BlueOak

Since this started. I've watched Russian human wave attacks maybe a thousand times by this point. Not an exaggeration. They can't commit what tanks they have left because 1, their stockpiles are gone, and 2, Ukrainian air defense is so strong, they can't get air cover for what they have left, but worse than all of that 3, Drones > Tanks now. Drone operators behind the lines trying to stop infantry pushes or hit trenches is much of how the war is being fought, backed up by artillery and armor. So men are making the advances, not armor. Its not propaganda it's what's going on. It's better a man gets taken out by a drone than armor and a crew. You are completely right about the meeting, however, but wrong their strategy cannot succeed. It is succeeding. Russia is being bled dry of men, and their economy slowly falling off the cliff. That's the strategy in a nutshell. Land for lives. I know you don't think this is happening, so you can't understand the strategy, but it is, so that's the strategy. Sadly you are also blind to European's own concerns and as to why they are paying the bill, so it stays ------> way over there and their countries are not the new frontline. India is already there. They aligned with China and Russia they just wanted it to appear outwardly they were neutral, one of the biggest economies in BRICS. Their components are showing up in Russian arms, and they are helping keep their economy going, the second biggest purchaser of Russian oil by a big margin, alongside China. The outcome is just showing us the split world, its not really a pattern, just the split itself presenting itself as we focus on it.

You care too much what others think. Look inward yes, don't seek validation from strangers. Or try to relcaim it from women, the left, the government or anyone else, its a waste of time. You also like to label things to dismiss them and get annoyed when people do it to you. Example: Trump derangement syndrome to dismiss people who hate Trump by belittling their preferences, calling them deranged or ill, so you get that done back to you because you engage with that type of person and attract them. Here i'll do it back to you - You have a mental illness for being right wing. What kind of engagement am I going to get back from that? What part of your personality or person am I going to attract or interact with? I.... I...I... Defend the I. Defend the ego! Consume all your energy and time so that everyone loves you. I've a friend like this, only its about women. He gets into it with these girls and spends days of his life moaning and complaining about how they either try to control everything he does or freak out every five seconds or turn psycho. Life and I have finally talked him around. It took a couple of years. Now he's picking stable women to interact with and having mature relationships, with actual benefits and problems to talk about - not a soap opera every day. I'm probably the most leftwing person on this forum, with maybe one exception, and i've no interest in almost anything you are talking about (in the bulk of the text, the initial cited topics could have been interesting). I wanted to tune out of the rant after about 2 sentences as irrelevant noise, from those you hate and yourself. But America is also a fascist country now, with a dangerous leadership, so *shrug* don't hate the mirror, seek one you do want to see, or stop caring about it so much.

Russia will always exist, despite what their dramatic state TV would tell you. How much it'll be an east Asian Russia or a European Russia is a different point with how much they are selling out their nations future, or in less dramatic terms, changing their demographics and the ownership of their industries and alliances. How do you measure success? Even in the most extreme case possible. Let's say they put Ukraine under their proxy for a few years till the next coup? I mean its dumb on its face. Its spending 1 million lives to retain what they had some years ago, over a population that now hate them, bordering countries hostile to them. Viewed through a strategic lens, there is no win for Russian in this, nobody talks about that aspect of this conflict. They are not even close to where they were a few years ago in terms of influence over Ukrainian territories, and they've spent a generation on a war over land they already controlled (twice). This is going to be no peace in the region that is under occupation, because too many people and countries are hostile to Russia for it to ever have a lasting peace. They are effectively putting Chinese influence directly in Europe at this point, by how much their country is now under Chinese soft and increasingly hard influence, and that won't ever last long-term either. They may still launch the European assault; they need to shrink their borders enough to make them manageable, with an increasingly depleted demographic, we'll see I guess. The wargames coming up are the biggest yet in that area, and now nukes are on the border.

