BlueOak

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/30/ukraine-offer-neutrality-meaning-constitution-russia-what-does-neutral-status-country-mean-how-would-it-work https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-offers-neutrality-exchange-nato-style-security-guarantees-russia-talks-2022-03-29/ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukraines-zelensky-to-offer-neutrality-declaration-to-russia-for-peace-without-delay https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-zelenskyy-says-ukraine-is-willing-to-consider-declaring-neutrality-and-offer-security-guarantees-to-russia-12576688 Here are articles from less than one month into the war, when the casualties were still relatively low compared to what they are now, but everyone had accepted the reality. Not many people in Ukraine believed Putin would invade, most of Europe didn't, it caught a lot of people by surprise. Not everyone, the US and UK were telling Ukraine they were coming. Reasons for the war: 1, Southern ports, southern industrial centers, and black sea access. 2, Landbridge to Crimea. 3, Russia's dwindling population crisis. 40 Million people fixes it. 4, Russia needs smaller borders because of the population crisis, and the growing strength of its neighbors requires more manpower there. 5, The diplomatic coup in a former Soviet state. 6, Putin's natural desire to rebuild the USSR. His 8th war to do so. 7, Ukraine's gas supplies. 8, A focus on Imperialism, to divert attention away from a faltering economy. 9, BRICS challenging the west. 10, A way to encourage fuel use globally. Its primary export. 11, At the time, a weak NATO and a Europe that was fracturing. He expected to decapitate the government with special forces, and win fast before they started to care. 12, Putin was fed up with nobody taking him seriously. Ego. 13, An opportunity to smash NATO, it was already weak and fracturing. The pandemic was already straining Europe. This could have had the alliance shatter. 14, More control over the global food market, Ukraine is a big supplier and requires (required) port access. 15, To take Moldova not long after. 16, To secure his energy pipelines to Europe that run through Ukraine, the lifeblood of his economy (at the time). 17, Political opportunism, assuming a liberal America would be weaker. What he doesn't calculate is the liberals act as traditional conservatives these days. 18, His head is filled with conspiracies, and yes men. The pandemic isolated him further, he drank too much of his own propaganda. 19, What good are endless stockpiles of weapons if you don't use them, and demonstrate them to potential buyers? 20, The reason the NATO line is used, is because drum roll. It lets people see him as the victim. Oh woe is me, they are all against us, we need to fight them. Yada Yada, typical fascist line, eternal victims wanting to look like the hero. We must liberate the population! From themselves! Nazi's are coming! etc. Its not just narcissistic or fascist, obviously, but there are strong influences in Russia pushing it fascist or Ruscism/Rashism, and it has bought into a lot of these. The level of suppression in Russia is higher than its ever been in my lifetime. There is certainly a practical consideration for keeping people off their borders and missiles away from their territory, but nobody was going to give Ukraine missiles or much beyond infantry weapons, now instead they have a country full of them.

Something I should have linked up also, is that safety is a big factor in crimes. Violent crimes especially tend to flare up in unsafe areas, and poorer areas are generally more strained for police presence, people willing to report criminals to prevent more serious crime, organized crime or gangs, and the cause for violence (defensive or not) to occur. Fear is one of, if not the main motivator for a higher crime rate and social disturbance over a population, which in turn is magnified with world tension rising, gang culture it fosters, and the media using migrants as their current punching bag.

