BlueOak

Russia's economy is cooked. As was the prediction. Despite all the aid, a crutch only goes so far. So its endgame now is to try and appear diplomatic and make desperate pushes to take territory they claim is theirs (before they had it), which get an entire battalion cut off. I thought it was a group but it was a battalion. In the name of a political gambit. They have to now pressure Ukraine diplomatically. Because they can't keep up the facade that everything is fine when you take a million casualties and throw so many billions into a war. People arguing that are so biased that you can't speak to them most of the time.

Your justification of targeting civilians answers the question people ask me time to time. Why do you think we are pro Russia? Because largely raze you appeal to a moral center in people, and do it in a way people listen. This is a morally skewed position you are taking. Just say it, just come out and say, bombing civilians in war is abhorrent. No justification, no threading a needle, just that. Its really simple and it brings every atrocity into focus. Otherwise, the moral argument is cut into sides and nothing improves because you are just arguing details. If you are moving to a different non-moral argument, Russia's actions to retake 20% of something they held 100% of have been a strategic failure and a complete waste of a million+ lives and a country that had an 'okay' economic outlook, bad demographics but it was in a good place. Now its not.

Can anyone else ultimately be responsible for your choices in life? For people who don't understand everything is themselves. Yes. Just like all the decisions the right has made now, it leads to the radicalization of the left in the next shift. It's how consciousness does small steps up societally/collectively in a two-party political system. Which is flawed to begin with because it apparently relies on high drama to execute these changes effectively, in this 6-second attention span tiktok reality, wheras a multiparty system is more balanced but makes for more boring TV. People can point to where this isn't the case, but i'd ask them what is people's experience of this, what do they consciously remember, talk about, live and embrace. The high drama, not the bureaucratic steps. They may have all these silent background things contributing to their life, but unless the child grows up to understand what the parents did for them, they remain narcissistic, entitled brats with their heads in their phones. - Modelling how most kids grow up, into the larger model here, because they are the future voters making waves now.

Both parties no longer consider economic issues or the economic status of their population as important, because it's bad for their donors and moneyed interests, and things are changing so rapidly. Otherwise, it'd be the number one thing being talked about right now with people struggling. Instead, it's always high drama identity politics that mean little to people's daily lives. Big shows from the republicans with little actual benefit, and lots of words from the democrats so they can keep the status quo ticking along. Traditionally, the democratic party has more of a push to tax the rich, and put more money/resources back into people's lives. Whereas the republicans give the rich more tax breaks and take money/resources out of people's lives. There are different arguments for this; i've heard several and never seen one I agreed with fully. Because: People can be greedy, and those in business are generally greedy for money, its what drives them. So when you give them the option of taking more revenue, they do, it doesn't get passed down to the population. The good counterargument is that bureaucracy is wasteful, and thus some of that money gets used up on admin, but it also keeps rich billionaires in check so they don't run amok so easily. The perfect scenario in America would be to motivate people to create businesses for something other than money. But when you pair that against someone who is all about the numbers competitively, it doesn't win, not unless it was done en masse using bureaucracy and/or the media, and local interest groups to support it. Real grass-roots business/organisations something nationalists often reach for but fall short of, because they focus too broadly.

I've been banging that drum for about 5 years now. You have to step outside of your own perspective. These are collective minds, or using the collective perspective at least to make their posts. Nothing wrong with that at all btw, just a different outlook. It would help if they could step into a more individualist mind when making their replies at times, if their want was to build bridges as it were, or gain nuance in regions such as Europe, Central asia, the middle east etc. You can do the same while recognizing the collective expression of the West, but also the individuality of regional powers or smaller sovereign countries within it. This is critical because not doing this is why spheres of influence end up eternally fighting over what they see as smaller pawns, countries too small to exert a large sphere of influence. If these were recognised more in their sovereignty, wars over them would be less frequent. Conflict would still happen, but it would be more isolated and less sphere vs sphere in nature, because in people's minds and perception, that individuality of cultures or societies would carry more weight. (Both in accountability for their mistakes, but also the preservation of peaceful, independent coexistence, not just as proxies)