@zazen Pure propaganda at this point. Catastrophe - Like the 500 other times? Same slow grind that's been going on for years. High cost Russian pushes, slow destruction of their economy and demographics for a little land, trading lives for KM's. BRICS try to prop it up but its hollowing itself out as a nation. Abandon your positions while at the same time don't abandon your positions - Guy can't even get the messaging right, or is dumb as a plank (he's not he's just repeating Kremlin lines). Ukraine hold defensible positions to bleed the enemy dry. Russia send human wave attacks, on motobikes these days, and get slaughtered on mass. Their armor backup is worn down to nothing. - Then Ukraine slowly retreat from them, that's always been the tactic since day one, bleed Russia dry of manpower, materials and slowly drive its economy into the ground. Yeah there was a breakthrough - by guys on bikes. Azov already cut a good chunk of it. I don't think he understands how military actions work. Just dump guys in trenches and somehow you've got a breakthrough. Logistics, Armor, artillery positions air cover.... Russia doesn't even fight battles in the way he's suggesting; it slowly creeps forward and relies on slow to move and position artillery, which it uses to both defend and cover its advances. - That's the attrition strategy he's trying to reference. The Ukranians are not disorganized; they are a decent military force, well trained and well armed, that's why they are able to fight a larger opponent in these wars of attrition. As far as a shift in NATO's position, I am hearing the exact opposite from European leaders. They are strongly backing Ukraine. As always. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-lammy-jd-vance-ukraine-zelensky-trump-russia-land-b2804969.html

Powerful Video on abuse in relationships by women toward their male partners. What the media used to laugh at and paint as normal is now realized by more mainstream individuals to be abusive.

@zazen I agree that collapsing every conflict into, all suffering is the same without looking at causes would miss what’s needed to resolve them individually. But we are already operating inside a single global system, just one that’s dysfunctional, fractured, and prone to violence. When I mention Gaza, Ukraine, Xinjiang, or Kashmir as connected, it’s not because they are identical in cause or context. It’s because the same system-level behaviours keep recurring. Security fears get weaponised, territorial control follows, and civilians suffer. Those behaviours reinforce each other across regions, what one power normalises, another adopts or justifies, and over time, it integrates changes into the global reality. That’s how the world evolves collectively. Distinctions matter for practical solutions, but if we only look at each case in isolation, we miss how they feed back into the same global system. You can’t stabilise or improve that system by pretending each conflict is unrelated to the others. Just as no single power can control the whole world, this is the natural evolution out of unipolar dominance that you speak of. Where a multipolar perspective can exist in people's mind. That’s why I keep returning to the: Step outside your own perspective point, not to dissolve all differences into a formless oneness, which would be an unhelpful daydream, but to get people thinking about the wider system we are all co-creating through our interactions. We are already part of it. The choice we face is whether to let it keep running on fear and reaction, or to start rewriting it consciously , and the first step is acknowledging that it exists. I understand and accept that past events have shaped the fears driving us today, but it doesn’t have to stay that way. That’s a choice every one of us makes every day. @Karmadhi I appreciate that you’re one of the few here who openly acknowledges the existence of a global reality. In a multipolar world, balance depends on a global outlook, not on treating each country in isolation as either sole antagonist or sole partner. Until that mindset becomes more widespread, BRICS will likely continue to appear, in practical terms (rightly or wrongly), as largely China-led, a new unipolar force in a different uniform. I may expand on that when I get to Zazen’s latest post in the other discussion. When I talk about these issues, I try to keep the paradox in mind. In a connected global reality, we have to hold an individual’s suffering, a nation’s fears, and the concerns of bordering territories in equal balance. If I see a discussion tilting too far toward only one of those perspectives, I often try to bring it back to consider all.

