BlueOak

True. Both videos shot on the correct days. Near Leeds York is even nicer to visit so I am told, never got out that way. I think people have forgotten the east of England exists some days, Hull was named as the worst place to live not long ago. Stick to the south, north, and maybe west if you are ever here, that's where the investment and money go.

Maybe this will show my point better: Grimsby Leeds Can you see which one has a happier energy, less crime, less danger, and less poverty? Talking about areas as well, not so much that you can't find rough areas in Leeds because you can, when you know the city.

Generally, because a busy public place with many eyes on you, not to mention cameras, and a police officer or private security patrolling every few minutes, is one of safest places to be. This could be down to location or cultural differences, the city centers I frequented feel like this, and the UK is notorious for its many CCTV cameras. I do avoid the places that don't feel safe, I'll try getting into personal experience more. I noticed Leeds was exceptionally safe, the shops hired private security patrols to complement the police when I lived there. There was crime, a gang raided our apartment block car park, a professional job sealing the entrances off to steal the cars, but it wasn't in the center or in a park. Also, the police station wasn't far away, they walked over to talk to us and already knew the gang. It's the quieter parts away from the city center, maybe out of shots of the cameras where you can get people looking for easy marks, or cheap apartments like I am used to living in. Parks at night too. I've been to a few towns and cities, where they just say to avoid the parks or the routes through them, but again these kinds of things you learn, you are not instinctively born with the knowledge of where to not go, when to not go there, For example in Leeds when I was younger, I used to avoid the nights when Leeds football team lost. It was just a bad vibe to the place, and if we were going out, I'd definitely avoid sports bars and probably stick to my local-friendly pub. Conversely, if the Leeds football team won, the nights would be amazing. In Nottingham, there was hardly the same reaction to a sports event but there were certainly bad spots to avoid. There is one area of Nottingham we called gangland UK for how many shootings there used to be, that's not a place you visit casually or pass through, somewhere between the meadows and st anns. If I wasn't from the area chances are I might not know about it. I'll give you another town I used to unfortunately know, Grantham, I would advise everyone to never go to Grantham, it has a bigger drug problem than a city has and exports it all to the surrounding areas, as well as some of the violence. They used to have a well-known drug dealer working out of a highstreet apartment for about 10 years and everyone knew it. It doesn't get much better as you go immediately east into Lincolnshire, sorry if you are from that area. Boston had the biggest Brexit vote there was, even the locals on camera will tell you the place is not doing well. Grimbsy to the northeast is doing even worse in terms of poverty, I can rip on Grimsby as I've a connection to that area I'd rather forget. The point of me talking about these eastern UK areas that are not doing well is, If I were there right now i'd probably agree with you. The area matters a lot, in other cities or towns, knowing the city keeps you safer. In Leeds and Nottingham this example you've given makes no sense at all from my experience.

They care about their wallets and what makes them feel good/bad to hear or their values and belief systems and thus their identity. Generally, they like short-term answers, which makes long-term complex problems generally unsolvable or only addressed by chance. It is a failing of education that people teach subjects not systems.

@Reciprocality 1) You are inventing meanings for civility it doesn't have. Carefree implies a level of the opposite of civility. To be civil you have to have a certain restraint in how you interact. Absentminded in no way implies civility. Again civility implies a certain awareness of your actions, in an attempt to be civil. They do not correlate. Carefree is enough. I think the reason it bothers me enough to talk on it, is the constant barrage of pressure against good manners, against 'the nice guy', against being civil with people. People make their living off of saying its a bad thing, and have done for years, so I don't think respectful behavior needs any more unrelated things attached to it. 2) Here is the quote: Then: You just told me all things being equal the danger is LESS in that first quote. I am replying to that statement. Your point you keep saying is a carefree attitude leads to being robbed or assaulted, and that people coming to the city haven't got comfortable enough to exhibit it. Which is true for some. There are plenty of people in either scenario who are going to walk into situations with blinders on. No. Being streetwise does not mean you are at a higher risk in your environment, it means the opposite. It means you are aware of the dangers of where you live and not easily surprised by them. The more I live in an area the more I am aware of how it operates, such as the dangers and how to avoid them, not the other way around. *Though agreed not everyone is streetwise, far from it, there are a lot of very unconscious people in the world, so perhaps my bias is showing too much here to be a good reflection of the middle ground.

