BlueOak

You will believe this even when you use up your last man, machine and oil barrel. With no ability to pay for anything, no military left, no food, and no way to fuel or move around your own lands. Russian propaganda is the best in the world, bar none.

Law is only upheld if backed by force. The UN has none. China polices its alliance; the US polices its alliance with a possible agreement between the two, and a lot of friction along the border states. That's the best we'll get, and less than that if America keeps isolating from NATO, or if BRICS doesn't turn into a full military alliance with a dominant presence. With say India rivaling China in military and economic strength.

Yes. Though in a two pole system, who decides which laws we are following?

One last go. This country isn't as bad as this country: Is not how countries make policy. They don't sit here and objectively work out who is morally superior or objectively more detrimental to the interests or sovereignty of someone else. They look at their own national interests. These interests don't come from a single source; they are extremely multifaceted. As for the China point - you literally posted that China hasn't invaded anyone, when right now they are invading someone. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20251012-china-philippines-trade-blame-over-boat-collision-in-disputed-sea I don't know why you'd both be confused that I raised the point and at the same time quote the point and answer it?

Both Ukraine and Russia will be very cold this winter. Kyiv lost its power. So now, as promised, Moscow has lost its power. Just for a few hours, but Belgorod wasn't so lucky again. Will the Russians learn to stop firing at power plants? Probably not.

"Russia has not borders but neither do other civilizations," Putins own words. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-endless-border-putin-rosenberg-bbc-threatening-comment-billboard-1861020 Russia wants whatever it can take. Right now that's not much. Its not a country its a collection of countries, and its been a lifelong ambition of Putin to restore what was lost when the USSR fell. He doesn't consider Ukraine a country, he doesn't consider the Ukranian leader a legimate leader. "The Soviet government created Soviet Ukraine. This is well known to everyone. Until then, there was never any Ukraine in the history of humanity," Putin said. https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-claims-map-proves-ukraine-not-real-despite-saying-ukraine-2023-5?op=1 Almost every war Russia has fought has been to topple old USSR countries, or retake old provinces.

China invaded Tibet and East Turkestan. They have also decided to claim everyone's territorial waters in the South China Sea. They repeatedly want to invade Taiwan. Just today they have been harassing filipino fishermen, in waters they have decided are theirs unilaterally. China has had more border disputes than anyone in my living memory. The point to carry forward however is to: Tell you this is a universal problem, and highlight the futility of the framing you are using. Picking two countries on the side you don't like and focusing on why they are not good compared to everyone else, or as bad as X. Individuals do this to make sure their own worldview is the right one in their mind. Why is one side worse than the other. <---- Countries don't make policy like this. A country is millions of people with a divergent set of interests, and when those interests are hindered by a country it is considered in a certain way, and policy made accordingly, when enough interests are threatened, its considered in a certain way; when they are aided, it's considered in a certain way.

There is economic pressure globally, as we are an interconnected system. Dismantling Russia is certainly costly in the short term, that's why nobody wanted to do it for years, but they've realised its the fastest way to stop them without direct military intervention or another 10 years of war. Whether that's Russia unable to fight, unable to support itself, breaking up into 12 nations, or entering negotiations with Ukraine. This guy has been reasonably consistent:

True. Then X number of years from now the world will be different, and the acting authority will be overthrown. Any power assuming the role of authority over other countries experiences this dynamic. So the question is does China walk into this role here? Does it press its authority and power outward to stabilize the situation, or does Saudi Arabia honor its military alliance with Pakistan, and then it's a larger regional conflict? The other possibility is the USA comes back to the airbase Trump wants so much in Afghanistan and uses it as an excuse, which I am sure will weigh into China's decision.

@zazen Thanks for adding some depth. With Pakistan sandwiched against two now hostile forces, I would guess it depends if China wants to intervene to stabilize it, they've given Pakistan a security guarantee, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are in a defensive alliance. Everyone is using this moment of high world tension to settle old grudges. Afghanistan has made a large, multiple incursion along the border now. Allegedly, all seven Pakistani border outposts, to be confirmed. Heavy fighting, as shown in a clip here: 17:07, 19:20, 21:20. 23:55 etc for the actual battles. *This is what happens when nuclear weapons are no longer an effective deterrent to war. I squarely blame Russia for overusing nuclear threats and diminishing the impact of them.