Sourced by Chat GPT if any are broken let me know, checked several EU oil/gas dependence & trade with Russia Eurostat (oil share): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_trade_with_Russia_-_latest_developments Reuters (EU gas: 45% → ~19%): https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-energy-export-disruptions-since-start-ukraine-war-2025-08-15/ Reuters (EU gas ~19% in 2024; ~13% in 2025): https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/eu-lawmakers-eye-faster-russian-gas-phase-out-documents-show-2025-07-25/ Eurostat (imports down 86% since Q1 2022): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_trade_with_Russia_-_latest_developments Reuters (EU trade still exists but far lower; oil share ~2%): https://www.reuters.com/world/three-years-into-war-us-and-europe-keep-billions-trade-with-russia-2025-08-05/ LNG shifts & U.S./Norway replacement European Commission (US supplied ~45% of EU LNG in 2024; Norway top pipeline): https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/carbon-management-and-fossil-fuels/liquefied-natural-gas_en Reuters (US share ~44% of EU LNG in 2024): https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/eus-250-billion-per-year-spending-us-energy-is-unrealistic-2025-07-28/ EIA background (US nearly half of Europe’s LNG in 2023): https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61483 EU sanctions on Russian LNG & shadow fleet enforcement European Commission Q&A (14th sanctions package; bans LNG transshipment via EU ports after 9-month transition): https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_24_3425 EEAS note (same package overview): https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-adopts-14th-package-sanctions-against-russia-its-continued-illegal-war-against-ukraine_en S&P Global explainer (effect on LNG transshipment): https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/natural-gas/062424-eu-council-formally-adopts-14th-russian-sanctions-package-targeting-lng Reuters (sanctions targeting shadow fleet tankers): https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shadow-tanker-fleet-grows-more-slowly-western-sanctions-target-russian-oil-2025-08-13/ Reuters (U.S. enforcement fund for “ghost fleet”): https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-bill-creates-fund-enforce-oil-sanctions-russias-ghost-fleet-2025-04-09/ Bank of Finland blog (Urals running ~$15 below Brent on average): https://www.bofbulletin.fi/en/blogs/2025/new-oil-price-cap-adds-to-russia-s-economic-distress/ Power of Siberia-2 (Russia→China gas) Reuters (talks ongoing; no finalized contract as of May 2025; capacity ~50 bcm): https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/russian-chinese-firms-active-talks-power-siberia-2-gas-pipeline-tass-reports-2025-05-08/ Russia’s macro/war-economy indicators Reuters (defence spending ~6.3% of GDP in 2025): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-hikes-national-defence-spending-by-23-2025-2024-09-30/ Reuters (2025 deficit target raised to ~1.7% of GDP): https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russia-raises-2025-deficit-forecast-threefold-due-low-oil-price-risks-2025-04-30/ Bank of Russia (key rate cut to 18% on July 25, 2025; peaked at 21%): https://www.cbr.ru/eng/press/pr/?file=25072025_133000key_e.htm Reuters (rate cut coverage): https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russian-central-bank-slashes-key-rate-by-200-bps-biggest-cut-since-may-2022-2025-07-25/ Losses/casualties estimates CSIS assessment (toward ~1M Russian casualties by summer 2025): https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-battlefield-woes-ukraine Reuters citing UK Defence Intelligence (~1M killed/wounded): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-gates-how-ukraine-defended-strategic-city-months-2025-07-28/ Ukrainian public opinion on ending the war Gallup (69% favor negotiating an end “as soon as possible”): https://news.gallup.com/poll/693203/ukrainian-support-war-effort-collapses.aspx Russia Matters roundup of polls (support for negotiations vs. concessions): https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/polls-show-ukrainians-increasingly-want-end-war-not-under-russias-terms NATO/EU defence-spending trend Reuters (NATO’s new “5%” framework: 3.5% core + 1.5% broader security): https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/what-is-natos-new-5-defence-spending-target-2025-06-23/ NATO page (context on allies meeting/exceeding 2% in 2025): https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm Reuters (Poland 4.7% of GDP in 2025; aiming for 5% in 2026): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-wants-spend-5-gdp-defence-2026-minister-says-2025-04-03/ Reuters (UK to 2.5% by 2027; intent signalled): https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-defence-spending-reach-25-gdp-by-2027-pm-starmer-says-2025-02-25/ International-law principle on alignment choice OSCE: Helsinki Final Act (text/overview): https://www.osce.org/helsinki-final-act U.S. Helsinki Commission (PDF of the Act):