@Ajay0 I understand in the focus of this conversation that there are only two major wars we are focused on Ukraine Russia and Hamas Israel. But that’s only true if we ignore the wider picture: There are at least six major wars and around ten minor ones ongoing, many proxy conflicts and cold war–style standoffs. If we narrow the focus, the pattern remains, that states frame their actions as security, expand or occupy territory, and civilians pay the price. India Pakistan, ended quickly through diplomacy. It’s an indicator for what’s possible when we intervene early in the cycle. I’ve heard rumors of new skirmishes today, but even so, escalation was prevented. If we remember to resolve and not destroy. At a planetary perspective, these conflicts aren’t separate stories, they are different expressions of the same underlying human pattern. Or a system that still defaults to us vs. them when under threat. I’ve fallen into it myself here. Sometimes we call it security, others domination, but the result is the same. Fractured relationships in what could be a single, interconnected human whole. Diplomacy works when we see ourselves as part of a whole. Recognizing the suffering in Rafah, Mariupol, or any other place on earth is not just theirs to carry, it is ours. As some like Raze try to do here. I do respect how hard that poster tries. The question is whether we can evolve to the point where security is found in interdependence, not just in force. That’s the consistent starting point in answer to all of these replies, and to quote a phrase I like exactly: It means stepping outside our own internal narrative far enough to feel that, and then acting like we believe it. Feeling is the hard part in this age of cerebral internet access, where distance turns people into text, images, or avatars. It’s easy to make an enemy out of a moniker. But until we reconnect the human thread and pattern between all of us, the same fear-based pattern will keep playing out, in every region, under every flag, in every context. The outside world is the inside world, and that starts here, this is a microcosm of our world. I've tried to elevate my response here. I struggle with feeling in these days of internet life I really do. The images, and stories blur together and I think that drops me into lower states of consciousness far too easily.

@zazen @Karmadhi @PurpleTree @all (Sorry if I missed anyone) Ajay0 I'll reply to you in a sec. Tried something new I asked Chat GPT to rewrite my response into Green / Yellow / Turquoise thinking: Green: I understand the point some of you are making about “security logic” vs “domination logic,” and yes — the strategic contexts differ. Russia frames NATO as an existential superpower threat. China frames separatist movements like the Uyghurs as a vulnerability in a hostile region. Israel frames Gaza as a security concern but, in the far-right narrative, also treats Palestinian existence itself as an existential threat. Those distinctions are real. But here’s my point: if our moral outrage depends on whether we agree with the aggressor’s framing, we’re applying selective principles. Both “security logic” and “domination logic” have produced mass civilian suffering, starvation, forced displacement, and cultural erasure. And when we excuse one set of atrocities because we buy the “security” story, but reject another because we see it as “domination,” we’re not being morally consistent — we’re just picking a side. Recent examples make this clearer. Russia has forcibly deported thousands of Ukrainian children, bombed civilian infrastructure, and used occupation to change local identity. China has detained over a million Uyghurs, imposed mass sterilizations, and erased religious and cultural life. Israel’s war in Gaza has produced child death rates higher than Ukraine’s entire civilian toll since 2022. Different contexts, yes — but if proportional civilian harm is our red line, the outrage should be universal. I’m not saying Russia = China = Israel. I’m saying if we justify one under the banner of “security” while condemning another, we’ve already abandoned an even standard. The civilian in Mariupol, Kashgar, or Rafah doesn’t care what the state calls its logic — they care that they’re starving, displaced, or burying their children. That’s the only consistent place to start. Yellow: I hear the points about “security logic” vs “domination logic,” and those distinctions matter — they help explain why Russia, China, Israel, and the U.S. each act the way they do. From inside their own worldview, each sees their actions as necessary, even if from outside that frame it looks abusive or unjustified. But the danger is when we apply those distinctions selectively. If disproportionate civilian harm is unacceptable in one case, it’s unacceptable in all cases — whether it’s caused by an imperial ambition, a security fear, or a mix of both. The civilian in Mariupol, Kashgar, or Rafah doesn’t care what the official logic is. They care about surviving the day. What I’d like us to explore is: how do we integrate these perspectives in a way that breaks the cycle? How do we address real security concerns without creating humanitarian catastrophes that feed the very threats we’re trying to avoid? That’s the only consistent place to start, and it’s important to step out of our own perspective into theirs — not to justify, but to understand deeply enough to design something better. Turquoise: When I read these comparisons — Israel and Gaza, Russia and Ukraine, China and the Uyghurs — I see different branches of the same root. Each is a human system trying to preserve its identity and security in ways that harm other parts of the same living whole. We can argue endlessly about whose logic is security and whose is domination, and we’ll always find examples that justify our chosen side. But at a planetary level, the distinction collapses — because any group that acts from fear, without seeing itself as part of a shared human fabric, will eventually harm others in the name of survival. The real question is: how do we evolve to a place where security is achieved through deep interdependence, not force? Where protecting one’s people doesn’t require starving, assimilating, or erasing another? That’s not just policy — it’s a shift in consciousness, the same shift that would make all these conflicts obsolete. Until then, the suffering in Rafah, Mariupol, and Kashgar is not “theirs” to bear — it’s ours. Each is a reflection of the same unresolved human story. The only consistent starting point is to step out of our own narrative long enough to feel that, and then act as though we believe it. I have not edited these responses, so I am quoting it. It sums up my position well, depending on who I am replying to or what my mental state is on that day. I try to bring in that fear is the motivator, in all cases, and that we have to step out of our own perspective and into the people experiencing the suffering. The cause or framing isn't as important as the end result, it never is. I did see the pattern but I wasn't articulating sufficiently.

