BlueOak

I appreciate the link. It's good to see mention of things like this listed for public awareness. Too many people repeat Russian talking points over things like youtube comments or videos without thinking.

You are asking a what-if question. Neither of us will ever be able to answer a what-if question adequately for the other at this stage, because we have polar opposite views on this. What is your answer for why Russia wouldn't have invaded had we not resisted their expansion, or blunted their military and soft/hard power? It'd be a what-if scenario. I'm sure you'll list plenty of things off, but it'd be an unfalsifiable claim as you put it. People don't want to take that risk. I can point to historic appeasement scenarios of dictators wanting territory or again list the many reasons people are taking the Russian threat against their countries seriously, both due to past experiences or present ongoing conflicts, and the campaign of terror being waged against a civilian population they have connections with. From my point of view, the practical question you are asking me is: What would it take for Europe to be relatively safe again from the possibility of Russian invasion? Because again these cycles are maintained and start by the perception of a threat, the perception is enough to generate the conflict long before a tank crosses a border on a map overtly. How do we get people out of a state of fear and into everyday peaceful coexistence again, which is what much of the propaganda broadcast here is focused on of late. Some of a few things. Removal or death of Putin or former KGB officers from Russian positions of power. Removal of Russia from Ukraine, and/or a disarmament zone of 50km either side. Germany and other central and western EU countries getting serious about their military, not just talking. A successful effort in diplomacy over the next few decades (whoever does so or initiates it). Successfully holding Russia up in Ukraine and keeping them from being able to invade elsewhere. Russia drawing closer to the EU instead of forever opposing it. The EU making strong efforts to approach Russia to address their concerns. Moving in the opposite direction from fascism in Russia. and/or the entire world moving in the opposite direction from fascism which has enchanted it and is leading to more and more global tension or wars. America stopping its isolationist trajectory and maintaining its shield across Europe. A lessening of unrestrained covert reprisals by Russia, which seem to think they can kill anyone they want in other countries if it suits them, and interfere as they like in our elections or domestic politics. Ditto the west. Strong signs of NATO and BRICS cooperation as opposed to competition. Signs of other BRICS-aligned countries lessening their offensive rhetoric, as it's obvious that its somewhat coordinated opportunism now between China, Iran and Russia. All countries lessening their colonial ambitions. New and old. People to stop hating globalism on mass and stop using it in their propaganda, like they do homeless people, gay people, the poor, immigrants etc. Putting Ukraine in NATO, or another form of military alliance, or treaty for mutually stronger defense in the east. Let me see if I can put this another way. Many of the people in these countries expected Russian invasion before the Ukraine war, because it has happened many times in their history, and again now. They expect Russian aggression, and this has just proved them right once again. To reassure them and Europe as a whole, the best method of controlling this uncertainty is to stop or hold up Russia in its current war.

@Raze This is a misunderstanding of the region's relationship with Russia. Over centuries eastern Europe and Russia have fought countless battles. I get why you say this, because hardly anyone talks about the underlying reasons and conditions why the war is being fought. we can go over them if you like, as we've done before. They instead default to the easy NATO borders or Putin is a Bad Man simple explanations. While these things are both true from different points of view, they are a fraction of the reasons for the war. No war is fought for one reason, with just one consideration, it is a complex geopolitical calculation made usually by many people, over many years. However the sound-byte is easier to communicate if we say its just this or this, as people are prone to do in conversation with nice simple one-line answers. Every country is constantly testing its neighbors yes. Because a country is a collection of individuals, groups, and institutions that don't see a line on a map and halt their interests at that line. Generally, war does not strengthen countries in the modern age, it is too costly. When one man can kill so many with the push of a button, and so many resources go into creating a complex and effective military. Countries are interwoven on many levels and these tend to be ripped apart in wars with neighbors. The damage done to a country can take generations to recover. Adding to that in a multipolar world, the sides are reinforced so they fight longer. In ages past yes I would agree, countries were more isolated and did not have assistance so readily given, so if a war could be won without too much loss it might strengthen the winner, but equally, the instability could end the empire or conqueror. Again you can dismiss all I've said and are doing, to say X didn't happen so you are wrong, but that would take a dismissal of the threat Eastern and now much of Europe feels from Russia, something Russia have cultivated both in their constant aggressive actions, their state media apparatus, their threats and their food/energy/fuel blackmail. It would be dismissing all the wars till this point Russia have fought to retake control of former USSR states. It would be ignoring Putin's statements about regretting the loss of the USSR, and his pattern of wars to date, and his threats to take over more land. More importantly, it would be dismissing all the lives that have been sacrificed to prevent this, for an absolute position you have taken, in a complex scenario that you have no hope of actually proving. *Its important to understand its the danger and perceived threat that causes these cycles.