@Reciprocality Disagree entirely with the idea that people visiting cities are in less danger than the people living there. I think growing up in a city can make you a lot more streetwise. I only lived in a city for a few years, already I was learning where not to go, how to treat the locals or act etc, I think if I had been there all my life i'd be a lot more suited to city life. Maybe it might seem that way, because someone is more at ease in the surroundings, and of course, not everyone is an attentive person regardless of environment. In this medium, I can only work with the words you give me. Our accepted definitions for them come from the dictionary, and although they can be debated, I'll usually just pull up the dictionary to show someone if they do. Then usually it's cut or dry if I am using the word correctly or not, (i've been wrong my share of times ) If being carefree, and civil is not the thrust of what you are saying. Instead that daydreaming on a park bench in a city center is inherently dangerous? I'll agree daydreaming anywhere carries some risk, it depends where though. In the center of a busy park, probably not, that would have a hundred eyes on it. At night in the same park, maybe yes. Years ago two guys almost robbed me in an area just outside the city center, in a relatively quiet area, that's more likely. I managed to get into a nearby shop in time. - The trigger for that was my sharp suit and briefcase as it was an important appointment. As for civility being the cause if you want to debate it we can, its not at all related in my eyes. You'll need to link up for me why manners, discipline, politeness, respect, and consideration cause people to daydream. *This could also be a cultural thing, if you are living in a particularly rough or high crime area, it might be different, but the person doing so would likely take that into account.

Then civility has nothing to do with it. You can have manners and awareness at the same time. Civility, respect, manners, discipline etc are not detachment, they are a way of considering others in your actions. Also being happy and enjoying yourself doesn't mean you lack awareness. Nor should you live your life according to a few bad experiences. As for happening to them, if someone is going to rob or attack you, how civil you are is likely not going to make a difference one way or the other. I suppose being nicer or more pleasant might make someone think twice about doing so, or put you in a better social circle, but to a stranger that's a long shot that it'd make any difference at all. Happy and carefree, I don't think a robber is going to say hmm that person is more happy, so i'll take them rather than the one with the expensive handbag and phone. The only thing I've found that makes a difference is wearing expensive items can attract attention. That happened once. Also looking like a tourist while abroad is a good way to get ripped off by some opportunistic locals. Also I've noticed my confidence goes up when I am weightlifting, people tend to look at you differently when you are twice the bulk, but I was the same doing martial arts even if it didn't show as much. Finally, you did say it repulsed you, which is why I mentioned you.

The degradation of civility and manners in the general population is responsible for an unnecessary amount of personal conflicts, wasted time, and general malcontent in day-to-day life. People vilify it so they take the opposite position, which represents and partly contributes to social breakdown. As among the traits opposite to this are: Disrespect, inconsideration and generally being crude out of context. At the extreme it's like anything when people vilify any common social variable (interaction/trend/discourse), they often take an unnecessary opposite position to it, which means they form opposition and resistance to it. This doesn't allow for a natural flow of anything, it's like a stone in the stream to them that is constantly going to irritate them irrationally. Which incidentally is what people spend much of their time talking about, worrying about or focusing on, something that has no material consequence or value whatsoever to them personally, only their deep-seated need to be in opposition to it, to make their ego feel 'the right way'. There are of course things that affect their lives greatly, but how someone sits on a park bench certainly isn't one of them.