East Turkestan split in 1912 - What's your point? The USSR dissolved in 1991, China use maps from 1000's of years ago to justify their expansion, Russia from 100's and sometimes older. In their eyes older is better. These countries are big, they move slowly and time and history is important to them. Russia set up the conditions for the war it is now fighting. Even your own argument falls apart. But its wrong on its face, its desperately trying to justify suffering because of time or proximity, when the people affected are still experiencing exactly what you show in your pictures or worse. Would this be better if Israel had existed for a thousand years? Would your pictures be any less horrific Raze? Would the people suffering be somehow better off? - That's the green argument here's how we move to yellow: Acknowledge a global reality where humans the world over find any justification for their own greed and/or fears to be exercised, or don't and we'll go around in circles till people can do. If and when people do, we'll find a better way, at the moment, this isn't it. *The Chinese aren’t genociding the Uyghurs as far as we know, a cultural genocide isn’t the same as an actual genocide. You can argue semantics I don't care. If I am locked in a cell, starving, being sterilized, or being killed, I don't much care what you call it, where you are from, or how long you've been there. The only thing China does better is to cover its tracks and press, and not act like lunatic religious zealots. Not that it means anything to the people being tortured, not that any of what anyone says here does. China is better at inspiring fear, and its prey, the Uyghurs are more contained with little outside support. If Israel had captured gaza and was putting its people into camps and doing the same, don't try to tell me you'd be saying anything different. Its just the same justifications renamed, missing the point entirely and reinforcing the hypocrisy most people here display. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China It amounts to: It's not as bad because X. Suffering is suffering, period. I don't care whether its america rounding up people because they are brown to distract people from an economic reality, or China doing it because they have a need to absorb different cultures/religions/ethnicities (make the world like them), or Israel doing it because of their fear and faith. If we use our own standards to judge everyone equally. It makes what we say carry much more weight.

So your standards are time not proximity? Do you see how that isn't any better at all? All that exists is the suffering of the people in this moment. And its horrific and it needs to stop globally. All the justification in the world doesn't make any difference when someone is sitting there starving in a prison, in the street, or in front of a TV camera. The families of those people laying dead are not sitting there thinking, oh you know what, they've been here awhile, so it's not so bad. Nothing compares. No justification matters. - Bombs. Starvation. Permanent Imprisonment. Forced drafting into a bloody suicidal war. The extermination of people who have no say in any of this.