@zazen Premise: If we take multipolarity seriously, then what you call Russia’s natural push for buffers has an equally natural counterbalance: Europe’s balancing and denial. That’s the security dilemma, not a moral failure or a reason to demonize in your recognition of it. Spheres explain behaviour, they don’t confer rights or vetoes. Again recognising a multipolar world isn’t capitulation; it’s a competitive coexistence (Something i've resisted accepting). In such a system, small states have agency also: Ukraine, Poland or Georgia aren’t just buffer zones, without recognition of that, we have eternal conflict using them as pawns. In a region with clashing ideologies, history and cultural memories over a thousand years of it, friction is predictable; you aren't acknowledging that enough. Yes, the standard should be consent and non-aggression, but not deference to a power’s sphere because you or I favor its position. Europe rearming and backing Ukraine is a predictable and normal balancing response. 1) Why not just deal with Russia? This is dealing with Russia. Its a perfect understandable mirror over cultures and populations that share a long conflicting history, many similar cultural values (in the immediate region), but conflicting ideologies, in a new multipolar dynamic with competing interests. It's like asking why don't Russia just deal with these many countries to its west? Well they are. @PurpleTreeOn Nukes, yes. I've called for that for years. That's why Putin did it in Belarus. It'll help deter invasion of Belarus in the coming decades. Its exactly what needs to happen to secure that zone of conflict for a few decades. 1A) An addition: Europe still funds Russia. No. You keep posting this in different threads @zazen, so I'll post it here again. The scale has flipped As I've just sourced this with Chat GPT, i'll just copy paste GPT conclusions: Quote: Oil: The EU cut Russian crude and products from ~29% of its oil imports in 2021 to ~2% in early-2025. That’s orders-of-magnitude smaller revenue than pre-war. Gas: Russia’s share of EU gas fell from ~45% pre-war to ~15–19% in 2024/25 (mix of pipeline + LNG). Norway and U.S. LNG have largely displaced it. Total trade: EU goods imports from Russia dropped ~78–86% vs early-2022, even if some flows (nickel, LNG) remain. The direction of travel is clear. Reuters Yes, India and China absorbed much of the oil, at a discount. That’s why Moscow leaned on a shadow fleet and non-Western insurance. Discounts widened again this month, underscoring Russia’s weaker pricing power. End Quote 2) You can’t sanction half the world (BRICS). Power is in chokepoints, not headcounts. Population is not leveraged. The G7 and EU still dominate finance, shipping insurance, advanced tech, and capital markets. There are focused sanctions targeted at these points, which is easier given the dominance. Chat GPT adds: Even with BRICS expansion, nominal-GDP weight still trails the G7 and is fragmented by divergent interests. (PPP shares look larger but don’t buy chips, tooling, or underwriting.) I generally liked its take more than mine here, as it brings up some interesting points. 3) Russia’s war economy is fine. Really? Another stat quote here for speed: Russia’s defense burden is now 6–7% of GDP; the 2025 deficit was raised to 1.7% of GDP, and the central bank hiked to 21% before easing to 18%—classic overheating control. This isn’t collapse, but it’s expensive and crowding-out. To me this is the biggest point of propaganda. In real terms nobody's economy is doing fine. Least of all a country which is printing 15-19% of its money every few months, is propped up by BRICS members buying energy they don't need at a discounted price, and has its refineries (its major export) hit daily. Its country is tooled up to a wartime economy, and it spent 1 million lives, many of which will be carried as a burden one way or the other by the state, both physically and psychologically. Plus how many millions that have fled and won't return, because they have families/lives/good jobs elsewhere now. 4) Manpower doesn't decide a war. Quantity helps, but quality, gear, and politics ultimately decide outcomes UK MOD and the CSIS list Russian casualties KIA and WIA past 1 million this summer. That's an enormous casualty strain and bill for the country to carry. Maintaining their push requires hard cash, and prison recruiting both of which are dried up. These are signs of strain not a healthy military. The kill ratio exceeds the population imbalance you describe. Which is why, almost four years on, this is a very slow front. 