BlueOak

As always, the pro-Russian side makes this all about America because to consider Ukraine or even Europe would be to consider the full reality of the conflict. It also brings us a step closer to a peace deal, as all the relevant parties would be considered. But instead, they make the demonized 'other,' the Americans, their only focus, so they miss most of the factors involved and broaden a conflict. At the same time, they don't want American influence in their region; they want a smaller conflict. This contradiction works against them (and world peace). I have repeatedly demonstrated that the American population is 30% or so pro-Russian while showing that Eastern Europe is the most pro-Ukrainian region. Still, it becomes so convenient to ignore this fact because then we'd get closer to an uncomfortable truth: For Russia, Europe, Ukraine, and America. Everyone I've just mentioned would lose something by acknowledging it. Russia would be forced to acknowledge their campaign of fear, war, and territorial ambitions, causing these reactions in the East of Europe and causing what they don't want: people to move away from them and closer to NATO. They would be forced to realise they have actual responsibility for their own actions. America would be forced to admit that half of their country is becoming isolationist and a threat to their overseas empire, which is only increased by the railroading over these concerns. They may even be forced to reflect that a safer world isn't one in which you have 5,000 military bases, one can hope, and thus bring other countries in as more equal partners with direct military capability of their own. Europe would be forced to acknowledge its role in allowing Russia to become so dominant militarily compared to them and its role in funding this more fully. Decades of overreliance on America for their own security. To be fair, we've done some of that and made some adjustments, but it's not serious military spending in the UK, for example, or a complete break with Russian energy yet in central Europe (Germany needs to get over its nuclear power fears) Ukraine would be forced to admit that the support for them will only last while Russia makes this out to be a larger war. If Russia kept insisting on the complete opposite, that this was a local dispute, it would have gone more in that direction. Now that they are pulling in North Korean troops for example, it makes it even more international. *Obviously it was in the interests of the defenders to broaden the war, as they were the smaller side, now the power balance has shifted, Russia is forced to go to other countries for materials and manpower.

Dictating that you will give up nothing before the negotiations begin is not an olive branch; it's dictating terms. The west did exactly the same by saying negotiations can begin when you leave the territories you occupy. BOTH SIDES need to come together. Your bias is extreme here. So if the dialogue will do nothing, the battlefield is going to decide the war, not hopes, dreams, or one side's terms. I've heard reports it was Russian air defense fragments, but at the least, it was Russia that shot it down over a warzone. That is a fact. This is a war though this happens daily. People should get out of the land they've illegally occupied in a warzone, as Ukrainians have been forced to do. That should be step number one for the civilian population. Going for a holiday there on a beach with active military targets seems incredibly stupid. I also find it incredible that for two years, Russia has fired missiles into civilian targets, yet one beach gets all the headlines. The Russians are great at propaganda; we have to give them that. The ports in Crimea have to be eliminated to stop them from firing on civilian targets in Ukraine, and they are Ukrainian ports to target. Frankly, I am not sure how the moderators let you get away with saying this. If I said the same i'd expect my post to be locked or blocked. This is a European war, fought in Europe against European powers. America is backing its allies. Russian propaganda. As they are still recruiting them now. Russia has said this for 2 years, and it's never been true, only on their state TV fantasy land. They are using WW2 arms and ammunition, some older than that. They use human wave tactics; their experienced office core died at the start of the war, and their naval assets and airforce are being depleted faster than ever. Russia has lost about 60% of its soviet stockpiles. This is part of why the West is happy to continue. Because Russia keeps wasting its stockpiles. When they are gone, so is its ability to project power conventionally, it removes a massive threat to Europe. America and Europe are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, while Russia keeps doing what they want, running themselves into the ground they'll continue. When it looks like a stalemate, they'll probably stop.