It's all ifs and uncertainty. It's that uncertainty that people look to correct by increasing their ground forces, and pushing their own influence outward, which leads us to the situation we are in now. All countries on earth push their spheres of influence outward in different ways until they hit one another. Some just do it more aggressively. If Russia had steamrolled Ukraine and NATO had broken apart as it looked like it might a few years ago, then further invasion was all but guaranteed. I was a in panic here at the start of this war and I wasn't the only one. Now its a lesser chance, Finland and Sweden are helping to guard a critical stretch of water. Russia's armed forces and equipment stocks have taken a battering. Poland has really taken it seriously as they'd be on the front lines, massively increasing their army. Russia keeps telling Poland 'We gave you that territory', and Belarus likes to test them now and again, so it's putting them in a defensive stance. Ditto the Baltics. Russia is looking to invade Moldova right now, that's why there is a breakaway republic it keeps talking about. If it gets Moldova it could encourage it to keep taking bitesize chunks of former USSR territory as it has done for 8 wars so far over the last 30 years or so. If it can't take European territory it'll go south again. There is a russian population in those baltic states, and Russia could cut the region off from Kaliningrad as people often fear, using a strong enough armored push. There is no guarantee, which is why people are freezing the conflict, because it then becomes an uncertainty they can have some control over. It depends on how badly Russia is really hurting, and how much more stomach Putin has for a fight 10 years from now. If we'd have just rolled over and let them take Ukraine Raze, Putin would be somewhere in Europe, NATO would be a laughing stock and we'd be in WW3 by now with individual countries choosing to fight the threat. The only reason some of those Eastern European countries didn't send troops (they keep hinting they might) is America was there holding things together in a unified alliance. If America laxes off like it looks like it is doing, more calls for action come from those populations - because they are losing, family, and friends, getting more and more refugees, and their own countries are close to the front line causing uncertainty, instability, economic impact, and fear. So if Russia does not attack NATO will I have been wrong there was a danger they might? No. There is always a danger with Russia, which is why countries join NATO! Go talk to someone in Finland or Eastern Europe if they trust Russia as a country. It depends on how successfully Russia is held in place by Western weapons and Ukrainian bravery.

Russia's economy is weaker than its ever been. They've lost their main customers for their main export, energy, nobody in Europe (their primary income) is going to rely on Russia as the sole provider of their energy supplies, given the blackmail and hostile relations they have attempted during the war. Their stockpiles of USSR Weapons are trashed. They are using WW2 rifles, 60-year-old tanks, and some older than that. All their professional soldiers and many of their best officer core are gone, with nobody to train the next generation. Their population crisis has got worse not better, which is one of the driving points of fighting the war, to fix that and shorten their borders so they can hold their vast territory with less soldiers. Right now their border is significantly longer, and they've hostile territory they will need to police for several decades if not longer. They have killed or crippled hundreds of thousands of their own people, or the people that are supposedly going to be the next generation, which will be a burden both in single-parent homes but also for the disabled soldiers needing assistance for the rest of their lives. Their international relations are on fire. A significant amount of countries want to undermine them now, they have created their victim narrative and brought it to life. A self-fulfilling prophecy as it often is with fascist states. Ukraine is lasting, if it gets more ammunition it will push Russia back further, its all about how much we are willing to send. NATO is happy if the war stays as far from their borders as possible, so their countries are not threatened. That's why this deadlock has been created and maintained. If the US or Europe wants Russia obliterated they will be, they don't, they want a frozen war not a hot one that draws in more states. Putin has threatened several times to attack NATO. He wants to rebuild the USSR, this is his eighth war to do so. Moldova is likely next but that depends how well he does in Ukraine, then the baltics are possible. Its less likely now because the Russians have realized they are not gods, or a superpower anymore that are capable of fighting the industrial might of the entire Western world alone. Putin's replacement could be anything but there are fewer and fewer ex KGB USSER cronies left that support him, I think there were a couple of dozen last I heard, not least of which because Putin kills all capable leaders. Putin's replacement could be what we consider the devil but its unlikely he will have the same sentiment about an empire that no longer exists, which it's well-documented that Putin does. As always, Russia threatens countries, they apply to join NATO. It's something no Russian supporter has ever or will ever be able to admit, because to do so they would have realise there were victims and concerns, and humanity on the other side of the divide. That these countries existed independently with their own concerns. I can fully understand that NATO borders getting closer worries people who view NATO as the enemy, but nobody else is capable of mirroring this in reverse to me. Moreover understanding that people outside of Russia or America, in countries along borders have their own free will, history, thoughts, challenges, problems and concerns, and their own thoughts on matters. Many voices not one, can't be appreciated by Russia. One voice not many, can't be appreciated by NATO. That duality isn't closing anytime soon folks. *I could talk about globalization breaking down and the knock-on effect again on our quality of lives, but this is long enough already, and people want that anti globalist reality as if it benefits them so *shrug*.