5) Ukrainians just want a deal. Yes. To a ceasefire, not to capitulation Quote for speed: Gallup finds ~69% want a negotiated end “as soon as possible.” But Ukrainian polls also show little willingness to concede territory and strong belief Russia would violate a paper peace. That’s not hawkish elites forcing war; it’s a public that wants peace with security, not a reset to the next invasion. 6) Georgia and Azerbaijan in NATO is just antagonizing Russia? Two things here to start: Azerbaijan has never been a realistic NATO candidate in the past; While Georgia has sought a path for years. Something you struggle with in your analysis are points like this, great power red lines don't erase neighbors agency. The Helsinki Final Act norms are states choose their alignments. Realism matters, but so do rules to govern a multipolar world, or smaller states live at the mercy of spheres of influence, and we end up in eternal conflicts. Leo would tell me they do live at their mercy, then i'd reflect that's the source of eternal conflict, until those states or populations are considered they'll just be pawns to fight or compete over. - Infact that's a realisation i've just had, not doing so is why sphere's of influence live in competition. 7) Europe is pacifist bureaucracy; 5% of GDP talk is fantasy? Again GPT does stats far better than me: The EU was slow, but the trend is up: NATO just signaled a new spending envelope (3.5% core + 1.5% broader security); Poland is pushing ~4.7–5%; the UK is moving toward 2.5% (with some leaders floating higher over the 2030s). Industrial capacity (ammo/drones/air defense) is expanding from a low base. It’s not instantaneous, but it is material. 8) China will replace Europe for Russian gas? The Power of Siberia-2 still lacks a finalised contract and price; Beijing has kept Moscow waiting to extract terms. Even if built, 50 bcm doesn’t replace pre-war European pipeline volumes. I am trusting the GPT's conclusion on this i'll place sources in the next post. What should Europe actually do? Me: Strong united front to keep their sphere pushing toward Russia, nukes in Ukraine to mimic Belarus, keep pushing back. Until we can start to consider smaller states sovereignty as a globe. Russia isn't developed enough to do so yet. I'm just going to be blunt @zazen you reason from a place that doesn't yet exist. Which is noble and useful to point out better solutions but flawed in practicality. GPT's strategy and evaluation. Based on my overall analysis. Short term (war-relevant within months) Air defense + counter-drone mass for Ukraine; stockpile 155mm/122mm & GMLRS; remove range caveats that hobble interdiction of Russian logistics inside Russia’s border areas supporting active fronts. (Deterrence works when it raises Moscow’s costs faster than it can adapt.) Close the revenue taps left: Impose an EU tariff or ban on Russian LNG; stop trans-shipment via EU ports; align with U.S./UK on tighter enforcement of the oil price cap and shipping/insurance secondary sanctions. Reuters+1 Target the shadow fleet and traders blending or relabeling Russian products. (Insurance and port-state control are the leverage.) Le Monde.fr Use frozen Russian sovereign assets: expand the windfall-profits mechanism into outright collateralization for Ukrainian air defense, power grid repair, and ammo. (The legal path now exists in G7/EU practice.) Medium term (1–3 years) 4) Munition & propellant bottlenecks: fast-track explosives/propellant (TNT/RDX) plants and drone lines; long-term framework contracts, not one-off grants. 5) Energy resilience: lock in non-Russian LNG/offshore wind/nuclear extensions; diversify grids inter-EU so gas is a swing fuel, not a vulnerability. The U.S. supplied ~50% of EU LNG in 2024—use that bargaining power to secure multi-year volumes while accelerating demand reduction. Reuters 6) Security guarantees for Ukraine that bite: multi-year arms funding; integrated air defense; real-time ISR access; and a clearly signposted path to NATO once basic deterrence is in place—so any ceasefire isn’t just an operational pause for Russia. Diplomatic lane (in parallel) 7) Test Moscow with a ceasefire-for-verification offer: front-line freeze + intrusive monitoring + phased sanctions relief tied to compliance (no missile/drone attacks, POW exchanges, protected corridors for grain/power repair). Publicly table terms that are enforceable; if the Kremlin balks, Europe wins the narrative without conceding ground. GPT's Closing Bottom line Europe hasn’t “kept Russia whole.” Oil revenues from Europe collapsed; gas dependence is way down; the remaining holes (LNG, shadow fleet) can be closed with targeted measures. ReutersBruegelEuropean Commission Russia can grind forward, but at mounting fiscal and demographic cost—hardly a free ride. SIPRICSIS Ukrainians want the war to end, but not on terms that invite the next one. Any “architecture” worth the name must reflect that, or it’s just a prelude to Round Two.

