BlueOak

Integration and global cooperation solve world hunger, its a magnifier on abundance like resources, trade, research, assistance etc. The more we fracture, or divide up reality, the more we starve in it. So look at the people creating fear and division as to why the world suffers. Anyone magnifying it isn't helping. Anyone solving it is. And BTW anyone letting populations move in such an unchecked fashion is not fostering cooperation but instead social chaos. Going from 50k to 500k net migration is delusional in the UK. Its not a 'leftist' principal to allow large scale migrations, its a liberal principal. That's why you get threads started like this blaming this person or that person, no its the policy itself, although it keeps a healthy workforce, you can see it straining at the seams.

No they inflict more suffering than they solve. Their drive for profit squeezes everyone: Financially, in their wellbeing, in their sanity and mental state. Their biases unbalance otherwise collectively or governmentally run institutions or platforms. Often greatly lacking the knowledge or skill set to effectively run such positions. Their biases encourage violence against those they disagree with or threaten their fortunes; they encourage mental illness and suffering in those minds they warp or effect for their own gain. On balance. They may solve a problem and improve an area of life.

Nobody is forcing women to vote. Its odd they want to force other women not to vote.

Yeah i've said before, anyone without anti drone weaponry is 3 years behind, anyone without a substantial (and cheap) drone force is 5 years behind. So to my mind Ukraine and Russia are by far the most advanced combat forces on the planet. Its difficult for people to understand but they are actively developing, producing, using and refining drones, whereas other countries are just relying on traditional forces like tanks and apc's. To further some of your examples. I am seeing mine laying drones now over logistic routes, which I knew I would. The options for them are vast, and only just being explored.

Its bad because it's Moscow, and all the people with influence live there, its a large % of the population. But this is going on once a week now almost – huge black oil depots raining oil down over town or city. Visually it's striking and terrible for the local populations, but the death of the shadow fleet ships and Russia's ports is just as bad, if not worse for the country. It won't matter who wants what soon, the war is just going to end.

I didn't answer this as I had no time, but you are just wrong on this one. Attackers needing 3:1, this is an accepted reality in most military thinking; your examples are wrong. Chat GPT Quote Start D-Day: Were forces comparable? ❌ No Allies had: Overwhelming air superiority Naval supremacy Massive logistical advantage Germany had: Strong defensive fortifications (Atlantic Wall) But inferior numbers at the point of landing, and limited mobility Reality: This is actually a textbook example of how hard attacking is, even with superiority. Casualties on beaches like Omaha were extremely high. Success came from overwhelming force + coordination, not equal forces. Pacific War campaigns (WWII) Were forces comparable? ❌ No (usually) Typical pattern: United States attackers had: Naval + air dominance Better supply lines Japan defenders had: Fortified islands Fanatical defense doctrines Key point: Battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa show: Defenders inflicted enormous casualties despite being outmatched Attackers only won through overwhelming superiority~ Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan: Were forces comparable? ❌ No — and also not a success case Soviet Union: Mechanized army, air power, heavy weapons Mujahideen: Guerrilla fighters, lighter arms, terrain advantage Outcome: Soviets failed to achieve strategic victory Eventually withdrew Verdict: ➡️ Not comparable forces ➡️ Not even a successful attacker example So… is the original claim true? ❗ The answer you were given is mostly incorrect / misleading None of those examples show: “Two roughly equal forces where the attacker had the advantage” What does history actually show? Across modern warfare (WWI → present): General pattern: Defender advantage is strong when forces are comparable Attackers usually need: 3:1 local superiority (classic military rule of thumb) Or technological / air / logistical dominance Why defenders have the edge: Fortifications & prepared positions Knowledge of terrain Shorter supply lines Ability to absorb attack rather than coordinate one Are there real examples where attackers win with similar strength? They do exist, but usually require special conditions, such as: Surprise (e.g., Six-Day War opening strikes) Maneuver warfare breakthroughs (e.g., Battle of France) Collapse of defender morale or command But even in those: ➡️ The attacker typically has qualitative superiority, not true equality. Chat GPT End Quote Russian Oil Will not, and indeed now have not increased revenues because Russian refineries, ports and infrastructure to ship the oil are cooked. Right now the country is starting to fail. Russian Casualties CSIS (2026): https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine Russia Matters summary of Western casualty estimates (2026): https://www.russiamatters.org/news/russia-ukraine-war-report-card/russia-ukraine-war-report-card-june-3-2026 CSIS battlefield losses analysis (2025): https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-battlefield-woes-ukraine Many analysts conservatively state 2:1 or 2.5 to 1 ratio of Russian losses to Ukranian losses for the above reasons and all the video evidence we have on Russian tactics and recorded losses. Some believe this is higher for the reasons the GPT laid out above. They can indeed keep this up at 5:1, because the entire population is not going to fight. Russia is a larger country, that's why it didn't need to mobalise as many men, it didn't have an exodus or people/territories captured, also its not been invaded and pressured from multiple directions, meaning it doesn't need to guard several borders, and also it had a standing military (now dead). Finally, it uses up populations from those countries it 'liberates' this is a constant tactic over the centuries from Russian imperialists. However, I would argue they do need to do a larger mobilisation to hold their territory, as they are beginning to lose more than they are gaining.