I did have a second post but I hid it because that was already a lot, I'll repost part as its not numerical and bolsters some of what you say, in the adjustment to cultural biases. The conclusion I made was, that if you can cite cultural and religious influence among or on german citizens, you remove a lot of the bias associated to (and from) the perspective of an immigrant. We can both assume it's not distance or travel that causes this (see the analysis of tourists), but the argument is whether culture/education/religion does, and this can be looked at domestically. - Assuming a period of adjustment when arriving. @Nabd I always rationalized the truth regardless of culture usually is. When someone is well-fed, has a roof over their head, clothes on their back, no addictions etc, crime isn't their first choice. Why would it be? It's high risk for little reward for the great majority of people, especially when you can get deported for minor things. I hadn't taken into account bias enough or education levels, for my wanting to see the world through a purely culturally neutral lens, effectively ignoring bias. As you say propaganda is done both ways, it skews people into positions they wouldn't usually get themselves in. Thus any rationalization towards the practical truth of a situation I can give towards anything, is prone to falling short in encompassing all possible beliefs and values people have. Yes, you see the reverse of this too, where some behaviors that would see leniency or be ignored completely in their country are criminalized in the country they move to. Thus increasing crime Insurance fraud doesn't exist in some countries. Especially some former soviet ones. Scams are not just permitted in certain countries they are encouraged due to corruption. India has a huge industry purely built on scamming people, Nigeria too, a bit like the old western mafias extorting people. People speak of rape for example, I hate discussing this topic for obvious reasons. However, some countries do not grant the same rights to women, they are considered property more than an individual, they would pursue this crime with less vigor, and lesser sentences. Several countries just don't report rape statistics at all.

They did, they offered neutrality, it was rejected. NATO was just one reason of many for the war, several of which i've highlighted but I can break them down again if required. Its also the reason why there is going to be another war, because pending NATO membership is still just one reason Russian invaded out of a dozen. *Unless Ukraine is in NATO, then its secure.

Thanks. @Nabd - NB You could make a refined argument related to culture/ethnicity and DEFINITELY education, or a broader one into spatial spillover, the technical term for the spillover effects in this case on the general population. If any data shows German citizens of different cultures, it would prove your point more, because there would be fewer variables other than culture/religion etc. Especially across the social spectrum, if it includes different levels of income. The first is a link documenting islamophobia or public perception, which I agree is an issue, but isn't a reference for how many migrants commit crimes. It has a % number but doesn't source it or go into detail. The second link is something we can compare for reference. I'll do this in two ways, one my own figures of the general population, and then just migrants. Highlighting up front that these are suspects, not criminals. The General Population 1, https://www.statista.com/statistics/886209/foreigner-numbers-germany/ - Total non-German citizens living in Germany - 13,383,000 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings - Tourists visiting 28,500,000 Million Not accounting for people who came just to commit crimes illegally entering, we can assume a relatively minor number but it's an unknown variable that will skew the figures somewhat. Total: 41,883,000 Germany's population: 84,432,670 Your link shows German citizens suspected of 1,309,906 of the total crimes. Non-German Citizens suspects: 783 876 41,883,000 / 783,876 is one in 53.43 people suspected of a crime. 84,432,670 / 1,309,906 is one in 64.45 people suspected of a crime. Not much difference. As you've said in the first link, there is a perception bias toward Islamophobia, which police are not completely immune from either. As this is suspects, not criminals, that is part of the disparity. One disparity for these figures will be, petty crimes of tourists who are unaware of the law/cultural values, and as referenced people just crossing illegal to commit crime, ex: organized crime, or otherwise state-sponsored bad actors. Focusing just on Migrants. So let's take the 310,062 who are migrants. According to your linked article, more than half of those suspects are immigration violations. It lists 142,720 suspects as not immigration-related crimes. One of the factors is that many of them are young, and young people are more prone to crime, 57%, so we could take 7% off again off the end result, to get a comparative social value. You might argue this but if we want a flat average value, eliminating the age variable, and the fact native Germans cannot commit immigration violations is preferable. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Migration/Tables/migration-total.html In 2022, net Migrations to Germany was 1,462,089, but total migration was 2,665,772. These 2.6 Million would be the people you are talking about. 142,720 is 1 in 18.6 Migrants being suspected of a crime (non immigration related), we could reduce this a bit for it being a large male bias (86%), and men being slightly more likely to commit crimes, (much more likely on violent crimes.) However, a big factor will be: https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/crime-and-income-deprivation/ Quote: Overall, 52% more crimes were recorded in the most income-deprived areas in 2022 This takes us to 18.6 x 1.5 = 27.9 or 1 in 28 From what i've read. If you are following me here, using this helps eliminate socio-economic conditions from the equation. Finding data specific to Germany is nearly a nightmare without paying for research articles, (Corporatists don't like to show the ugly side of income equality). So i'll source what I can from a broader collection, if you want I can certainly grab more sources. Figure 2 - https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/07/08/how-neighborhood-inequality-leads-to-higher-crime-rates/ https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-stark-relationship-between-income-inequality-and-crime This gives the view from the victim's perspective, living in those poor regions of the world. More of a macro view. The graph trends upwards. The conclusion I have here is that yes all things being equal. There are more suspects among migrants, we are talking over twice as likely if you look at all this data in as close a direct comparison as I can make it (minus our 7% for age). That in part is reflected in the media's perceptional bias filtering through the general population, the economic downturn looking for an outlet to vent frustration, Russia sending people into Europe specifically to cause social chaos, and the social pressures of such drastic migration. I will concede that some of this has to be down to a lower level of education, and your cultural points. I just wish there was some statistic of actual CRIMES, not suspicion out there. Then I could directly compare manipulated public perception vs reality. Hopefully, that was a helpful analysis it was certainly interesting.