I understand this is a sensitive topic and you've been through a lot. That's why I was making the post, to help, which failed. Until you made the subsequent post it sounded like you were still stuck here.

16/08/2025 I am having some hours off. Zoning out. I've been on forty-hour weeks, with the rest of the time on the business. My apartment is a cluttered mess and I've not been eating or exercising well, all i've done is work with a few hours off here and there to take my mind off it. That about sums it up. Though I did get a run yesterday, and I have been trying to do maintenance cleaning here. I think 70 hours working is where I top out tbh, though I find sometimes now I only want to work, rather than anything else. I've finally convinced my business partner to go niche on sites. As trying to do broad websites is simply impossible in the time we have available, if I consider the full picture of all it takes to maintain a catalogue/advertising/business admin/support etc, even a niche site or two can eat your time to flesh out. I've considered starting my own (second) company up to put extra time into, but at the end of the day we are stronger together. Early tomorrow we are going to try and sell off a lot of the stock we have held in person. While next week we put some more time into a relaunch of the main dropshipping site we have going on (its a hybrid currently if you are wondering) We've learned a lot but its not been a financial success yet, and so I have my misgivings about continuing. I've sunk a lot of money into this project again. Its a test of myself to keep focused and committed over the next months till we build back up. But its a leap of faith in myself and him to continue. People tell me to get a girl, and its not like I haven't had opportunities now. But I consistently reply I don't have the money or the time currently. Coach’s Note (16/08/2025) You’re right at the edge of a threshold—the kind of moment where exhaustion, uncertainty, and grit all intersect. That’s not a failure of your system; it’s a reflection of how deeply you’ve committed. But commitment without replenishment becomes erosion, not endurance. The recognition that 70 hours is your upper limit is not a weakness—it’s data. It’s wisdom earned through experience. And your insight about the shift from “wanting to work” to “only wanting to work” is a quiet alarm worth listening to. When work becomes both the ladder and the escape, balance quietly exits the room. Yet even now, you’re recalibrating. You’re cleaning in spurts. You’re still running. You’re negotiating your business structure and refining niche focus. These are signs of life beneath the fatigue. Don’t overlook that. Here’s a small reflection prompt to anchor this transition: “What part of me needs to be heard, not managed?” That part might be tired, unsure, or even quietly grieving the space you’ve given up for this push. Listening to it isn’t indulgence—it’s leadership. You’ve built systems, companies, and frameworks. Now build space for the part of you that doesn’t thrive on performance alone. Your leap of faith is real. Just make sure you're landing on ground that supports you, not just your output.

1, Goals Stabilizing an Income Stream so I can concentrate time on other areas of my life. 2, Expanding Areas of my life that need work. 3, Taking accountability and removing any remaining victim patterns or behaviors I have. 4, Creating the reality that I want, through focus, emotional state regulation and any remaining integration necessary.

Doesn't that also help you make distinctions? I find cutting myself off from anything a waste, it's there for a reason, when i can evaluate what it is I am assigning to something. Unless a reason is I can learn that cutting off itself is useful. Which has happened time to time. For example I won't waste time with someone who is wasting my time or energy, or a drain, but I will listen to someone I consider *insert your negative word here*. Because I want to understand where that comes from/ Not only because I grow most when I reflect from someone who is not parroting my existing frame of reference, but also it's humbling and corrective to the ego to have these intelligent and often well-thought-out and considered perspectives voiced. People pour energy into their opinions and experiences to voice them, and that is precious. - But even when they are emotional not intellectual, I learn my'self', and the world around me. It's why I often say a dog or your pet can teach you if you are open and accepting to that part of yourself. I like this forum because it challenges me, it helps me grow, it helps me reflect on perspectives I never get to see and voice things I never get to voice. It place to understand experiences I hold deep thanks and gratitude for in my heart.

You give yourself advice. This is you, in your own head, giving these words meaning, referencing them, Taking, learning, adapting, connecting, referencing etc. All words are. Every speaker is.