@zazen It has been a rough time. Sorry for the delay. It doesn’t matter if you kill a man in what you have arbitrarily decided is your backyard or a thousand miles away. Suffering is still suffering. You are arguing for a return to land grabs and border wars as preferable. Because you are trying to say it's somehow better than a war overseas, it isn’t. It still creates imbalance, instability, uncertainty, and suffering. Globalized supply chains, for example, cannot function in a world beset by people fighting wars with their neighbors, which means every aspect of your life changes because everything needs to be sourced locally. More expenses, regression in some areas of development, a lot more chaos and competition. In this multi-polar world, you are hoping for. People militarize to protect against their neighbors, which increases the use of the military to achieve aims. This is the cycle toward a global war that is now accelerating. It may settle down when the two sides solidify, leading to less frequent larger wars rather than smaller ones (or just a long cold war). This isn't a global collective emerging; it's two poles: authoritarian vs democratic. It is still colonialism; the method has just changed. Money does it now, as do mercenary forces like Wagner or proxy forces. The land is still giving its resources to the empires that control them, and the manpower will be used for their overlord's wars. What else is there? A label of independence on the country, but the wealth is still being shipped overseas. You are then arguing that both the US is dominant and that it is a multi-polar world. NATO’s collective GDP without the US is closer than you make out; I can’t remember the exact value now, but it's close. The EU’s is not insignificant either, at 18 trillion vs 26, or China is at 17, so it's not as lopsided as you are making out. BRICS are not patterning Western imperialism; they’ve invented their own. They either invade their neighbors outright to take over land, topple governments, or buy them out, fund favorable political parties, spread their propaganda, take their resources, and secure proxy states that way. I find it hard to understand why you consider this preferable other than aligning with your preferences. Then you get idealistic: BRICS is just another set of countries doing what they can for themselves. Don't tell me they are somehow more enlightened in their approach to governance or politics; this is the weakest part of your response. They take and take until they are stopped; where is the stage, green or yellow, BRICS leader? If this was a global collective emerging, this would be a different conversation. These two poles will lead to conflict and competition, not cooperation. Sure, there will be some benefits, maybe a proper space race, and development in some areas, but it will also create chaos. No positive elements of the liberal world order are going to be preserved by expansionist authoritarian regimes. We fight to keep those, or they get taken from us; I am talking domestically right now as I’ve seen it happening for 20 years. All I see BRICS doing is warmongering, so I see no positive outcome from them at all to the world as a whole, I see a positive outcome for their own countries. I understand people want more; they always do. So this is the path to a potentially larger war, or long cold war because they have convinced themselves that 2 is better than 1. (And yes, I realize the 1 was also poorly put together, even the UN) It's very obvious and playing out. Now I see Russia arming North Korea with Nukes and Belarus to justify their own expansionist aims, so a nuclear war is closer. This does not make the world safer because the other side will likely respond in some like-minded way.

Arranging her living environment to be therapeutic will be part of the medical care. This is why I never leave anything to doctors or a single doctor alone they are very narrowly focused on their own specialties. I worked in alternative therapies for 8 years or so. @Michael569 Appreciate it.

Hey, thanks for stopping by here. I'm looking to draw upon any and all information you have regarding strokes. My mother had swelling on the brain, and a pain in the back of her head. She slowly fainted and started shaking, going into the hospital on Saturday night, and has slightly recovered each day. Her levels of consciousness dip in and out from what they call a 15 (normal) to a 7 at her lowest, but her memory seems to function fine. Her speech is a bit slurred; she can now feel on her right side but not move it properly yet; her left is fine. She's not moved into therapy yet and is in a critical care unit still, but is off a heart rate monitor now. In my visits I've tried: Familiar smells from perfume. Textures on a blanket she owns and rests with. Pictures she sleeps with. Being there for her and encouraging her, telling her to take her time but keep trying to open her eyes (she can but not much and sees double), to keep her body moving like she was doing exercises at home. I don't have any headphones for her yet, but they said I could bring some in. I'm the one who is keeping it together, and part of the reason is acceptance of what we are, thank you all for that, but also solutions, so any you have would be great. More esoterically, I've realized that I can speak to her consciousness directly, even while alive. So I did a bit of that when she was at her worst and grieved for a time, but I made peace however it was going to go. I've tried to focus some healing on her left arm while I was there through movement and motion along her bad arm to stimulate any response, and energy transfer. Whatever else you know,. I don't care what it is or where it comes from, I'll investigate it all. Thanks.

Also, nobody has solved this problem, when they do, I (infinity) will have: I stand in front of you and shout in your face. How do you maintain bliss? The best I have is detachment, which seems like a poor answer for an infinite whole. I've toyed with love for anger, but that never works because anger is a detaching force.