I can't fault people for thinking they'd rather have no risk at all to themselves, and leave it all on Ukraine. I feel the threat is less in one unified block, rather than an everlasting proxy war on the continent. With another highly predictable war to come, if another wave of refugees, missiles and threats start flying, if people are constantly losing family and friends, feeling ever more threatened, Then there is no guarantee a more militarized and fed-up Europe will react with the same restraint, especially with increasingly right-wing governments, selling inaction to their populations will be increasingly difficult. No guarantee that some chest-beating moron in Belarus's military or leadership won't push things too far one day, that some act of sabotage or espionage will go badly wrong and cause a flare-up. On the other side of that we have Putin's Ego, which is not insubstantial, but his military forces are crippled for the moment, and never likely to recover to the same level they were at, due to their USSR stockpiles being depleted, and their population issues.

I understand what you are saying, I also get that that NATO thinks if Ukraine is a buffer state we have less contact. That isn't true in anything but a technicality if Ukraine falls to Russian rule, it'll just be Belarus version 2. NATO is safe, that's exactly the point. How is anyone going to avoid another war without Ukraine in NATO? Another war with Ukraine becoming a Russian puppet, means the borders will be there anyway, just with a hell of a lot more suffering and violence. I see that Ukraine has hurt Russia enough to discourage it but a big part of me thinks we'll all do this again if Ukraine isn't in NATO. Again I keep coming back to Russia did gain land, and it's a long-standing pattern that Russia is fanatically ideological in retaking all the USSR territory, the few old KGB fossils running Russia are still going to be there in 10 or 20 years even if somehow Putin falls dead tomorrow. When it comes to threats it was threat overload, every threat that could be made was. Everything from nuking the Queen's funeral, to a full Russian mobilization, to the absurdity of retaking Alaska. The actual impact of another threat at this moment is almost nothing at all, just one more on a pile of a hundred that was made all over the world.