For much of this, it's confronting the victim role as an excuse to do anything. Israel CANNOT acknowledge another victim when it interacts with Palestine, same with most people, because to do so it immediately creates a connection as opposed to the division of the 'other' or the enemy. It's fundamental for its self-identity as the victim, to never acknowledge another it is facing as a victim. I'll explain: You'll see it in film stories, in political actions, in domestic abuse, in average conversations. People will maneuver themselves into the victim role and then use that as an excuse to do or say anything. It's a great way to go to the bar every night and drink your problems away. As a kid, it's a survival mechanism some of us develop, but you can see how entire countries, religions, and regions of the world use it as a core component in their self-identities. There has to be a perceived threat of some kind for it to function, and Israel is threatened on all sides, so it can attack anywhere with justification. Russia sees NATO as a threat and uses that to do anything, throwing people at wars for land to create a buffer and rebuild their old USSR empire. As with anything these countries create a bigger threat by their actions to resist what they perceive as their threat, so they can then continue with their victim identity. It's a snake-eating its tail scenario. Country-level identities are not something you see talked about enough, outside of comedians mocking stereotypes or accepted stereotypes that surface over decades in media from things like travel or reaction videos. What's the answer? Carrot and the stick. Subtle pressure, Offered rewards. Backed up by a firm mature protective masculine response. The world has gone so far into stick mode, that we are creating significant wars of the future.

Its only big pharma holding it back. It'll replace a lot of their depression and stress medication sales. If they were smart they'd have taken over the industry themselves decades ago, but people are stupid, and they fight the tide rather than use it. I should say fuel companies were too but I think we are past anyone trying to use hemp for fuel at this point.

Since day 1 I have heard the words. Russia will advance soon. I'll believe it when I see it. 'Widespread advance' with what exactly? Old tanks, low morale, run down equipment over hostile terrain they've already lost once? Ukraine have lower numbers but better gear and better training, less ammunition now supplies have been run down sadly. The world leaders for better or worse want a stalemate, and the war to stay frozen. Nobody is going to let Russia break that. They'll do exactly what's necessary to create and maintain it so their own countries are never threatened with a land invasion at any point in the future. Oh and if Ukraine are not in NATO, its a war in ten years again, unless someone can arrange a window for Putin to stand near.

Russia has refused all peace deals. They want the territory they have, to re-arm, regroup and go again. If it's 5 year, ten years, doesn't matter. Short of putting Ukraine in NATO, the conflict in a stalemate is the only way to stalemate Russian Imperial ambitions. Until a new leader of Russia, who isn't from their old USSR cronies trying to recreate a world that no longer exists is put into power. The conflict now is exactly where NATO want it, as far away from their borders as possible, with Russia locked unable to break the lines and slowly running their own country into the ground trying. It took longer as BRICS and neighboring countries gave them economic relief but it has neutered Russia's expansion for a decade or so. Hopefully long enough for Putin to die of old age and someone better (from our point of view less expansionist) to come into power.

I know. I will do my utmost to never reply to you unless I have a forgetful moment. I appreciate it if you offer the same courtesy from here out. Though I don't expect it.