Because life is many things to me, not just bliss. Though a once-a-month bliss experience would be nice to have and should be coded into the human experience naturally without needing to go anywhere, take, or buy anything,. What are my most common states: Observation Frustration Analysis Apathy Suffering Sentiment Synchronicity Sadness Happiness Peace Cyclic Pattern Institution Calm An alternate question: What stops you from dissolving into the emotionless void? Infinite sorrow, or infinite insert emotion here: X

For anyone going through this, I hope it helps: This man seems to know his subject, Dr. Eric Berg If I find anything else relevant in the next few days i'll link it here to help others.

I appreciate the feedback, but part of the way I cope with anything serious is by looking for solutions to problems. As in arranging her living area to be more suitable, moving things downstairs etc. Thanks, I made peace with either outcome, as with my heart problem. I'll keep looking for information. Sorry, universe, but I'm ignoring you this time in favor of not sitting on my hands, because never in my life has that ever done anything positive.

Respectfully, at this juncture, I'll consult with anyone. I am not stupid, Leo, and capable of double-checking sources and facts. Plus you know, we are consulting with our own projections and reflections.

One small realization I made in communicating about infinity. Infinity is seen by you deciding how you react to something. That is, you could react in infinite ways to what is otherwise a void of meaning that you fill. The void of meaning that you fill, I've understood for a while, but I thought this small nugget worth sharing if you are ever communicating with another. It seemed to take someone further into understanding their own nature. All the best.

First off, apologies for the obvious spelling mistake; it was early. @Hatfort Some outreach was made to Armenia, but I don't know how it will go; it's a complicated region now. Seeking EU Ties: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/armenia-to-quit-pro-russian-alliance-seeks-eu-ties/ar-BB1o9LH6 Its the same with Turkey and Georgia seeking EU ties. I agree that China and India somewhat filled the void in Russia's economy. Is there oil in Nagorno Karavaj also? I know you were speaking more generally on the recent oil discoveries in the region, but I couldn't find information either way. I'd be interested to get your take on why the EU couldn't take the role of trading with Georgia, or this region more broadly. Especially if the condition was Turkey entered the EU which would probably be necessary. I'd genuinely be interested because West Asia and Central Asia are regions of the world we don't see much information on here. Obviously, proximity is huge, and I understand Russia owns a lot of the rail connections, but if Turkey joined, proximity would be the same either way.