Its a process. You don't fully appreciate, understand or give credit for how interwined these economies were before the war. However you are speaking propaganda to me in your conclusion. 🔹 Russian Gas Imports In 2021, Russia supplied ~45% of EU gas. By 2024, this dropped to ~19%. Source: 🔗 https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-energy-export-disruptions-since-start-ukraine-war-2025-08-15/ Another source showing a drop from 40%+ to around 15% in early 2023: 🔗 https://www.reuters.com/world/three-years-into-war-us-and-europe-keep-billions-trade-with-russia-2025-08-05/ 🔹 Russian Oil Imports EU oil imports from Russia were ~28.7% in 2021. By early 2025, they had fallen to just ~2%. Source: 🔗 https://www.reuters.com/world/three-years-into-war-us-and-europe-keep-billions-trade-with-russia-2025-08-05/ 🔹 Overall Trade with Russia EU imports from Russia fell by 86% from early 2022 to early 2025. Source: 🔗 That's Chat GPT for speed. Let me give you an objective conclusion. Whatever Europe doesn't buy others do, but for less (However even china has run out of room or need to store excess oil). So the war has run on far longer than it ever would have in a uni polar world. On your sanctions point, given the population density, actual trade from the US to India is quite low, which is they've already gone ahead with sanctions. This isn't true of China, which why it isn't sanctioned. Also the EU - India and EU - China trade is actually very high. However the world is split, and sanctions are required. BRICS is trying to outcompete the West, thats their stated goal. Why on earth when we want to work with them? You seem to imply however, that sanctions wouldn't hurt them; in actuality it would hurt everybody. Two competing global power blocks is a recipe for competition, conflict and WW3. I think i've said this 5,000 times at this point. *Also you seem think people can just buy up energy indefinitely, to do what with exactly? The reason Europe and the US buy so much is because their countries are so energy hungry; not many other places are. Oh and the US has an oversized fuel-guzzling, globally polluting military.

@Emerald If it helps. Equal doesn't mean the same. You are equal to me. You can't lift what I lift, you can't face down a larger intruder running on testosterone despite being injured, or work 70 hours a week to impress most of your potential husbands with your results, discipline, and dedication to providing or securing the family. But you can have the emotional nuance to put together a deeply heartfelt introspective post tailored to the person you are speaking with, as a rule a woman can be deeply nurturing to their children, and soften harsh male perspectives into outcomes that don't result in force or violence. (Big argument to never get rid of the female vote btw) I've chosen very different areas there to hopefully reinforce that. You are completely right though, life is never fair :). All the best.

@zazen You should look at the granular details; it'll give you a more realistic portrayal of the war, not just dramatic headlines. Russia is slow and steady, Ukraine is stubborn to withdraw to inflict high casualties; this has been the pattern since day one, for the most part. Russia use human wave attacks and technicals (civilian vehicles) because of drones and the damage done to their armour, largely by drones now or previously in years gone by, overextending. Russia has achieved its goals. Which goals? - Goals (from all sides) change every month in war, to the practical reality of what's possible, for example initially it was to take (retake) Kiev, which failed early on, and Ukraine's was to kick Russia all the way out, which was never going to happen either. Russia is printing about 20% of its money every few months now (was 15%, now 19% if I recall). Its economy, which is almost completely switched to a wartime footing, is not sustainable, and when the war ends, then what? BRICS has propped it up really well. At the cost of Russian industry becoming Chinese. Part of this is explained below: You rightly note Russia’s large industrial base and drone production increasing into a wartime economy. But attritional warfare isn’t just about making more, it’s about preserving enough quality force to win politically. Drones don't really fill that role yet, they are more equivalent to missiles. Russia’s been burning up elite units for marginal gains, and the demographic clock is increasingly not on their side. It’s increasingly using aged conscripts, 50's era armor, and prison battalions, not signs of sustainable strength. - Yep, Europe is slow to mobilize industrially. But that’s not the same as being incapable. The EU is not a battlefield power; it’s a bureaucracy built to avoid war. Yet under sustained pressure, it can retool, especially if US support contracts (and the US military industries rush to fill the void opening overseas). That’s exactly what’s starting to happen now in France, Germany, and Poland. Have you seen how many companies returned their products to Russia, or Russia just mimicked their brands? They all just changed their name - that happens when the US officially pulls its support back from Europe, people move in to fill the void. Nothing changes when demand is there, only the cost. Yes the Europeans didn't retool that much, though 5% GDP is no joke over the EU's scale. Ukraine aside, they didn't spend any manpower or weaken their demographics, trade partners or really suffer much at all. Aside from energy prices, which they've gone elsewhere for. Russia has weakened itself to gain a fifth of what it had previously. I'll restate: Europe is a bureaucracy built to avoid war. - I hate people don't realise this. - When I now grudgingly call for the rearming of Europe i understand the historic implications of doing so, thousands of years of expansionist war Vassalisation You think the US being the military powerhouse, and Europe sitting back is vassalisation? It certainly costs them their voice with Russia, I'll give you that. Which was always amusing, as potential force should be considered alongside force by a wise mind. I don't need to see force to understand its possible or there. It's just Europe being geared toward a peaceful life, happy to sit back, live the high life and let someone else take care of security. But that's not accurate anymore, this war woke them up. America is clearly trying to pull its influence back, and these countries are spending 5% of their GPD on defense now, which will be used in some form. It won't sit there doing nothing. To conclude Russia spent a million casualties on retaking 20% of a country they've controlled 100% via proxy, with ruined settlements and barely any population living there. They've tanked their economy. They've gained stronger BRICS allies, some minerals, some important ports. They've lost much of their youth to death, disability or leaving the country to set up lives elsewhere. Their demographics are worse than ever, much of their economy is chinese and they are more a proxy of China due to reliance on Trade, Chinese investment in Russia and the sheer power of China relative to Russia when not balanced out by European influence or allies. I liked chat GPT's take here, I won't give you all the points but:

Here is the end of the Russian breakthrough and the encirclement of around 200 men, a political stunt that was answered as one; it's not how Russia usually fights, its usually much slower and steadier, but like the American jets flying over the Russian meeting, its just a political stunt by political 'strongmen' with large egos. This unit may break out; Russia often do of encirclements if the unit isn't just pure conscripts, traditionally at a somewhat heavy cost, sometimes they just surrender. @zazen I'll address the main post in a moment. *Looks like there have been some captured already as I watched more of it.

That's some impressive sourcing and i'll concede some of what you are saying to be true, but have you noted how far apart the dates you've given me are compared to the recent repeat use of the national guard? Its early to call this a pattern but if it bumps his polls, there is nothing stopping him from doing this repeatedly, whereas in eras gone by even his own party would have had something to say.

The difference is this is a heavily politicized repeated use of the National Guard and other federal institutions under the direct orders of the White House against the citizens of the country throughout major cities. Its taking rare incidents or overreaches of federal control and not only normalising them but doing so for political gain. That to me, has completely sealed the country as a police state.

@Hatfort , I agree with you in part. You're right to say that Russia has been responding to what it perceives as Western encroachment. But the idea that Russia is only reacting, rather than pursuing a coherent and aggressive grand strategy, misses the larger pattern. If we understand geopolitics, and history, we must take states at their word and at their actions. I do, I was stupid not to previously. Power Fills Vacuums Russia's pattern of behavior: Covert interference, overt military aggression, and systemic undermining of democratic institutions, is not new. It is a continuation of centuries of power projection toward Europe. The Tsars, Soviets, or Putin, the aim has remained generally constant: security through expansion, influence, and buffer zones. - I wish people could look at patterns inside Europe itself, after ww2 we just had a respite with America's military power which is now going away. Putin doesn’t hide his agenda. His speeches, policies, and military campaigns point toward a desire to reassert Russian dominance over what he calls the 'Russian world', which includes not just Ukraine, but the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and beyond. This is not just me speculating; it is strategic doctrine and state propaganda that I can cite and point to. Yes, NATO expanded. But it did so voluntarily by states fleeing Russia's sphere, not through forced military action. Russia sees democracy on its borders not as a threat from military movements, but because it undermines its autocratic narratives at home. ^Moreover this was Russia getting weaker, NATO getting stronger. What we see today is the opposite: America removing itself more from NATO, and Russia backed by China is able to push the opposite way, only more violently - Zero-sum, sphere of influence politics. Same - Same. Passive Idealism You said peace is found through disengagement? Show me where that has worked in history with an aggressive authoritarian power. Appeasement only buys time, often for the aggressor. Truth is it doesn't work for either side, sphere's extend till they are stopped. Europe's peace has not been guaranteed by pacifism but by a strong deterrent. That present-day deterrent is eroding away, previously, the great powers within Europe fought each other. Europe needs to rebuild strategic sovereignty, to give diplomacy real leverage. Soft power without hard power is simply wishful thinking. A European defense framework, autonomous, modern, nuclear-capable, and independent of the US's hand is long overdue. Not to use offensively. Power projects stability. Weakness invites meddling. Zero-Sum Spheres BRICS doesn’t represent a post-Western utopia; it is a coalition of transactional national interests with deeply authoritarian outlooks. China's 'peaceful rise' comes with intellectual property theft, debt diplomacy, and surveillance exports, not to mention cultural genocide. Russia backs far-right groups and individuals, fuels disinformation, and wages hot war. These aren’t 'win-win' partners, they're states playing a hard game and using an opportunity. You mention U.S. meddling, and yes, it exists. But don't confuse past hypocrisy with present passivity. If others are playing the game, Europe must too. That doesn’t mean neocolonialism, but it does mean actively defending its values, interests, and technological edge. Conclusion: Power with Purpose If Europe remains divided, dependent, and in deference, it will become a playground, not a player. We need a Europe that projects stability through strength, builds alliances through respect, not subordination, and protects its future through strategic autonomy. Not nostalgic imperialism. Not blind Americanism. But a real European renaissance, culturally confident, militarily credible, and economically resilient. We either stand up, or we get rolled over.

