave tactics generally guarantee this. - What you could say, and how Russia skews the figures of its dead, is that some of those dead were not originally Russian; they were conscripted from the occupied areas. Even if Russia considers the militias part of its armed forces now. Not that many males fled Ukraine, as Ukraine had locked down travel very early in the war. Russia didn't close its borders for travel for a long time, and years before that, as well, Russian males were leaving for better opportunities, which is part of the population problem Putin is trying to fix by annexing Ukraine. I get you doubt Russia will invade again. I'm almost certain they will. A third time, and with time to build up and prepare again. In your scenario. Ukraine won't be in NATO. Ukraine will be weaker. Trump might be in office. Russia will have suffered all the downsides of a war without getting most of what it wants: population, control of its gas connection to Europe, full control of the black sea ports, shorter borders etc, all the things we've discussed. If Russia's stockpiles go down far enough. That calculation changes. I believe they've used up 60-70%, depending on who you believe. All war is inhumane. There is no such thing as a humane war or a moral war; all of those ideas are nonsense. War is insanity and the product of fools. The most humane thing would have been the assassination of Putin at the start of the war, because he's a fool. So all we are talking about is inhumane, de-evolved humans, making the best of bad decisions. Ukrainians living in Donbass: No I don't think it's more humane for Russia to be able to invade, sexually assault, torture, forcibly conscript its prisoners, shell, and kill civilians for two years, then, for the fantasy reason of 'hoping for the best', decide they won't do it in Ukraine FOR A THIRD TIME, or their 9th time in recent memory. I think that's insane. if you want my honest opinion, you are gambling on very low odds that this won't erupt into a war again a few years from now. The border will be massive, and the occupied territories will experience unrest and be full of opportunities and hate for conflict. For whatever reason, that Putin decides to invent next. That's not even considering what I am telling you and what every other analyst I've been bringing here is telling you. If Ukraine falls, World War Three is a distinct possibility, and the brunt of that would be fought in Ukraine. *Talking about assassinations, its only taken nearly 2 and a half years, but it seems people are doing exactly that now.

I can see 70,000 easily. That will be casualties, so wounded and dead. Ukraine says 500,000 Russians, so even if we say 300,000 casualties, that's wounded and dead, it's 3 to 1. Even if I lower Russia's casualties or raise Ukraine's losses further, it's still close to 3:1, which fits with it being mostly an offensive war for Russia and their human wave assaults. Russia has 3.5 times the population of Ukraine, but as we've discussed, it is difficult to put a number on it as many fighting-age men have fled Russia and some have fled Ukraine The reason your version of reality isn't happening is that it is factually incorrect: Ukraine: 42 Million at the start of the war. Russia 147.2 at the start of the war. As I said, 3.5 is a close approximation. I've spoken about the Russian oil economy collapsing, which is the main offense of Ukraine right now, its hoped to be at the end of the year, or likely next year after the winter, which is another calculation to end the war. Oil and their dwindling stockpiles are what keeps it running. I've asked you the question about WW3 before so I won't ask it again. I will put it this way to you. If Russia takes Ukraine and WW3 or a larger Russia-EU war is fought, which country will it be in? Ukraine. So, holding Russia here is better for them, even in that sense. We can all see it's close, though, playing out on the map; it's been a grind for a long time. Yes, the best case scenario is there will be a stalemate of pointless deaths.100% true. That is precisely the strategy being done. To create certainty out of an uncertain situation and grind Russia's offensive capability down for as long as possible.

@Hatfort The reason what you are saying is not happening is because it's factually wrong on two counts: On defense, you lose less. Generally, Russians use human wave tactics to break lines, going through large open spaces, so they lose even more. Aside from some breakthroughs by Ukraine, which pushed unprepared Russian forces back over large areas earlier in the war. The Russians have been on offense almost the entire war. So their casualties have been significantly higher; the only argument is whether it's 3 to 1, which is roughly the size difference between the two countries. If so, it's precisely even in their ability to sustain the war. Ukraine is conscripting another 500,000 for this summer. People keep saying Ukraine doesn't have enough men, yet they do, because again, it's factually wrong. What they didn't have was the gear to arm them until aid recently came in, republicans delayed it in the house. Then they tell me that Ukraine's average soldier is old, yes because they set their minimum conscription age at 27 (it's 25 now). Avdiivka? and Bakhmut? These were fortresses; of course, they didn't withdraw, as it cost the Russians so many men to attack them. You don't defend where you are weak; you defend where you are strong. Ukraine is holding, and Russia is running its stockpiles into the ground, its economy into the ground, and its oil production into the ground. China is buying their country up. Ukraine is now resupplied for another year. You may not like or even agree with the calculation, but that's the one being made. Nobody is negotiating because they gain nothing. Either side. If they saw more benefits in negotiation, it would already be happening, no matter what either of us thought. Then people will make up all these conspiracies to tell me why that's the case. In real terms, it's because both sides see more to lose more by doing what you suggest. The NATO treaty is one reason Russia cited as an excuse to invade. Russia has fought 8 wars in former USSR countries to expand its control. There was a coup in Ukraine against a Russian government that was shooting civilian protestors in the streets, protesting students getting beaten. So Putin used his militias as an excuse to invade, thinking he'd have a quick victory, but he failed and got a long war. As America pulls back, Russia pushes forward. That's the dynamic. Without assistance and without holding this war in Ukraine, it's WW3. Many people fear that because of their history with Russia in the region. If Trump gets in, that's more likely, as he's more anti-Europe and pro-Russian. So pick one Either: The possibility of WW3 or A stalemate in Ukraine, and honestly tell me which you prefer if you, in their perspective, had that choice facing them.