First I will apologize for assuming, I have to call that out, as it's often put into discussions and I go through the same old response each time to it. I also want to thank you for giving me a connection I had not made between the starvation and the second world war. Russia steamrolled them because back then Ukraine was not fully militarized and had only limited Western weapons, mostly infantry carried anti tank or anti air weapons, which did a lot better in urban areas further from Russian supply lines. There was a Russian convoy early in the war for example, in the North of Ukraine that was just completely blocked and chipped at from every direction. Ukraine has a very big border to defend, a huge countryside to move about in, there was also a general or two who betrayed Ukraine early on, I believe the betrayal was in the south, and a few officials were arrested. Plus a lot of countries were not taking the threat seriously, and many civilians in Ukraine also right up until the moment didn't believe it was coming. If you think Mariupol was easy for the Russians though you need to go rewatch the war footage there, they lost generals there, loads of manpower, and the city was utterly destroyed in a siege. The battles there were horrific, close-quarter vehicles shooting at each other street to street. Then the tide turned and Russia was forced back in Kyiv where it got utterly annihilated, special forces cut off with no good support, and police units rushed into spots where infantry should have been, which didn't last. The Sumy area was very bloody but they were forced out there, fighting was more difficult further from Russian supply in the north. At Kharkiv, the open ground meant the tables could be flipped on the Russians, and just a few brave breaches in the line sent them into retreat. In Kherson, is where the war started to reach parity, and that was a bitter fight, with Ukraine just getting the upper hand because of the river being a point they could cut the Russians off. Now the south is heavily mined, and entrenched, closer to Russian supply, and Russian air superiority makes attacking it really tough. Its not to say there are not areas Ukraine can make gains but direct attacks on the south have been extremely hard. https://www.youtube.com/@EnforcerOfficial This channel, if you can stand the obvious cavalier bias, covered the war from Day 1. I watched a lot of it. They had/have a map updated every day of the war. I don't doubt a lot of the old footage links are gone now, perhaps the maps too, but you can still learn a lot about the reality of the war. Did the people there want to be governed by Russia or Ukraine? Well none of them wanted war, only the Russian militias. Most of the men in the occupied areas have been force conscripted and are now no longer with us. Many of those that could run did run from those areas, and many of the remaining Ukrainians were taken to Russia. I don't think you'll ever get an answer to your question, not an honest one. I would guess like anywhere people just wanted to live in peace, and they didn't care much either way. You also have to consider, that Ukraine's national identity is stronger than it ever was or will be. They fully feel separate from Russia now, and have a great deal of understandable hatred. To consider things like should aggression like this be rewarded, should people just let others take whatever land they want, whenever they want? Should nuclear, energy and food threats be tolerated, sabotage, and spying overseas get no response? My answer is no, you've got to be strong defending your home and your neighbors, otherwise, people walk all over you. *Adding a lesser thing, but the southern ports and trade routes are required for Ukraine to maintain most of its industry, though they are working on rail connections now. Without them and the industrial south, or the gas supplies for example, Ukraine will be a poorer country.

Can you link Statistics or Data? Then I'll link the effect of poverty on crime. I will bet you all I own, that these two graphs will almost line up.

I think you added this so i'll address it. Ukrainians and Russians got on well, because their cultures were closer. Most Ukrainians spoke Russian because it was the former language of the USSR. I am sure there was friction, and a lot of it was caused by people wanting to stir up trouble, but the average person, everyone i've heard comment said we got on just fine. Were Russians represented in Parliment. Again the cultures were not as distinct as you make out, from everything everyone has told me. Just because Ukrainians all spoke Russian. So much so the Russians themselves i've heard say they consider this a civil war. Can you be more specific as to an actual case you know about? Then I can do some readings and educate myself. I think you using the Nazi - Liberators is extremely hyperbolic. What else could you be suggesting by name-dropping it. Than you implying Ukraine is Nazi aligned when Russia is hyper-nationalist. Do I quote now the many nationalist groups in Russia, the nazi group they have which exports far-right ideology overseas, then marches nationalists do in Russia? Or the very fact this entire war is inspired by trying to make Russia back into an imperialist great power. Azov, the former nazi's in Ukraine, were reformed before the war into a regular army unit, their leader left and got 2% of the democratic vote. I would wager this would be the same in any country. I can also guarantee war brings out nationalists, which is one reason why fascists require it.

@Karmadhi It is with the stipulation I meant south, east and north of the country.. Not west. Other than that yes. If you want the 8 wars listed for example you can find them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia Then just look for the recent ones involving former USSR countries, where Russia has either taken land, created breakaway states, or fully controls the new proxy government. if you need any examples of anything or anyone does, its fairly easy to find, or I can pull something up. This war, has hopefully if the final conclusion is the rest of Ukraine joins NATO, deadlocked the conflict forever. Because it was Russia's last real hope of pushing into Europe given their demographic problems and aging stockpile of equipment they had. If Ukraine don't join NATO or some larger regional alliance, there is a chance we do it all again. Not guaranteed because of the losses that Russia suffered, but their losses were softened enough by their BRICS allies to make another war plausible imho. Another problem of a multi-polar world is that regional conflicts are rarely settled outright.