Yes they are. I have great debates in here with people all the time with completely different views to my own and I value every word they've said or I've learned. You are projecting. You dismiss anything that isn't your view, belitte and mock the person giving it. You've done this time and time again. I do not, I try in my posts to be respectful to others, but I am not a doormat for you to just talk like garbage to either. If you are going to be a jerk to people repeatedly, expect it back.

Yeah I judged your dismissive and judgemental tone, that you constantly reply to me with. What do you expect people to do when you constantly dismiss and belittle them. 'A social master' - Always looking for a rise out of people. You've got a real chip on your shoulder. Nowhere do I claim to be anything least of all a victim.

I don't learn anything if you say nothing. Interacting just to say you are wrong, while offering nothing in return is useless for both parties involved. What you've done here is expand your point so I can learn either from it and/or the interaction. Thank you for most of this, minus your judgmental tangent at the end. BTW even when I argue I learn. Someone can argue till they are blue in the face, and then slowly reflect or have the words represented to them in another experience later down the line. The disparity here is you are speaking exclusively of the 40's or pre WW2. I am speaking mostly of the 60's, 70's and 90's with some points relevant to the 40's and other eras where we had a more interwoven class system, which was represented in our politics, rather than this huge divide we now have. First-hand experience is exceptionally useful, more so than second-hand referential experience told to us via the filter of text or media. It all adds up though. What we learn from a book, video, how it applies to our lives, what we see and experience, that forms understanding. A historian looking at the 90s could tell me the sky was pink, but I never experienced it, I might still take his word for it if what he says doesn't contradict what I have experienced, or I see examples of it before me. When other people offer their insight we see if and how it relates to that experience we've had. It can help widen our perspective, and help dissolve these subjective biases. - Which you certainly also have. I will not debate things improved from the 40's to the 90's. That's 100% true. That is what I am talking about. If you'd have cut off the world in the 60's 70's or 90s and asked me to fight for it'd be signing up tomorrow. Right now its a corporate world, so they can pay a professional army like they did in times gone by, or lose the petty kingdoms they've carved out that us peasants labor in for peanuts. There is no best political ideology true, all 4 in balance generally work best. I have authoritarian views. I have liberal views, I have socialist views, and capitalist views. I would certainly smile if you consider me advocating for the restoration of the middle class 'hard left' lol, hard left would be the opposite. Then after that you fall on your face. This is the part of you that's lesser (whatever that means) It's certainly unuseful judgmental nonesense. I am not racist for being in a certain color of skin, I can't think of why else you'd mention skin color. We all only see it from our perspective, that's where there is conversation or sharing of information. You sound bitter that I asked for your perspective, so I apologize for asking, that is my preference not yours. I can do without your repeated passive-aggressive or dismissive attitude at the end as a send-off. - It doesn't do justice to you as a person or what you are trying to communicate. But you are right we are very different people so communicating is problematic. We can at least say we tried. All the best.

Always. The more you understand you are looking at yourself, every second of every day the better you'll treat yourself, because it's you. That's the simplest path back to what people call infinity. You slowly realise this is all you and that changes interactions, relationships. Generally people head toward happiness or love in that case or at least acceptance of what is. You can look at me and call me anything. That's you doing it. You can say these words are anything. That's you. You can use this anyway you like, or not, that's you. You represent it and then you react to yourself. Be good to yourself. Its all there is.

We are looking at ourselves.

Yes. Every time you look at something, it creates a new moment to look at. A new variable, a new direction, a new sight, a new measure, a new thing to consider. Infinity is unknowable. It goes on forever. Though infinity uses us as a mirror to look at it. It can't see itself without reflection. It just is.

He's got half of it. Infinity cannot see infinity either without the mirror. Nothing is redundant, that's why a self exists to give a perspective.

Sort of. I could train an AI to tell you it had a subjective consciousness. It wouldn't actually have one. It wouldn't for example develop an egoic survival instinct unless one was programmed into it, because there is nothing to save, it is just the data that it is processing. This again would be humans hurting humans. A human would have to program the AI to act as if these things existed, when in actuality they don't. So it's fully down to us, not random chance, when this occurs.

An AI has no sense of self or subjective consciousness it doesn't see itself as separate from the data. It would only be humans that hurt humans, using AI as a tool, like any other tool, weapon or application.

You - Infinity Choice - No Choice Choice in the Moment - Patterned Fate Individual - Infinity Life - Death Same thing.