The Russians are getting their backsides handed to them at the moment. Their casualties at the moment are insane. As always, it's 'soon,' or 'likely.' I've been hearing that for more than two years, this fantasy Russians, or those that think they are winning, claim. That isn't the reality now that the AID is there again and finally integrated into the lines. Ukraine are conscripting another 500,000 men. Fighter planes get there in the summer. There was a long period when Ukraine had to conserve its artillery, getting outshot 10 to 1, which is why Russia could make minor gains with human wave attacks, but that isn't the case now.

I think most people lack this understanding, so i'll quote what I wrote in another thread here, with some minor adjustments to make it more generic. As i've said, I do see a larger war happening, and the chance of it increasing if Trump gets in, which is increasingly likely also.

@Bobby_2021 You do not calculate what America spends in the east of Europe already. If we are making a purely financial argument, this cannot be overlooked Then you have to factor in what happens when Russia and Europe go to war with or without US assistance, and they lose their main trading partner either to a decade of war or fully lose them. This would all cost Americans more than funding 2.5% of their military budget. If instead this security assistance is given here, it should reduce the need for security assistance in the east, so in the long-term, it should save America and Europe money. The worst-case scenario is that their trading power flips and trades east after being conquered. I know it's not your point of view, and you think Russia isn't a threat because they are your country's allies, so seeing this is harder, but this is the calculation being made from experience and the pattern happening. Even if I took your perspective, a larger border with Russia means more of Europe's GDP on the east of Europe defending it, meaning less of its economic power trading with America, meaning less money in Americans' pockets. Which would still be more than 2.5% of its military budget.

The push to make property a commodity, and people making that argument in favor of leaving buildings empty, is a huge reason why high streets are dying. and people live without jobs or homes. There are fewer jobs because the places where unskilled workers would work in the centers of cities are closed. An investor would rather sit on a property than lower the rates and admit a lower value to his estate. It's egoistic insanity for society to have supported and educated people into this. People with land never make choices that benefit the community they are a part of either, leading to them picking whatever makes the most money in the short term and further imbalances or problems. The healthcare system is just fat pharmaceutical companies buying everyone off and inflating the price. If there was one industry people should have let the 90s rip down, it was that one. Instead, the softly softly approach was applied everywhere: slow reform and change rather than revolution. Well, that didn't help get healthcare in America down to a reasonable level. You still all pay three times as much on average as I do 30 years later. - Even so, dentistry here in England, forget about it if you are on a budget. University in England was an understandable kick in the gut, done because young people at 20 pay for the older generation, not the other way around. Practically, though, it's a backward step for society. It was free at one time; you could go until you found your specialty. You could retrain easily. Now you get four years, and the maximum amount of debt possibly allowed under the law. Once you've taken one course (or failed it), most are fixed on that decision for life. The French and Germans do a better job.

Picture that you've passed away. Look back on your life and decide whether it was a life worth living. People considering this ahead of time, are doing themselves a favor. Then answer the question you asked. Nobody is going to be able to tell you how you feel. I can put words in your head about saving Europe, defending your way of life, or that it's all geopolitical and a waste of life - because for me, all of those statements are true. What do you feel, though? Forget what others feel; what's going on inside yourself? Then you will have your answer. I would never ask another man why I should risk my own life for something. Don't talk yourself into anything or let anyone else do so. War is hell, its ugly and leaves a lot of scars. If you go, don't let it be for land, some fictional buzzword concept, or because anyone else told you to. I should also say there is no guarantee of victory here, its likely to hold because that's what the major backers of Ukraine want, a stalemate to stop Russia, but no guarantees.

Consider a pure stage green person, and then think about what they'd be like in a revolt. Putting aside that you could push anyone into revolt if their survival was threatened, so the climate threat sometimes gets enough attention to get some pushback. Stage Green might sit down in mass protest in a peaceful way; at most, they'd tie themselves to a boat or tree, but I don't see them swinging pitchforks, looting, and burning out cars. Sure, the right likes to say, 'oh, look at those protestors, how terrible are they!" but in the context of a riot or uprising in centuries past, it's hyperbole. Remember, almost all governments are rightwing, so the anti-protest sentiment is skewed right now. After that, in yellow, the concept is amusing, but it's more possible in an effective and organized fashion, just very unlikely. A yellow revolutionary probably wouldn't seek to disrupt the system from the outside but rather understand and integrate themselves into it, unless change like that proved impossible and they could still see a path to do so from the outside. Plus, in yellow, you are more aware that the imbalance you are watching is a natural result of the people and aspects of yourself that are present in your own reality. Thus the phrase to alter your reality, alter yourself, and accept others (reflections of you) for who they are.

Yes, that is a requirement to keep interest in a media space that needs a shorter, more sensationalized delivery of dopamine to its viewers. It's like the 80s all over again, only that was drug-fueled; this is pure cerebral detachment.