If we are treating it as a whole. When he was elected, Trump represented part of the American Country. The country being businesses, influencers outside and inside, media companies, geopolitics, institutions, social pressures, natural environmental factors, trends, fears, biases, goals, values etc. However osho spoke about the people only, which is an even less detailed constructed model of democracy than the question you've just given me.

The challenges of now don't really change with more intelligence in the ruling elite. The people are still going to exist. If you mean the challenges geopolitically, not really. People are usually engineered to be as the governing forces want them to be, or at least 30% of them, and enough to keep them in power.

A few things lacking in his awareness. One he is part of the people Two I am better than you so I should have more say. Or Your view of reality and life I consider lesser, so therefore you shouldn't vote in the collective I live in. I don't doubt I could look at parts of his life and call them retarded. He fundamentally does not understand democracy is the people it represents, that is the point of it, and he is part of them

Its not going to freeze. Russia is losing ground and Putin is too proud and arrogant to reverse it. He wants X and like a toddler he's not going to get it for 2 years, the cities he wants near Donbas are fortresses; as a consequence, Russia will (and are) losing southern territory. This video is for all the people i've argued with, documented 100,000 Russia casualties by only drones over 1 year. That's just those on video, and only by drones, and only over 1 year. The original video: https://x.com/414magyarbirds/status/2062937571429429735/video/1 Russia's supply lines in the south and west are virtually cut off now. They pushed too far too fast, and will retreat to their old lines (which are much more fortified). If a breach happens in them, there isn't going to be much they can do except die or surrender. This is because there is no fuel there to manoeuvre.

When? I've never seen a war historically where two similar forces favored the attacker. I'm sure there have been examples, but none in the modern era come to mind. Yes Russia has a manpower advantage and can (or could at one point) field a lot of trash. Their artillery was inaccurate, their tanks old, and their small arms sub par. But there was a lot of it, so they advanced. Additionally, they were on the attack, so they suffered more losses. They used bodies to take ground, not superior weaponry or technology. The battlefield changed. If artillery advances or fires it becomes a target. Tanks became much less useful and often just expensive targets, even APC's were just drone food. Ukraines drones are better than Russia, this is a war of drones. Russia gutted its remaining communications, and now its losing territory. Just so Putin can try to cling to power by covering up their losses the last few months, but all it's done is snowball a bad situation for them, and rather than admit they didn't take everything they said, they've lost land as a result. If you need sources on the different artillery systems available to both sides, or the drones I can pull them up. However with them dropping the internet in st petersburg again, their economy is going down faster than most predict, this is fairly obvious to me. They've had a minor run on their banks as another indicator. I said they had 2 years left, I am only more confident now that they've lost one of their crutches in Iran. I was watching the early Russian casualties daily; it was a blood bath those early battles. They were caught by surprise using units that weren't cut out for it, like policing units. Simply put you are downplaying how many they lost in the first year. Plenty of Ukranians left the country and they've lost plenty. Yes they need manpower. But Russia could lose 5 to 1 and maintain the war. Removing Russian manpower doesn't end the war, Russians are too suppressed to care, and Putin sure doesn't. Finishing their economy ends the war. The way Russia has been fighting using human waves i'd put their losses at 3 to 1 being a good indicator, its what i've said before.

This would be a terrible performance in any conflict. Defenders lose less manpower than attackers, all things being equal. However, things are not equal, Russia's equipment is worse than Ukraine's, their training is worse, and their medical care for the wounded is worse; they often send people back into battle wounded. For the vast majority of this war Ukraine has been defending. Russia has carried out several unofficial or partial mobilisations, including calling up its reserves for service. This is how they've done suicidal charges on bikes, on foot and sometimes horseback into cities. (Largely to avoid drones, which trucks draw) Here's Chat GPT's 5.3 objective take: Russia’s mobilisation & recruitment vs casualty scale (condensed): Russia carried out a partial mobilisation of 300,000 reservists in Sept 2022, its first since WWII — indicating serious manpower losses early in the war. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-partial-mobilisation-will-see-300000-drafted-defence-minister-2022-09-21/ Since then, Russia has relied heavily on contract recruitment rather than another full mobilisation: ~450,000 contracts signed in 2024 ~422,704 contracts signed in 2025 (+ tens of thousands of volunteers) https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/some-450000-russians-signed-contracts-serve-army-2024-says-medvedev-2025-01-24/ Russia also continues regular conscription cycles (~150,000 per draft), which are officially not for Ukraine but help sustain overall force levels: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-signs-decree-spring-military-conscription-2024-03-31/ Western estimates place Russian casualties at very high levels: ~900,000 total casualties by early 2025 (UK MoD) https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1902662502334259284 ~1.2 million casualties by late 2025 (CSIS estimate) https://www.csis.org/analysis/russian-casualties-ukraine-reaching-staggering-levels Bottom line: Russia has generated 1M+ personnel inputs (mobilised + contracts + volunteers) since 2022 That scale of replacement strongly aligns with very high casualty estimates (hundreds of thousands to 1M+) “Casualties” ≠ deaths (includes wounded, many of whom return to service)