You'd have to live in a small town to understand some of this. Everyone knows each other's business, and plenty of rumors get started over small things, because nobody has anything better to talk about. Like it or not you will get an identity in the place, with people responding to it. Even if you're a loner like me, which i'm sure i've got a rep for after 20 years here. So I get it. If you get a rep as a creep from some gossip it's going to stick, probably well past the point of whatever happened to cause it. My bias is to say who the hell cares, but that's me. I actively like speaking to loners and who people call weirdos, as they are more interesting than someone reciting what the news told them to say, or worse the latest whatever TV garbage is playing this week, or the 15th formulaic movie franchise. If I were more social here, i'd probably feel it more. There is a neighbor across the way that's a dismissive jerk, and most days I completely blank him now like he's not there. It bothered me at one time and i'd make an effort, but life's too short for other people's constant negative responses to you to matter, cut them out of your life before you waste the energy. Take the shot anyway if the girl is worth it. If she isn't why are you bothering anyway? All this pretending to be someone you are not advice that has infested something simple, is going to get you into a fake relationship with false expectations, so its probably not worth the time in the first place. Be honest and straightforward, and you'll usually come across as honest and straightforward. Don't overstay your welcome, keep it casual, if it works well, if it doesn't I don't think you'll be called creepy. You might get some embarrassment walking down the small town street, but that's life too.

Well, I've made a good start, I'm at 21,000 words for my novel in a week. I've never been beyond a few hundred words, as I've always been missing the feedback to bounce off, and the creative unpredictability of a writing partner. I've realized dice and a table of results can offer some of this. It takes some improvisation skills to make it work and design a decent dice system to support rather than hinder the flow, depending on your genre and style. I am however not able to afford an editor, so I will be doing that myself. I'll be using whatever editing tools are available online to help. At this rate I could have a book out every month or so.

I'd be looking why you think life sucks, why you feel powerless to change it, and ways to address that, the addiction seems a behavioral consequence of it and used for escapism. If you tackle your weed addiction, then what? You could still be in that loop and just replace it. However tackling the addiction might get you to better see you have more control of your life after all, which could be your first step. I am an expert on feeling powerless, its one of the more difficult states to be in, that and shame. So if you want to talk, message me, or reply here. There are better people to motivate you and help you build your life, but there aren't many who can relate as well to feelings of hopelessness or powerlessness. So reply with anything you like, even anger toward this, it's all good (anger is a step above powerlessness so don't fear it). A long time ago now, my brother and I were pretty much destroyed as kids by our parents in many ways, my brother chose drugs and I chose other forms of escapism. Part of the mental conditioning was, all life sucks, and whatever I do fails. The world is against me and I can't be happy etc. That and plenty of anger, (fear of anger), aggression, and frustration at the world, other people, or life. Blame, victim complex, LOADS OF COPING mechanisms, narcissism the whole package. So as well as anxiety (trapped emotion) I developed a lot of behaviors or patterns associated with being overwhelmed, fight, and flight. Freeze responses also were quite common, where i'd get stuck in an emotional freeze attempting something, I still to this day encounter those from time to time if I don't pay attention. I relay this to you, so you start to think where these thoughts and behaviors come from. What drives you into these feelings of hopelessness or powerlessness, and to start looking for ways if you wish to not only integrate the parts of you that are hurting, but eventually bring yourself into different states with time and healing. For example: Most of the time, you can't know something is going to be great or a disaster, people don't get that level of certainty in everyday life, and if you stick with something usually it's in the middle somewhere, despite all the problems or our best efforts because people and the problems adapt along the way. Disasters are infrequent just like great success, and focusing on disasters can tend to point you at them so you hit them rather than a solution. *Focusing on Disasters can bring certainty in an uncertain world. Another example: 'I don't know where to escape?" Can you see your words are in a state of flight? Why is so much of your identity focused on escaping? Fight/Flight, what is at the core of that behavior, what caused it, and what part of you is feeling that way? All that energy and thought put into running from the problem. The problems will follow you, they'll stick with you like glue, even if you move houses you'll still have your problems showing up as soon as the shine wears off the newness of it all. Treat yourself well, especially when you are in a state like you feel right now, that's a start. Don't be harsh on your wounds or yourself, be your own friend first and foremost, especially when nobody is in the room. Here's another teacher to get you started below. Follow her videos on the internal world they will heal you, the external world meh, but nobody is perfect. All the best. Six human needs reading by two different authors: For Uncertainty, Certainty, Connection/Love, Growth, Contribution and Significance https://tealswan.com/resources/articles/relationships-and-the-six-human-needs https://www.tonyrobbins.com/mind-meaning/do-you-need-to-feel-significant/