Putin repeatedly said Ukraine is not a real country, he considers it part of Russia. This is the 8th war to retake USSR land, they were flying USSR flags on many of the tanks and APCs. He invaded the north, east and south of the country. Belarus stupidly showed a map invading Moldova, there is an exact breakaway state there also, same setup as here. Russia started, funded, and equipped militias to start this war up after the democratic coup. In the Baltics, there is a Russian population there also, there is good evidence that Russia and its proxies are flooding Europe with Migrants to destabilize the border countries, which would create this exact scenario again to invade. State TV in Russia repeatedly spreads the propaganda of invading the West and reforming the USSR. He has said he wants less border problems, and to do that he will need to shorten the borders, which means pushing further into Europe. Russia has a big population problem, both in staffing those borders with soldiers, but also just generally, and taking 40 million people would surely help fix it. Putin wants to control Ukraine, like all the old USSR countries. He was raised in the KGB, and considers the loss of former territories one of the greatest losses Russia has ever suffered. The real proof though is the war itself, every major settlement was under attack except those in the very far west, and the removal of Ukrainians to replace/mix them with Russians. Yes people impose their values on others. The only thing that stops them is another world power. That's what almost every war in history has been about. The people in Ukraine have a stronger national identity than ever before. War does that. So if that was the honest goal, it was the stupidest way to achieve it. Ukraine rejected that solution when people were gunned down in the streets, for minor protests which the dumb proxy government escalated, an act that led to the coup. Ukraine was not exactly like Russia even then, and that is something Putin can't tolerate as he personally sees something different as a challenge. Russia has shifted very far to the right of the political spectrum, and tried to impose that form of governance on a population that hasn't. - This would never have happened if Russia was capable of multi-polarity governance, or even if it wasn't so hell-bent on imposing hyper-authoritarian values across its population. That usually creates rebellion, because only so many people can live in that world, the others are the enemy, and an enemy becomes a necessity for it to survive. There are always outside pressures on countries, but that only matters if the country's stability is poor to begin with. Corrupt in this case, overrun with Russian officials who saw Ukraine as second-class citizens subservient to Russia (which Russia does to every ethnic minority). Even then both cultures got on, lived side by side, until they were pushed too far by physical violence. Which created fear, which created anger, and then a coup.

I get people don't like war, I get that people see war and want to do anything to avoid it. In the beginning I am like that also, I think any rational or caring person who understands the amount of suffering and cyclic violence war generates wants to avoid it. What is the alternative? At the moment this is where both sides (and the world) is, a statemate. It'll be a stalemate forever unless Ukraine join NATO or Russia changes its expansionist policy, or BRICS/NATO members get more directly involved (so far great effort has been made to stop that last thing from happening by many world powers) You might not like it, but this is the reality reflected exactly as it is. As for there being no reason, do I need to copy-paste the 50 reasons i've already given and then bullet-point them? I could do another 50 specifically dealing with what the effects of Russia's fascist rule would be on the democratic population, and all the misery and suffering that would be generated, or I could just point you are the ongoing war as the demonstration, and every reason it happened domestically.

Trumps goal is National Syndicalism, skip down to the italian model. That sums up a lot of what he's about and does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism Much of his power is populised hatred against liberal values, migrants, people with wealth or power etc, but a substantial amount comes from financial interests wanting to gut the bureaucracy for their own reasons. Gutting bureaucracy and institutions gives demagogues more power to act on their own perspectives, rather than being kept in check by an established order that has had decades if not centuries to be molded. The historical cycle of this, which is beginning now, leads to a form of Fascism and Anarcho Capitalists coming to power, and those being the competing dynamic. Then they try to marry the two up. They are missing the leftwing nationalist, populist, and/or anarchist component to complete it, though leftwing populists have for the first time in my lifetime been alienated enough from the establishment, to start to look at the right populist running, or at least other candidates being presented. This is one reason why everyone wants to tell you Biden is the only option, because deep down they know the rift that's formed, long before this latest flash in the pan with Israel alienated even more people.