@zazen China, Iran, BRICS, and Russia DO NOT limit their ambitions within their own borders, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Countries push their spheres of influence outward until they hit another because they are frankly incapable in their leadership of conceiving of another path forward. Chinese Imperialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_imperialism Belt and Road: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative Involving 150 countries, that’s a global trading empire that is unseating the US; it's not ‘within its own borders’ at all. Chinese control over Africa: China is putting more arms into Africa than anyone but Russia; that’s primarily how you maintain a favorable government and indirect control over a region: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-arms-sales-cement-economic-093000334.html Current Colonial Ambitions: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/china/china-african-loans-development-belt-and-road-intl-hnk/index.html It maintains this control through control of industry, banking, arms dealing, establishing bases, supporting sympathetic governments, and trade. (Sound familiar?) The moral equivalency of: Oh, America did it too, does not work when you also tell me that BRICS countries stay within their own borders. Both statements cannot be accurate at the same time. Russian Imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_imperialism https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/1/24/how-western-scholars-overlooked-russian-imperialism Russian influence on EU Elections: https://www.politico.eu/article/voice-of-europe-russia-influence-scandal-election/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/european-election-how-eu-says-russia-is-spreading-disinformation-2024-06-03/ This nonsense goes on all the time. Russia is always threatening to push its influence to the Atlantic ocean through Europe. Their state TV says something dumb like that every week. Let's mention Iran, like every country on earth, tries to push its influence outward. It uses its proxy forces to achieve this, and is looking to rebuild a greater Iran (which has a few different names) Historic Iranian Imperialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahlavi_Iran (Now sorry to your ego) Then, you again present a moral equivalency argument to justify warmongers. It will never hold up to a token analysis. They're flawed, so I don’t mind these other people being bad. It is just moralizing, which doesn’t mean anything beyond how you feel; it's just an excuse to behave a certain way. I used that moralizing to feel ' okay ' with some of the worst things I’ve done in my life. Addressing BRICS imperialism is just the same as when America did it. We are morally superior for these reasons, so it is okay to do what we are doing. No war is still war; death is still death. Meddling in elections still interferring with elections. Assassination, terrorism, cyberattacks, arming suppressive governments, the rich taking from the poor, Africa being exploited, trade routes being seized and robbed blind, and generally spreading fear and misinformation are still the same as it was. I am just looking at different people repeating the pattern. On the video: Stage Green, but let’s tackle it. Having two competing power blocks in a similar state of development, vying for world dominance, and thinking that will lead to a peaceful outcome or greater stability for the planet is equally a mind virus. Nothing about the leaders of BRICS countries shows me any capacity to think barely in ethical terms, let alone BEYOND their ethical value judgments. Their ethical value judgment will inevitably put or reflect themselves as the superior force for moral leadership and challenge anything that challenges it. – The fundamental flaw in the stage green argument. It is by definition impossible for you to both support BRICS ethically and, at the same time, acknowledge what they are doing is morally questionable if your entire argument is morality and ethics. I am not in America. I am in Europe. My concerns are from Europe, which is in a proxy war with BRICS, which is starting to escalate into a greater one. I do not for one second think that my own morals and ethics are superior to a Russian or you. A hint for you, for BRICs, for anyone: If you allow it, now I've hit your ego; I mean this part with the best of intent: List the benefits BRICS brings and the fact that America lacked in regards to world stability and security, faith, development, economic benefits, possible long-term interoperation, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing them. Ditch the ethics and morals, and this will be more productive. The weakest part of my argument above, without extensive sourcing and thought, is addressing the global south's prosperity, but why limit your analysis to just the global south? Trade routes and the breakdown of the global system, insurance hikes leading to increased prices everywhere, and lack of goods in stores, or technological development slowing down (which requires extensive global cooperation to advance), are obviously huge negatives I'll counter with - but that discussion would be better and more productive than this one.

Understanding reality is relative is a minor superpower. Just don't overuse it, or everyone will hate you for not saying anything. Drop it in when someone gets stuck somewhere, or you get stuck or find difficulty somewhere. Alone, it can be enough to get things flowing again.

In short: Identity - Threatened - Fear We create the identity, we create the perceived threat to it, and we create the fear. To expand a bit: The best videos will need to take this into account: how can something be perceived to threaten the identity of the person who fears X? If we remove individuality from the conversation, it's easier to talk about. X could be any number of things, and that is where the complication comes in, understanding individual or collective fears within the human speaking about them. Obviously, fear is uncomfortable to talk about; few want their own fears laid bare, and to associate someone with a fear merely for existing is also uncomfortable, so we all try and talk around the subject politely hinting at things. Though to me, the hinting and unknown is worse than speaking about it, I'm wired differently to most. Love sent to all the gay and lesbian people out there, I'm sorry this comes up at all.

@zazen You can cloak war, pushing out influence, and territorial expansion in any noble sentiment you like. I used to listen to liberals say we are liberating people from dictators all the time. Now I listen to BRICS saying we are liberating people, and in your case, 'it is simply incentive driven towards sovereignty.' - That's how the authoritarians love to frame it now; they just keep pushing the borders out for what that sovereignty is. Oh, it's this map, no, it's this one; I think we'll push the lines further out this year, what can we take next year? It's still warmongers making war for money, wealth, and power. It encourages the same; it always encourages the same cycle. People have learned nothing other than to frame it to make themselves sound better than their targets.