I have it was called the holodomor. Russia starved Eastern Ukraine, replaced eastern Ukraine with Russian colonists, they educated them as Russian with their language. Now they claim its Russian, and wage war over it, which would be sick - But its a lie of course, there are 50 other reasons they are fighting that war. Heck they recently disappeared many thousands of Ukranian children into Russia, and Putin was named a war criminal as a result. China genocided the Uyghur population of East Turkestan, they put them in camps to eradicate their culture and disappear those who don't agree. They are eradicating Tibetan culture. Russia have disappeared anyone who doesn't accept the Russian occupation of Ukraine. They've just been more efficent in their exterimination, they don't bother with starvation these days, they bomb them to nothing, occupy and then send them to front or remove them outright. - They also do this with their minority cultures, using them up as their fodder to take more of Eastern Europe and cultures more closely related to the Muscovites. You just cherry pick the information you like because it suits a narrative you have. Even if the above was NOT TRUE. This is a border war, its the same thing. Its horrific when done over a civilian population hostile to the invaders. Which is what happens when a country tries to impose its will over a country that doesn't consider itself part of it. - Re: The Uyghur, Taiwan, Ukraine etc. You and many people in this thread are hypocrites. I am sorry to be blunt, and check your ego, but it drives me nuts to read it over and over. *You are now going to reply this was in the past, not 5 years ago, and i'll reply China uses the past sometimes up to 1,000 years ago, to justify its foreign policy. Russia certainly does also.

The ones supporting Israels actions is America yes. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of most of this forum in being okay when Russia, China, and India supported by BRICS do this compared to Israel. They claim a neighbouring region on a map and invade it. Kashmir, Tibet, the South China sea (all related islands), Ukraine, Chechnya, Georgia (Abkhazia) East Turkestan etc etc. They say its okay because of its proximity, so its better than when America does it globally. Its like they have blinders on. They'll pull 50 justifications for the above and then ignore every justification Israel gives because it doesn't suit their narrative. So by that standard Israel doing this is perfectly fine. Occupying Gaza would be normal. (It's not; the whole thing is insane.)

By BRICS standards this is war is justified and fine. Israel is taking what they consider theirs and forming buffer zones around their state. That's what China and Russia do, supported by their BRICS allies. If this is the reality most of the world is calling for, then that's what we have to accept, while pointing out its insanity of course. *India is one step away from doing this to Pakistan also. Armenia - Azerbaijan. Turkey - Greece. Everyone - Syria. So its not like i'm cherry picking. This is the current global reality, which we either say spheres of influence don't work in the nuclear era and we need to progress as a globe to something better, like national sovereignty remaining within its own borders in a global league of nations, or accept this is what happens.

@zazen If multipolarity just means swapping the USA for Russia, China, or Iran, each invading, threatening, or suppressing whoever they want until someone stops them, then there’s no moral or strategic gain in your model. It’s just more powers doing the same destructive thing at once. That’s not stability it's permanent war with even less predictable outcomes. Your logic of “proximity = right to control” collapses the moment you apply it consistently. By that standard, Israel is justified in controlling Palestinians because they’re nearby, or Turkey can dictate Armenia’s alliances. You and I both know that’s absurd. It’s the same imperial mindset you claim to oppose, just wearing a different flag. Even in pure political terms, this thinking doesn’t work in the nuclear era. The old 'great powers need buffer states' model was built for a pre-ICBM world. Trying to enforce buffers through invasion or coercion increases existential risk, because the other side is armed and can retaliate instantly. That’s why NATO expansion accelerated, not because America forced it, but because Russia proved over and over that “buffer” means “we get to dominate you. They are still to this very day doing so in their peace terms. If multipolarity is to mean anything other than 'more predators on the map' it needs to be grounded in sovereign equality, not spheres-of-influence politics. Otherwise, you’re just asking the world to accept a larger number of Israels, each doing as they please until they’re checked, and that’s exactly the kind of instability you claim to want to avoid. What do you think is actually happening in Ukraine right now? It’s two spheres of influence colliding, exactly the model you’re defending. You’re watching your preferred system in action, and calling it wrong only because one of the spheres is the West. It would be no better for the world if Europe was armed to the teeth and doing it alone, it'd be two multipolar influences fighting it out just the same. Unless we are suggesting that these spheres are isolated and do not share resources, arms, intelligence, manpower like NATO and BRICS are doing? And how is that enforced? Again for transparency I am telling chat gpt (new 5 model is great), to critique me. Its telling me I am using too much moral outrage when speaking so I am toning it back.