I repeatedly gave you answers. I'll say it again. You are speaking about European countries banning Russia from European events for all the Russian hostile actions against them, and then asking me why they haven't banned Israel and Azerbaijan. Neither of these countries is attacking Europe. I am fine with the UK favoring Israel in a cold, almost hot world war scenario. I am not fine with them facilitating genocidal responses or actions. So if you are able to prove that the UK is complicit in genocide, I will be standing right there with you. At the moment i've been shown diplomatic rhetoric and a spy plane over a warzone (which needs explanation). My position on Israel's actions has been posted multiple times. I'll say it again if required: Cartoony Level Villainy. An understandable military action against Russian and Iranian backed groups in a cold/hot war scenario, was carried out like a cartoon villain who is trying to do everything possible to appear as such. Now my turn to ask a question: Why haven't you included China in this list? For all the atrocities they've committed. Iran for all the weapons its supplied to kill Ukranian civilians? Turkey or Iran for their actions in Syria? America for its wars? A hundred dictatorships using violence to maintain control. Just curious why that bias on violence exists within you. It doesn't in me, but if we are banning countries that are fighting or using force, we'll be banning most of the world. India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Thailand, Cambodia, etc.

If Russia nose dives much further, you'll be pawning that ring in 10 years to buy bread. To answer your question I asked GPT for the 20 most violent civilisations, ranked. Top 20 Most Violent Civilizations in History. Mongol Empire (1206–1368) – Total warfare, city destruction, massacres (~40–60 million deaths) British Empire (1600–1945) – Colonial conquest, famines, global wars (~35–50 million) Nazi Germany / Third Reich (1933–1945) – Genocide, world war aggression (~30–45 million) Imperial Japan (1895–1945) – Atrocities in China & Pacific, genocide, experimentation (~20–30 million) Soviet Union (1917–1991) – Political purges, famines, gulags, expansionism (~20–30 million) Roman Empire (27 BCE–476 CE) – Constant wars, slavery, mass executions (~10–20 million) Qing Dynasty, China (1644–1912) – Rebellions (Taiping, Dungan), internal repression (~25–40 million) Spanish Empire (1492–1898) – Conquest of Americas, Inquisition, colonial wars (~20–25 million) Ottoman Empire (1299–1923) – Continuous warfare, genocide, suppression (~10–20 million) French Empire (1600–1962) – Napoleonic Wars, colonial atrocities (~10–15 million) Chinese Warring States / Pre-Qin Era (475–221 BCE) – Near-constant wars and annihilations (~10–20 million) Aztec Empire (1300–1521) – Ritual human sacrifice, conquest (~1–2 million, extremely high per capita) Assyrian Empire (900–612 BCE) – Terror campaigns, deportations, annihilation (~1–2 million) Khmer Empire (800–1431) – Slave labor, brutal expansion (hundreds of thousands) United States (1776–present) – Native genocide, civil wars, foreign interventions (~10–20 million total impact) Arab Caliphates (Umayyad, Abbasid) (632–1258) – Religious wars, rapid expansion (millions) Russian Empire (1547–1917) – Conquest of Siberia, Caucasus, Central Asia (millions) Maya Civilization (2000 BCE–1697 CE) – Inter-city warfare, ritual sacrifice (hundreds of thousands) Zulu Kingdom (1816–1897) – Mfecane wars depopulated regions (~1–2 million) Ancient Egypt (3100–30 BCE) – Forced labor, military expansion, suppression (hundreds of thousands) It also wanted to mention these: 21. Khmer Rouge (Cambodia, 1975–1979) – ~2 million killed (~25% of population) 22. Byzantine Empire – Centuries of warfare and brutal internal politics 23. Persian Empires (Achaemenid & Sassanid) – Massive conquests, enslavement 24. Vikings (8th–11th centuries) – Raiding, slavery, local devastation 25. Crusader States (1096–1291) – Religious wars, massacres, short duration

@zazen Interesting, could be genocidal, could be data on military targets. But needs answering. *You edited after I posted but this more or less remains the same answer. I may add more to it tomorrow.

Says who? The people doing it? Well yes, that's their propaganda. Unless you are again meaning the olympics, eurovision and swift, which i've explained above. Oh and the UK is not complicit in genocide; it's just unable to do anything about it. Its considerably less powerful than the US, and unable to project power or influence in a way that affects the region.

China has called for banning all rare metal exports to western countries. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/10/chinas-new-restrictions-rare-earth-exports-send-stark-warning-west There are plenty of stories and POV's on it if anyone needs more. This is why its always been incredibly stupid to give China as much leverage as it's received over our economies. I have said so for a very long time now. It's like we want to make life hard for ourselves, or rather, money is always more important than regulation far too often. Meanwhile, America has called for 100% tariffs on China, after they started all of this mess. In Russian the economy still keeps tanking, four day work weeks are being normalised. Transport connections are failing, people can't get gas, and truck lines are queuing up. A true remake of the USSR's fall. I saw a great statement. If a snail had started at the border of Russia when this war started, it'd be in Poland by now.