True but 200,000 have been confirmed KIA by name. So your figure doesn't make sense. Quoting: Open-source death tracking (BBC + Mediazona) Sources: BBC News Russian Mediazona Method: confirmed deaths by name from obituaries, graves, and local reports. 200,000+ Russian deaths confirmed by name Estimated total deaths 300k–445k (implying ~1M+ total casualties when wounded included) Example summary: Open-source investigators have confirmed the identities of over 200,000 Russian soldiers killed. Short debate summary (copy-paste) Multiple independent sources converge on similar ranges. • CSIS (2026): ~1.2M Russian casualties vs ~500–600k Ukrainian casualties https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine • UK Ministry of Defence: ~1.17M Russian casualties https://www.russiamatters.org/news/russia-ukraine-war-report-card • NATO officials: ~1.3M Russian casualties • BBC/Mediazona open-source tracking: 200k+ Russian deaths confirmed by name No estimate is exact, but most independent analyses converge on Russian casualties being roughly double Ukrainian casualties overal End Quote Part of the disaparity is, Russia used up a lot of the population it captured by press-ganging them into service. Which nobody likes to talk about, as it means Ukrainians killing Ukrainians. And this looks good for neither side, Russia for rounding up the people it 'liberated' and Ukraine for killing their own countrymen. The other is that "casualty" does not mean death. It means out of service, and wounded. In some ways, mass casualties are worse for the country, as the person is crippled for life, and so the state then needs to support the wounded; other times they regain their ability to work etc back. These stories will be told by both sides long after the war. However when multiple sources say the same thing, between 1.5 to 1 and 3 to 1, then the russian figure is ludicrous to be honest. It reminds me of the start of the war when I visually watched many more russian KIA than the Kremlin admitted. So I personally saw them lying over and over again. They would lose a few dozen tanks on a riverbank, waiting to cross, for example, because they didn't move fast enough. In the urban centers now they are losing 20+ to 1, as no armor is left and what does exist, is just drone fodder, so nobody uses it much (on either side). Russia has bled a lot for this, and no we will never know the exact amount, not 3 decades later. Nobody is going to count those from prison, or those taken from occupied territories, those snatched on holiday or work visas from abroad, or those in mass graves quietly covered up. We'll know all the white Russians from middle class, or Muscovite backgrounds who died but not from Siberia. To me, out of all the crap that has gone in this war, its the rounding up of minorities in Russia to be used as cannon fodder so the white middle class can gain a bit more land that has colored my perception of Russia forever. Both sides would conscript (anyone would), but its the russification of the native areas which is abhorrent beyond even the daily civilian strikes they do.

Casualty ratio (best current estimate) by my objective GPT: Best widely cited estimate: Russia: ~1.2 million total casualties (killed, wounded, missing) Ukraine: ~500,000–600,000 total casualties This implies a rough casualty ratio of ~2:1 to 2.5:1 (Russian losses higher). Source (CSIS, Jan 2026): “Russian battlefield casualties and fatalities are significantly greater than Ukrainian casualties… with a ratio of roughly 2.5:1 or 2:1. Ukrainian forces likely suffered 500,000–600,000 casualties, while Russia has suffered about 1.2 million casualties since the invasion.” Sources: CSIS : https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine End Qutote Russia, however has a higher manpower reserve, Its more their production and logistics/economic hits that are the long term goal of Ukraine, with their self made drones and missiles now able to strike deep into factory complexes that Russia had scaled and kept concentrated (because they thought them safe). The most critical blow since February for Russia was Russia stupidly cutting telegram after musk pulled starlink, which has crippled their communications the last few months, and left many units in disarray. Russia is building up for a spring offensive, but has lost a significant amount of its recent progress into Ukraine as a result of that kremlin blunder. So even if their spring offensive is successful, it's only going to be retaking the territory they just lost. Been a good few months for Ukraine, best for a year. Russian oil tankers hit a lot more, territory is being retaken, and military complexes thought safe being torched. Few people cover it because of Iran, but i'm sure they'll find the time when Russia gets its act together again lol

'Who decides' doesn't mean authoritarianism. You are acting as if only markets can decide or a dicator. Typical left right oversimplistic division in American politics. Which happens when a country excludes all other opinions from even discussion for a generation or two. Here are some socialist examples that could make such a decision. Democratic institutions and groups. Worker Unions Worker Councils. Or just open publicly accountable governance, better representation of working people's views. Unequal trade under capitalism is what causes exploitation. Socialism is all about enforcing labor laws and workers rights. If workers decide something collectively there is no middle or upper class involved. The problem you have, Elliot, is you live in a country that has so rejected part of itself, that it cannot even grasp what it's arguing against. You are so desperate to demonise an ideology that you end just grasping at straws or attempting one-line gotchas. There are many problems with a pure socialist viewpoint, not least of which are self-interest, billionaire resistance and greed, but you haven't even lined one up yet. Collective decision making is not authoritarian; certainly democratic collective decision-making, pretending it is, is looking through this lens as a capitalist would and applying capitalist values to it.