BlueOak

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.

Obviously, because when you go far enough right into fascism, and all you are left with is a token democracy, where else do you go? The pendulum always shifts because people insist on a simple duality being the norm for ease of function and form. Sometimes societies go far enough right that they begin going socialist, as they end up on the other side of the spectrum. Control of population movements is an inherently socialist ideology. Some right-wingers will be triggered when I say this, but the more they try to socially engineer society, the more socialist they start to be. *Though we should say almost all media is right-wing, so they could give up half the media space and still maintain a near monopoly.

You don't go anywhere to get into a different state. Divine love isn't this state we are in now. It's a white, cloudy, light field reality, where you dissolve into eternal love. Yes, I have experienced that for about 5 minutes. If you are approaching what mythically is referred to as heaven, you wouldn't be saying, 'Prove me otherwise'. There would be no conditional form to your speech (or mine.) It'd be unconditional and open. This will be a reach for me at the moment. You'd be saying something like: 'I would love to hear your experiences and life journeys, all the things that you want to share with me about how you experience heaven.' It's something like that, more caringly worded with more love, if you are heading for those frequencies.

Russian advances are heavy until aid gets in place, large losses though: Odessa getting cluster bombs over it, usual Russian warcrimes: Updates on the overall situation, including the movement of aid. It should still be a week or two. You have to view in on YouTube, because Russians often try to get the aid streams age restricted (to restrict their exposure).

@Karmadhi Yes. Almost all modern wars people complained about in the 80s-90s were America pushing the power vacuum left by Russia, against its allies, or supported regimes. Now obviously, the power dynamic is going the opposite way, because all countries do it, Russia, China, and Iran, BRICS in general are testing America and Europe. If Europe wakes up and does the same, which is slowly happening, Russia is toast comparatively. If Ukraine falls that would be more likely to happen - which is why I am such a strong supporter of holding Russia exactly where they are. It's a status quo, nobody likes it but it's an outcome with a degree of certainty. All governments are right-wing, all operate on the principle of taking what they can get from their neighbors. They create the identity of the enemy and attack it. Zero-sum thinking.

From the message of mine where you answered inside the quote, I am unsure who is robbing you. Sure, you can beat yourself up, and then not do anything again and use it as an excuse, or you can do something now. If you live with your parents: If your family is robbing you, say your sibling, you can still tell them you will call the police unless they return the items. First, have a word with your parents and tell them what was stolen, if that doesn't work, mention the police to your siblings. That might be enough, even if you have no wish to pursue it. Finally calling the police out to the house is often enough to change behavior if it gets too much. If it's your parents robbing you, get out of there as soon as possible. That's not an environment you can remain in. A dog isn't going to defend against your own family, only deter an outside threat. You can still set up tracking and a camera in your room, for example, to prove where the items went. You can still get a locksmith to your room where your valuables are kept to lock it, this is a good choice anyway. I lived like that with my addicted brother for a long time, when he was stealing to support his habit. If you don't live with your parents: I know it sucks being stolen from, or betrayed, and it's going to suck for a while. One thing you can do to make yourself feel better is to say not again; take some of the steps above that we talked about; the more, the better. Call the police and report what was stolen; get them to follow up, and you might get luck with them checking the local pawn shops or second-hand shops—you can do this too in your own time. Often thieves are stupid, you might also have something very unique stolen, say an autographed unique photo, or an unusual piece of art, you could check on eBay, Amazon, etc i'm sure they have tools for reporting, but the police might use that as a lead too.

How are they getting in? @Sabth Here is what would do if I were in a rough neighborhood, most of these. Prevention: Warning signs of a dog, whether you have one or not. Get a big guard dog; nobody wants to rob somewhere that is guarded. Security lights that come on when people approach. Warning signs of an alarm, whether you have one or not. Security: Good locks and deadbolts. Security gate or door behind the main door. Good alarm system. Bars over the windows if they are getting in through them. Wireless doorbell camera to show you who is checking up on you. If they get in: Fake Wallet. Fake valuables on display. Maybe a fake lockbox and/or tracking device if you want to go all out, this will lead you right back to where they live if they are dumb. Put your real wallet in a place nobody wants to go, like your underwear drawer, or better yet somewhere nobody would think to look, like in a plant pot. I'm not clued up on devices, but I did a google and there are several options if you take your time to search. If someone were to rob my place, and I suspected they'd do it again, I'd make sure to get the expensive items tracked then call the police.

Meditation, walks, diet, exercise to burn off excess energy. Working on the environment you sit in day to day helps a lot, also water quality. Choosing the right music to work to also helps. I have four Udemy course tabs open right now. I consider the collective learning of them all my concentration. I've been picking and choosing what parts of them I require to be ready to start work two days from now. In between, I might come here or watch a video for a break. I also find people speak too slowly for me, so I watch them at 2x speed (recently, I found a program to find a 2.5x speed setting for the site) Part of the evolution of our minds is a collective intelligence within ourselves, to keep in mind more of life at once, either compressing the information, or having more things in focus when we communicate. So I understand we are supposed to be going through this process to some degree, where old patterns present in societies' methods of delivering information are burned away, and we are left with a faster pace. - This is a long ongoing pattern of our development. Even with that understanding, I think 5-minute clips on TikTok are unhelpful when set against the usual pace of real life. It's just too far removed from how we have to operate in physicality, and it leaves a lot of people in a state of depression when moving from one mental state to the other.

An easy test for anyone is to try to concentrate on something for over an hour or two, take one of Leo's videos, and see if you can sit down for something you want to watch and focus on it for that time without distraction. If you can't, you are training your mind to concentrate for 5 minutes at a time, and you would benefit from training in the opposite direction for longer periods. People with ADHD should especially take note here. I consider myself to have it on some days, not as a medical diagnosis, but because I have days where I am more easily distracted than others, despite not wanting to be distracted. If you think back to periods gone by, people needed to concentrate for days, weeks, maybe months, or years on projects.

Generally, the experience is more salient than the predicted result of the experience. A way to expand this is to make the result of the experience part of the experience in your mind.

The subtle invasive influence China exerts over Western audiences is troublesome. There is already far too much of an authoritarian shift worldwide into the current global crises. I will be happier if it's purchased by a company with Western interests; then we get our own bias reinforced, and the status quo maintained in our own countries. On a more general note, as has been indicated, the medium of short videos is crippling people's focus. The ability to focus on single tasks for any length of time becomes harder if you are dividing your attention so much. I would rather the whole concept be trashed, but people like their junk food videos, until enough education is given to them on why they are harmful (by suffering life experience) they won't realize it.

1) Again, I understand your point of view is a single block vs another block. NATO isn't one block, as you like to call it; it's many countries. They join NATO because Russia causes fear as a way of governing and interacting with the world. NATO doesn't seek them out, they go to NATO because of Russia. 2) Putin has forever poked Europe, meddled in elections, and invaded West, that's their foreign policy and always has been. People join NATO to secure their own country, and if Ukraine had either kept their nukes or been in NATO none of this would have happened to them.