@Apparition of Jack This is a significantly more useful way to look at it, if a comparison has to be made. As it's set in a global context. Rather than a 'why is europe not liking Russia' context. Which is what the Eurovision, Olympics, etc are about. Both countries have been disastrous for world order and stability. As has been repeatedly pointed out, most people (and countries) in Europe, and much of asia would rather sit at home and not get involved if given the choice. China has put a lot of material and money into Russia, they recently signed another infrastructure agreement, which is in practicality one-way. China is buying up Russia bit by bit to keep it running and many asian countries are now being asked to settle labor there (as Russia is chewing through its own people). China is honestly benefiting the most out of this conflict, a bit like how Russia's oil or weapon exports benefit when the Middle East is ablaze, and that's why it's giving arms to Hamas. Peace doesn't benefit Russia at all there. China do supply Russia with munitions; some of this has been caught on camera but more directly in the munitions themselves when captured, such as weapon components. It is believed but not proven that these are moved through North Korea to Russia.

Its more than weekly their state threatens various countries in europe so I am surprised you've never heard of it. Perhaps because they threaten the UK on a regular basis? I see myself more as European than British. But in the UK we don't take well to threats. Maybe you missed the last several years of direct and indirect threats somehow? if so I suggest investigating a bit more. But are you seriously unaware of all the drones and Russian aircraft flying over airports and shutting them down? The direct military exercises Russia conducts to simulate the invasion of Europe? The nuclear threats and energy/food blackmail that have occurred for three years? The movement of Russian missiles to the Belarusian border, Belarus arming itself with nukes? The spy networks inside Europe uncovered? The assassinations? All the cyberattacks? All the swastikas they paint over Europe, the meddling in Polish, Romanian, and Moldovan elections, the Kaliningrad electronic attacks? Flooding migrants into Europe to destabalise it, so much so Poland shoot them on the border. On and On this list can go. This is why we live in two different worlds and you are surprised when what is to me the obvious happens. If we go to war with Russia, Russia has provoked the hell out of NATO. To the point, I think them cowardly for not responding to the constant provocation over their own skies. Did Russia really deserve this. YES. This is a fraction of what they deserve. A country that is under threat from Russia is not going to treat them normally. Eurovision. Swift Olympics inside Europe It seems to me you bury your head in the sand as to what Russia does. I'm not even speaking of the constant rhetoric out of their diplomats, or Putin's veiled threats, or anything inside Ukraine either which to me makes America look like pale by comparison. The day I saw a Russian tank on camera firing directly at old man walking down the road from about 50 feet away, that is a good picture of the Russian army. Their entire strategy has been one of terror. - People say to me oh that sounds Russophobic, and I feel utterly gaslit. They literally have fire missiles into civilian infastructure and apartments for the entire war and kill or imprison anyone who speaks out against it. They pardoned all their war criminals, giving them medals, Putin directly has said anything goes. - That is the difference with America, they arrest theirs. When they are telling me 5 years from now Russia wasn't that bad i'll be losing my mind.

Eurovision - i'm not surprised they keep threatening to kill all of Europe! They've committed acts of terror for years. Via migration, energy/food blackmail, drones/fighter jets, political threats, cyberattacks, meddling in elections, domestic destabalisation etc. SWIFT - Done for economic pressure to end the war. Olympics - This is in Europe! lol. Nobody is going to host a country invading and trying to destabilize the continent. Putin: "Russia knows no borders." Me: "Well its learning them now!"

Do you think it inaccurate to say Capitalism and socialism are on a scale then? We are very far into capitalism, I agree, but I've always framed reality to have these four poles. So I can call a policy either more or less socialist or more or less capitalist. I find it a helpful point of reference to how much I will be paying for something directly or through taxation for example.

Predictable childish behavioral patterns going unchecked until adulthood. This is mostly mocked and often legislated against now, culminating in arrests often, but still exists in many people, and in some cases is a large piece of a country's psyche.

It is a socialist policy, on one of the most critical policies there can be. Education, Healthcare and welfare are three of the pillars of any society. I know you hate the word, but it's just a word.

Death can be infinity. It can also be you pulled or coming back here for the next life. Depending on attachments.

@Karmadhi Held to a higher standard by who? That will answer your question. You'll get a million different bias's in this thread with their own standards. Russia is America is China is Europe Insert your bias here. I held and do hold them both to a similar standard if it matters. It's the only way to stay objective. Both were and are nations driven by militarism. Because they spend so much on their military, and so had or preceived advantage over other countries, they use their military. In your analysis. Your bias is to completely ignore the Cold War and Russia-funded, armed and trained governments the US hit in these wars you describe. The leftover empire, the new empire was attacking. You must see it as almost random or on a whim. When in reality its actually predictable. Just as it's predictable that BRICS is now doing the same. Because that's human nature. Insert the 100 reasons this time its different in someone's reply. Well, congrats, but its still a cycle that's happening and has happened for millennia. The answer is universal disarmament or a reduction in arms. Which is only going to be achieved by AI governance (advice). I have no faith at all humans will reach this point in the next several hundred years, but AI will reach that conclusion in about 5 years; whether it can enact it, I don't know.