Ukraine won the war enough. They did enough damage to Russia to give them a window to enter NATO. What's Putin got left to fight it with? Realistically. No surplus stockpiles of tanks or arms anymore. A population that's already fed up with the death toll. They are using weapons and shells that can barely be called the name, because the border they are fighting on is massive. Right now is the best time for Ukraine to join NATO, because Russia is crippled and can't stop it. Without that the war doesn't end, it just stalls until Russia is ready to attack again, I can only keep highlighting this is the 8th war to retake USSR Land or influence, and Putin is clearly keen to keep doing so. I take him at his word. One reason among many of Putin fighting this war, was to shorten his borders, he talks about it often enough, all he's done is lengthen them. If he has to sit troops on that border forever now, with an uncertain neighbor who hates him, it ties up all his forces there. If NATO is that border, their response to Russia has had nearly a hundred years of predictability, so he doesn't need a hundred thousand troops, he can make do with ten thousand. Not to mention all the land Putin has to police, because a dozen countries are going to take potshots covertly, a dozen countries have reason to, as well as the local population partisans. Instead, if Ukraine is in NATO, and these occupied lands are recognized as Russian (at least behind the scenes), its predictable, any action NATO takes inside agreed Russian land has a diplomatic fallout. So it doesn't happen near as much. If this stays unrecognized territory, people can do what they want covertly, and will. Its going to be like Ireland and the UK for 50 or 100 years, only with even more countries getting involved. Russia will just wait or engineer the predictable justification for war 10 years from now and we'll all be back here again.

This type of thing is the best news. Because if Ukraine get into the EU and NATO Russia will not invade again. Its the end to all of this cyclic violence, it might even reign in attempts at insurrection in the occupied territories and just cause a permanent locked-in border again.

@How to be wise Russia has fought 8 wars to rebuild the USSR. They are not going to stop if someone gives them more territory, that precisely rewards the behavior causing international conflict. It didn't stop them 7 times before, why would it stop them on the 8th? Even if the US had not given arms, and people were just left to respond any way they liked, then somehow Europe didn't get dragged in by choice or consequence by some miracle, what makes you think there wouldn't have been constant efforts to overthrow the Russian proxy leadership again? Both by internal and external forces? In the occupied regions there will be constant attempts even now to overthrow the Russia governance for the next 100 years. That's what happens when people act unilaterally as if they were the only country on the planet. People have agency in their own actions. Germany's actions caused others to react as they did. People's weak behavior before that emboldened Germany. Taking over vast sways of territory, exterminating populations, disrupting trade, killing friends/family, and causing waves of refugees, affects the surrounding countries. People do not live in a vacuum. Germany specifically used Jews as a reason to fight the war. Fascists do that. They single out a group and demonize them to legitimize their actions. All this shows me exactly how WW3 can come about or suffering is eternally cycled. People think in a vacuum. Like there is no choice and consequence and nothing has subsequence effects.

Yes it does. The physical observation you focus on is just one way of observing consciousness.

I just gave you 50 points in a long post. Things don't end perfectly in a fairytale ending.