Russia's economic situation continues to get worse. Russia's population demographics get worse. Their stockpiles are gone. It takes very little land, in Sumy it was just repelled almost to the border again. Their casualty rates now with so little armor left to use are ridiculously high vs Ukraine. They use human wave tactics, its why they've had to reach out to places like North Korea for manpower. Russia vs Ukraine yes, that will always be true. (Thank you for acknowledging it most people just gloss over it) But this is now BRICS vs NATO to a much larger extent than you are acknowledging. China and NATO are using this as a proxy also, and that's the only reason its continuing. As to why nobody would do as you suggest, i'll requote myself below as it covers most of it. But you can add to the fact that obviously, people are calculating and watching that this is going to hurt Russia (and BRICS) more than help it. You cite some land gains, i'll cite that its falling into being a satellite state of China. Its economy bought up, Kamaz just failed, I mean the country is buckling, and although the citizens might well just put up with it, it'll never project real power again. Whatever you think of the above statement, that's the calculus: keeping Russia from puppeting Ukraine is better than allowing it to, else this war would not be continuing. Russia has repeatedly stated it wants control over all of Ukraine, like it had previously, it wants to project its power into eastern Europe and its not strong enough to do so anymore. - This is why this situation exists. Not because I dislike X or you dislike Y - because the practical reality is Russia is overreaching.

Possible false flag attack exposed - as people keep telling me 'how could this start' - 'Russia would never do that' and I keep saying any one of a 1000 ways, the method is largely irrelevant as tensions are that high. Russia being backed by BRICS means it can do that, it'll get Belarus levelled and Russia heavily damaged, but Putin doesn't care as the people are that suppressed. Also ballistic missile sources for the last post. - With the interactive map on their site as always. I also agree that India and China need to be sanctioned heavily at this point, and their efforts to support this proxy war for them halted as much as possible.

@zazen You keep talking like Russia is just asking for space and being ignored. That’s not what’s happening. Russia’s entire approach is to project fear, and that doesn’t earn respect from stronger countries, it gets pushback. If you focused on the countries that joined, and why, you'd come to that conclusion. Chat GPT examples from the last decade: Feb 2022 – Putin warns of consequences “you have never experienced in your history” and puts nukes on alert. May 2022 – State TV says the UK and Ireland could be turned into a “radioactive wasteland.” Jan 2024 – Medvedev threatens nuclear strikes if Ukraine hits Russian launch sites. May 2024 – Medvedev talks “fully fledged nuclear war” if NATO keeps supplying Ukraine. July 2025 – Medvedev brings up the “Dead Hand” doomsday system at Trump. End Quote This is Russian foreign policy mask off. Then they've got hypersonic missiles in Belarus, ditching the INF moratorium, and rewriting nuclear doctrine so even conventional threats matter. Intimidation is baked into their security policy. You frame NATO expansion like it was some arrogant Western move. When Russia’s spent centuries threatening Eastern Europe. NATO was created to stop exactly that. Countries lined up to join because they remember Moscow’s behavior, not because America forced them. Regional powers don’t get to veto who their neighbours ally with, that’s not security its trying to control other countries. By your logic Turkey could tell Armenia who it can talk to, I highlight that with the Azerbaijan-Russia relations deteriorating to show you directly Russia's regional power slipping. On Multipolarity, sure great theory. Russia’s 'multipolarity' is just an authoritarian bloc with China, Iran, and others keeping each other’s wars or expansion going. Russia believes it allows them to act like they used to. BRICS support isn’t neutral, it’s keeping the Ukraine war alive. Real multipolarity means sovereign equality. Russia’s version is 'we get our sphere' and everyone else accepts it. That’s not balance its replacing one unipolar arrogance with another. - Cue you saying how bad the west is right? Then I just point you to the mirror they are. If Russia wants space, it needs to learn how to live in that space without trying to dominate everyone in it. Right now it’s doing the opposite, and that, (and their weakening geo-political position) are why the neighbors you think should be neutral are running straight to NATO or China for that matter. For transparency. I told chat GPT to critique my own position. It told me that because you use statecraft, and I use debate imagery, I needed to bring more real-world examples and argue more along those lines to provide solid examples.