Yes. On a political axis. The easiest way to model it is the four-point political compass. Authoritarianism Socialism + Capitalism Liberalism Most people have a tendency to villify or dismiss one aspect of the political compass, and most countries also. Which is where all their problems arise.

Smaller nations don't war as much, because large nations and militaries keep them in check. Force checks force. In our current dynamic, smaller nations also don't go to war if a large nation is going to give their opponents weapons. As Russian power slips you see war breaking out in Central Asia. Azerbaijan vs Armenia As America pulls back from NATO and BRICS rises you see it in Southeast Asia. Cambodia vs Thailand. As China grew strong enough we saw it in Tibet and East Turkestan. China's done plenty of war over its history in recent memory, its strong enough it just rolls through without much resistance. Russia thought they were strong enough, So did Israel. So did India to pressure Pakistan over Kashmir. Its not fatalistic to show you what happens the world over and to really get you to understand at their base level humans are the same the world over. As soon as you can accept that we can dismantle bias and actually rationally look at systemic problems, but without that understanding, you are unduly biased in your assessment. *The Cold war didn't move into a full war as nukes were more feared and the military strength of both sides was more balanced. Plus WW2 was still in those generations minds. I always feared what would happen when the last of the veterans died off, their respected voices no longer speaking out by experience against war. Then this was reinforced when fascism became a more accepted ideology, and racism more accepted, without socialist controls stopping, balancing or framing it differnetly. Putin has refused all negotiation with Ukraine repeatedly. He won't even recognize Zelensky as legitimate to negotiate with. The only way Russia is stopped is on the battlefield, almost everyone has finally come around to that understanding, which Eastern Europe have known for centuries. Or more specifically, its economy wrecked enough that it cannot support these increasingly wasteful attacks. Personally I advocate for the Russian country being broken up in into its native populations; they'd be far better off than draining all their food, oil, lifeforce and wealth into Moscow and St Petersburg anyway. I understand this is unlikely, and Russia will bankrupt itself long before that. As for negotiations with fanatics like many of those in Hamas, that isn't easy either when many of them just want you dead, your culture and religion erased. After Israel's brutal campaign, I doubt its got much easier. Nobody is trusting Russia with their energy anymore. I would laugh at this suggestion if it came from a politician. Maybe 10% from Russia is sensible but still a risk, the rest from multiple sources so we never again risk being held hostage by it or threatened over our energy and fuel. Putin is a declared war criminal and Russia a state that uses terror to achieve its aims, both over Europe and Ukraine, meaning it's a terrorist state. TBH there isn't as much oil left in Russia as you think either, not at the currently tapped deposits. With the obvious exception of places like Siberia, which should be the richest province by far. And if I can see that on a map, you can be damned sure China can. Russia is a declining power, if China gets heavy influence on a province like Siberia, it doesn't need Russia anymore as anything more than a proxy or buffer. I do feel your pain, I assume everyone has these types of moments. But unlike the rest of the world. I won't support selling out subsequent generations so I can live a better quality of life. Even if I am the last man alive holding that position. I would rather over-regulate than anything. Sorry to be harsh, but someone has to be. Population controls are necessary, as are AI workers if we mean to sustain the biosphere. Regulating housing development is useful in this regard, as without a home large enough, it discourages people from having kids. Call it a soft form of population control, and incidently this is why migration at 500,000 net in the UK is destructive longterm, beyond people's cultural or racial concerns or preferences (I have none). Africa is definitely a possibility, certain parts of it anyway. South Africa for example early on aligned with BRICS, but in this two-pole world we have now, there are some more neutral powers like Nigeria and others we can work with, I agree there. Africa could well decide which of these two powers comes out on top, or mediate between them, as its rise will be quite drastic in the decades ahead. Or at least those parts of it BRICS isn't actively fighting NATO over internally. Dismantling Western Influence would be a bad move, however, as we've seen it just invites Chinese and Russian influence in its place. Whether you or anyone think that is 'better' or 'worse' doesn't change that's what happens when we pull back. We have become soft however. We can agree on that. You are missing one key problem in your analysis: that without NATO the EU is somewhat divided on the course of action. People labelling us all 'The West' often don't understand it or even see it.