@Karmadhi Russia has fought over 30 conflicts with Poland or the related Polish territories. Do you see what I am saying, and why if you were in that nation you'd understandably be looking to increase your protection, keeping Russia's new territorial ambitions as far from your borders as possible? You have to put yourself in that mindset to even understand this. Source for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_Poland_against_Russia The USSR did contain Poland at one time, that's the argument they made, but any excuse will do, its territory and population Putin wants. They even harp on about Alaska mocking the Americans. Them putting in pro Russian governments to other countries is no better than everyone complaining when America did or does it, I objected then and I object now. Put aside your personal bias as best you are able and answer this one question, because its a big one. Assuming NATO stays together, and America, and other major world powers continue to back it over the next decades. Do you think NATO would launch nuclear weapons and end the planet if the baltics or half of poland was occupied or under attack? I don't. I think it'd be a conventional battle and the Baltics would be in real danger, because of how they can be cut off, as would Polish territory. That's why everyone wants to keep the war far from their borders, and all this effort has been put in to stop it. Also why Germany for example needs to get its act together and get serious about its military, the projection of conventional power will mean nukes never get close to being used.

1) The classification of centuries of history as merely fearmongering is why we are in this scenario. A complete lack of understanding of the region. I don't blame you I was the same before all of this, I didn't listen to eastern Europe and I didn't appreciate their point of view. 2) Why can they not attempt to take NATO on head on? NATO was fracturing and you've still got blind fools like Musk saying we don't need it anymore. Putin has unified it somewhat by his threats and aggression, but some of that is lip service. Until the central and western powers get serious about their militaries or America's isolationist trend stops. Russia's expansion into former USSR territories or extending their control over them has been over decades. Decades from now NATO could be a memory if some powerful people have their way, or at least America's involvement in it is vastly reduced if they carry on their current trajectory, meanwhile, BRICS is pushing its influence and hard power outward in terms of its military bases or naval ports. For Putin to take the Baltics he has to do one good tank push to Kaliningrad, he cuts them off, and that's it its a siege. This was a very real possibility and still is a possibility. Less so now as Sweden and Finland have aligned with NATO as they better control the baltic sea, which brings a lot more stability to that region. Russia considers half of Poland's territory 'gifted' to it, that's why they keep saying that and that's why Poland is now taking this threat the most seriously. Many times during this war they have threatened poland, and the UK for that matter. We get threatened to be nuked every other month, and I get people telling me that isn't happening, it's frustrating to be told what i've just listened to didn't happen. Putin wants to rebuild the USSR. You can call that fearmongering if you like, but if a larger country than you nearby even had a 10% chance invading your country over the coming decades, and there is a long history of hostilities, as well as interference in elections, it's wise to take that threat seriously. Moldova is very likely. Any territory they can take is likely, the goal is to make it very difficult and not worth what they'd lose to do so.

When your life gets in the way of the grifting and the narrative.

You've made two unfalsifiable points One here: Ukraine joining NATO makes it less safe. That is your unfalsifiable opinion. I have the complete opposite opinion for the many reasons I've listed over and over again. The other one you often give is: That we would have been better off not defending Ukraine or giving them ammunition and supplies, is also an unfalsifiable opinion. What I can't get you to see or look at is, that people make decisions, including you surmising the available data before it has happened. This is common in life, people have to pick the scenario they think will work out for the best. In the case of this war, world leaders have decided that they can control Russian aggression if they hold the war in Ukraine in a frozen state. They can take an uncertain threat and make a certain outcome. They have decided this because they feel threatened for the many reasons I've listed here and during our posts together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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