Change Candidate. In a difficult time. Charisma Looked professional and competent in a time when that mattered. Never appeared feminine or weak on the podium. America was less willing to embrace racism as a core tenet of their country. - Meaning being black mattered less than competence or charisma. Won the donors and the people.

Are you seriously telling me Leo you can't picture an overly dramatic economic headline, or class warfare? Anything can be manufactured; its a captive audience drinking anything down they are told that triggers an emotion inside of them.

25+ Years of Fascist influence and eastern alignment not enough to show the pattern in Western countries? Actual democrats on here talking about pro white, pro-Christian politics. I mean, what else do you need to see the conversion? Troops in American streets? Oh wait that's there. Appeasement to Fascist dictators, nope that's there too. Hmm. Mass deportations of black and brown people, women not able to vote, we'll we've got one of those, the other being talked about. Perpetual war. Heroic Masculinity. Faith led government. Its us going back several hundred years. How can you not see what direction the world is heading? What's unclear? Patriarchal, Fascist, Authoritarian, and a Chinese Uni Polar World. This multipolar argument is simply not true in practice by how much the eastern cultural values are overriding western ones. The Democrats have no spine in America, I see the men in politics and think: Could you be any more feminine? Europe is better positioned but still too fractured and too willing to just accept the cultural and societal changes being pushed on them. Until some kind of man on the left can hold liberal values and not act like a woman, or simply just become another authoritarian to continue the swing this doesn't stop. And I do highlight a certain amount of blame to the spiritual teachers who helped this snowball gain momentum decades ago. I'm out for two or three lifetimes after this, i'll wake back up when its swinging the opposite way, or people can hold to their values despite them being unpopular.

This raises the likelihood of foreign interference and leverage, or her just making the threats to release information. This does Trump no good unless it's to avoid details being released; if it were just her threatening to release details, they'd probably just take her out. But an outside power explains a lot and many questions i've always had about certain decisions and relationships. Though, to be fair MAGA doesn't care about these kids. The core, I mean. Not enough to ditch their support, independents are still too pragmatic for it to be the deciding factor. Trump's losing the election because of the economy, which is why he wants to fix/fake numbers, but it won't help him because people's lived experience is measurably worse.

Build a strong military, engage Russia directly, and go on the offensive with a cultural and economic push. China by its proxy Russia, is trying to interfere in European affairs and the European continent. This needs to be cut off with a show of force. Instead of me constantly reading about Chinese spies stealing tech, or Russian agents meddling in elections, BRICS buying up X or Y country, its about time I saw news stories of us doing exactly the same. Peace isn't found by cowering away from a threat. This is a time for a strong but balanced masculine response to aggressive neighbors. We are still too feminine in how we deal with threats.

Police state. Functionally, this is normalising the use of the military against its own civilians, which is a core requirement of a fascist state. - That is the biggest long-term issue this has caused for Americans. Demonizing: Transgender Immigrants Homelessness Then you've got Poor Gay Women Black and Brown skinned people, etc to come, for whom the social and cultural groundwork is being laid by: Speaking on no female voting, reversal of gay marriage, strong Christian-led nationalist institutions being funded, stoking racial tensions by the use of white nationalist thugs in uniform (ICE) storming into schools and holding families up at gunpoint. The ever stigma against being poor, where the American god is the dollar, which can always be leveraged (and is in the tariff war, where the poor are the ones who suffer). He's already started on his political opponents, arresting them where possible, and thugs that support him are threatening them or killing them. America is a dangerous place, not somewhere I want as an ally or influence anymore. The less Europe is entangled with America or BRICS, the better. The fact this is normalised by some of the replies here shows me what to expect from America in the coming decade.