Everyone was complicit in destroying the middle class because they believed that hard work was the metric everything should be judged by. They still do. It isn't BTW, its results.

Well Russia is one and they won't be much different to China, North Korea etc. They'll die in droves for the state, either from threatening them or propaganda. The poster said it'll be impossible to convince people. I'm saying they are already ready to do so. If they mean it'll be impossible to convince a democratic country to attack another, no, i've seen it happen before. But it won't even need that it'll just need to be framed as defense. For example, I've seen the almost entire electorate weaponised against immigration and now in the name of economic benefit, which is such a farcical position I wonder if I am living in an alternative universe.

Russia did. Also Russia didn't care and sent them anyway.

As always, on many things, human consciousness remains the same.

Patterns repeat and are updated. Rarely does anything come into my experience that isn't part of an easily identifiable repeating pattern, so when it does, it's huge news. At the moment, the pattern is - Cold War with military build-ups. Bad economic situation. Far-right individuals or parties run most of the military powers. Rising fascist and nationalist themes within the population, demonization of the 'other' throughout it. Changing global dynamics leading to unstable geopolitical situations. China and India are rising, Russia and America are falling, etc. New weapons of war (drones) are changing the balance of power and giving other states ideas, as well as a general lowering the casus belli or justification, for wars. The usual response is war for resources, distraction, land, and influence. This is the pattern that has been repeated for thousands of years. Its just dressed up differently. There are off-ramps but in our current scenario, it requires something like the global superpowers sitting down and telling the world how the new order of things will now be, and then enforcing it. Even if this is done at arms length. That is China reigning in Russia, America reigning in Israel (another reason that war exists), and both powers mapping out how things will now work globally. BRICS and NATO competing does not lead to this outcome; it leads to conflict and war. Essentially a peace could be negotiated now without a hot war.

If progressives really are such a small influence on everything, why does it matter what they say or do? Like it or not, the left is the left. Its multiple voices not one singular voice.

The world is already at war, its just a cold war with small border conflicts currently. Both sides are trying to convince everyone that they are right. Organising chaos in other places wherever they can strike. If anything, Europe is sitting back too much, but gradually waking up bit by bit. Large build ups in Europe, especially Poland, but also Russian build ups in Leningrad and kaliningrad. People always go on about the US trying to ignore Europe but at this point its little to do with the US. It suits their narratives more I guess, but lacks any practical understanding of what's actually happening between THESE SIDE BY SIDE STATES. Also China has stated they are preparing ot invade Taiwan now. This is all going to happen together: Iran attacks Israel and shipping. China attacks Taiwan and shipping. Russia attacks the Baltics and Finland. Because together they have a shot and nobody's throwing nukes over that strategy, it'll be a conventional war. The only uncertainties to me are what happens when Belarus gets nukes, and what happens if Russia decides to nuke Ukraine. Because Belarus is going to be airstriked out of existence, and Putin may get angry enough that he nukes Ukraine. Also where India will stand in it (I guess BRICS economic support against NATO), and if Iran get nukes that'll be very bad in the current climate. *There is still a chance to avoid this but its not likely now.

Given we are on the verge of a major world war, this was israel's most likely method of avoiding conflict on their own soil. I loathed the approach, but i've accepted it.