Appeasement with fascists doesn't work. A fascist government requires war to function. Had the US done nothing, Eastern Europe likely would have at the start, with refugees pouring over their borders, threats flying from Russia, a state of panic in Europe, we could have been in WW3. As a European I felt that was a distinct possibility at the start of this, and I was grateful America stepped up to help secure Europe. This way a unified stance was taken, not unilateral action, and a restrained policy of noninterventionism but instead indirect support. It was a shame other countries allowed Russia to bypass sanctions as it encouraged them to continue, but we live in an imperfect world. - At the very start of this I said the likely outcome, with military support, was some loss of territory. - Without support, I would have said the losses would have been total, with a possibility of the conflict expanding. You seem to forget Putin dropped troops trying to take the capital, he wanted the entire country. Russia was pushed out of Kyiv, out of Sumy, out of Kherson, and out of Kharkiv, and that came because of Western support and the blood and sweat of Ukranians dying for their country. The fact they have not been able to breach dug in Russian lines, while lacking air superiority, doesn't negate everything that happened to that point. Sadly, America and European artillery support started to dry up and the war of attrition now favors Russia as a result. 1) Russia is significantly weaker, diplomatically economically, and militarily. CSAT almost ripped itself apart. They've lost their biggest customers for their Energy products, run their surplus money to nothing, and further weakened their already problematic population dynamic by killing off or crippling a lot of their young men, and causing a lot more to leave the country. Their economy is in bad shape by any indicator you want to measure. They've lost the people they need to train their army for example, most of the skilled workers that could got the hell out of Russia, and they've taken some significant airpower losses, run through their surplus tanks and arms which they relied on in part to intimidate others (and sell). They won't be launching another war for a couple of decades because of their losses. The Baltics and Poland will not be invaded. It has deterred China for a time as well. It certainly woke up Europe that we can't trust or get comfortable with Russia as we used to, relying on them as our dominant energy supplier. I saw a lot of their actions as they happened on the ground, and will never look at Russia the same way again. After the war on civilians, all the threats, the clandestine actions, all the lies, it caused a lot of Europe to remilitarize somewhat, Poland certainly, and even Germany and others to an extent, which has increased our security. When Ukraine now joins NATO, there will be peace, unless people too wrapped in fear prevent it, and so we do all this again in 10-15 years. It united NATO and Europe like nothing i've ever seen in my lifetime, NATO gained 2 new members over it. Money was not wasted at all. It was brutal but Ukraine retained control of their country, despite all Putin's efforts to undermine and destroy it. If we go back in previous decades, missiles or drones landing in other countries started wars. But because we had a unified position of strength, nobody broke ranks on that. Europe held together and that was in no small part due to America being with us.

@Leo Gura Only 99 Dollars a card, 4,700 for the set. Bargain.

Some days I wonder what it'd be like just to say i'll grift on the right today. I'll get the 20 things i need to say to pump them up, sell a product or two, make a few connections they don't see to get some headlines and then just go live off people willing to throw money at the words they like. Honestly, there are so many suckers throwing money at words, I can see why it tempts people.

Generally people's feelings on migrant reflects what the party in power wants to use them for, or can best make use of them as. Workers to Fill Gaps, Blame, A Challenge to Solve. Image. A way to hit their political opponents. As examples. They are essentially a ball kicked around. At the moment with the economic downturn Blame - Challenge to Solve - Some Image Concerns are what they are being used for politically and personally. As the political apparatus controls the media, they control what public perception is allowed to be broadcast, and thus what people generally are programmed by repetition to associate migrants with. *And if you want to know who runs the political apparatus, look who puts most of their finances in candidates' campaigns, or media companies.

I don't want to do stage green culture vs culture with you. Then have 5 people arguing one is better than the other. If you can refine this to a practical issue, we can discuss it separately. Also, I hope you feel better.

@martins name Japan, England, Western Europe etc are perfect examples, because the more developed the country the faster the birthrate is slowing. I did a European link though if you missed it, which will include eastern European states with less infrastructure also. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Land_use_statistics There isn't near as much space as you are trying to make out there is. But I now acknowledge Agricutlure is a bigger problem, and its somewhat easier to reform farming than housing, and more beneficial also given just how much space is taken up in agriculture. Easy isn't the right word, reforming one of the most traditional industries is anything but easy, possible though. Here is some very interesting data also showing grazing land being twice the area size of crops. (Then add in crops grown to feed animals also) https://ourworldindata.org/land-use - This is the most useful land resource i've ever seen. It also shows things like area per person dropping which is interesting. With things like cereals being the crop type taking up the most land. Lamb/Beef being the worst meat product per area size. With pigs being vastly more efficient.