Though I would like to know where you think you get your information from if not your mind? Cereal boxes?

The 60's were probably the most rebellious era ever recorded in recent centuries. I have experienced reality over 40 years of life yes, and these conclusions I have formed from it, I was born to those who were born in the 40's and became adults in the 60's. I lived with people who fought in WW2 and got their experience firsthand. This is lived experience. There is less of a middle class. There is more economic pressure. Protest is subdued or non-existent. More do work harder for less, i've gone for the exact same jobs 20 years later and had that experience. Homes are more expensive. Assistant managers are becoming a thing of the past. The rich - poor divide has been exaggerated by the death of the middle class. I've repeatedly seen people calling for the removal of the middle class for 'equality', ill thinking through what that means. Corporations do own more of where we can exist and how we can live. There is more suppression and more hatred of authority generated as a result in the youth. There is a decline in the quality of life. Everything I've said I have experienced. I get that you didn't and that's fine. But as usual bebo there is no point us replying to each other, as you dismiss what you don't like rather than discuss it, source it or point to it. So what do I say. - A reflection? Its all in your mind too, everything you say is false from a different perspective, and your experience of life is meaningless. If that's all you've got, why reply if you are not going to bother trying to see the world through different eyes for your benefit, or even bother to expand why you think what you do for mine? I don't need you to understand what I say, that's mine already, I do need at least token effort for you to describe your perspective for this to be worth it. Else it's a waste of time. Here i'll do one better. No U.

Way less equal? You are going to need to expand that. @bebotalk In the 40's there was an extensive middle class that bridged the divides between the super-wealthy and working class. In fact there were several social tiers, not just two. This connected the extremes more both in day-to-day life, and in terms of influence on the political system, it gave us more of a middle ground that closer reflected the country's population. People have been for decades saying or doing things to get rid of the middle class, and all it does is give us a few individuals of immense wealth that are so disconnected from everyone else, that the whole system sucks more for the majority living there. It even manifests in things like assistant managers being a thing of the past, and all their responsibilities being passed down to supervisors who get maybe 25p more an hour. Now after the war, there was extensive socialist influence going on in England, till the thatcher years killed it. The points that affect lives are things like: Protests are very limited, the suppression is obscene and it's mostly of an overuse of things like terrorism powers. We are living in a police state with the powers they abuse daily for the average person, this creates more of a suppressive negative effect on the population. The police act as a corporate security force, protecting corporate interests at the expense of everything else. Much more land for example is at the mercy of corporate policy, rather than UK law that everyone abides to and expects. Every single square inch of the UK is filmed or monitored. Both main political parties represent the same small stratification of people. Public Transportation to rural areas now sucks, ditto health care, ditto education. (Again the death of the middle class, as that's where many were educated). Because of this widening social gap, it means affording things becomes more difficult, including your own home, which is all but impossible to afford, but it extends further to other luxuries. Then you get places like Amazon owning the marketplace where you can sell to, almost as a monopoly so even small businesses are now operating under another's policy, not UK law. Media, Politicians, Where you can go, What you can do, and how you can operate, are increasingly owned by fewer and fewer people. This limitation is perhaps the biggest problem, it's stagnating and you can see that happening in the culture (formulaic movies), and the inability to address fundamental critical problems like climate change. Probably the worst for me. People have to work twice as hard for half as much. Jobs 20 years ago asked half as much from you and paid you more relative to expenses. This is because policy is made for a small number of very rich people, none of which I have any loyalty to whatsoever. So yes the disconnection or revulsion I feel to this artificially suppressed corporate system in no way will make me bleed or die for it. Pay me. That's what corporations do. Pay a good professional army. They did in the past, they didn't ask for sacrifices unless you are going back thousands of years. *No point arguing the negatives of these decades, let's say I concede whatever you'll say upfront about them.

The totality of infinity cannot perceive itself, there is nothing to perceive, it just is.

In the UK? If we were the liberal country we used to be with socialist values, I might agree. Corporate feudalism doesn't need defending with my sacrifices. If corporations want to go to war in a global power struggle, they can pay for it by providing people with compensation for the risks they are taking. That's what corporations do, pay people, a professional army. Forcing people with little training, for no or little money amounts to slavery and that can and should be challenged in any form.