@Ajay0 You just told me that the EU reduced its imports down by a factor of 16. I haven't seen that extreme amount supported, but I'll take your source's word for it. There is no way you can phrase that, which makes it seem like the EU hasn't massively cut imports; they would be importing 1/16th of what they were. As you can see here, most of the LNG being used in the EU is coming in from America, and they keep increasing that. https://www.bruegel.org/dataset/european-natural-gas-imports Quote from your article: Yet much of this LNG is not needed by the European market and is being handled at European ports before being reexported to third countries worldwide, with some EU states and companies profiting as a result. "A lot of the Russian LNG that goes to Europe is just being 'trans-shipped,'" said Hilgenstock. "So that has nothing to do with Europe's natural gas supply. It's just European companies making money facilitating Russian LNG exports." End Quote Like the Indian and Turkish resellers you are speaking about, this is mainly individual billionaires and their companies profiteering, and these individuals will often be global in nature, shipping resources on through their existing supply chains. - Do I like this? No, but it is small potatoes comparatively that Spain and Belgium are using their maritime assets to profit for others. Otherwise, all those long-running supply chains will go bankrupt or adversely impact world trade. Russian supplies are still getting discounted; it's still hurting their war economy, it's still not going to fuel Europe, but yes, war profiteering should still be banned. Any money going to Russia, even indirectly shipped by companies with assets in Europe, needs to be squeezed. AND if other countries in BRICS or others didn't buy this Russian LNG through Spanish and Belgian companies, it wouldn't go through them in the first place!

I tried to twice start a new thread for this, but I could not get the quotes to format correctly, so I'll take it as a sign to leave it here! @ArcticGong All I see is other countries pursuing their own self-interests. This does not change anything about what I said. All countries pursue their self-interest in all things at all times. The effect is the undermining of the EU by trying to replace them, take the land and resources of sympathetic countries, seize the trade connections, replace the world currency, and overthrow their liberal or allied governments. Part of the UK DID undermine the EU, yes. Nigel Farage’s (UKIP now Reform Party) and the Far Right’s primary goal is to break apart the EU. That’s what could happen now with the far-right swing in the latest EU vote, but it's still somewhat unlikely. A country is not an individual; it has many competing interests; the EU is about unity between nations, and the far right is about nationalism. Sanctions against Russia have already proven ineffective because it didn't stop them. At least Western allies could hold up to 300,000 billion of Russian assets for leverage. If the dollar is replaced by the Yuan, and China takes over more of world banking as they want to, the only bargaining chip we have is words and force. What else is there? These two sets of competing interests set up the perfect conditions for WW3, adding to it far-right governments gaining power everywhere and aggressive dictators expanding their borders. The only answer when we are threatened is war; China's expansion and the Russian conflict especially have proven this to EU leaders. Yes, war fuels migration, and war is the policy of far-right people who hate immigration. Their warlike actions, disregard for climate damage to food/water/living areas, and the inequality they create cause migration/immigration, which they then vilify people for. It’s a complete farce. With the rise of BRICS countries, people are celebrating the end of millions of lives. This is not hyperbole; either we sit on our hands and let BRICS roll over millions into authoritarian suppression, torture, and death, including those in Europe, or we fight. Yes, all countries do stupid things. This moral equivalency argument you are giving me changes nothing. I don’t excuse BRCIS's warlike aggression because America was also warlike. Otherwise, when you or those close to you are being hit, I’ll have to excuse it again. Oh well, Russia did it, so it's okay that Venezuela does it to Guyana, or it's okay when Turkey invades Greece, or it’s OK when China invades Taiwan, France hits back in Africa, or 'the West', as we now call it final gets fed up of being pushed around and launches an invasion of its own. Europe is being forced to remilitarize, and the far right is gaining power there; the far right needs an external opponent to stay in power. Everything is a cycle, but it doesn’t make it ‘okay’ or in any way better that people carry out the cycle. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/12/07/venezuela-maduro-guyana-esequibo-interstate-war-oil-referendum-icj/ Espionage has different levels of involvement. Like anything, it can increase or decrease. People are being killed off now, arrested in senior positions of the bureaucracy, and assassinated, not just monitored or secrets leaked. @Ajay0 Spain is not in BRICS. Turkey is thinking of joining. Turkey is not in the EU; it wants to join. It won't get in both. Turkey is trying to play the middle ground due to their geopolitical location; if the world order continues to break down, it will be central to much of the planet's ability to function. Lots of countries imported Russian gas, but there has been a considerable shift away from it. The primary purpose of this was to end funding for the war. BRICS bought up the excess to continue funding the war. Article Quote: In short, EU dependence on Russian gas fell from 45% in 2021, to only 15% in 2023. Also stated as a 71% drop by 2023, and it's more now Source: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/focus-eu-energy-security-and-gas-supplies-2024-02-15_en Lots of countries imported Russian fossil fuels, but there has been a huge shift away from it. The primary purpose of which was to end funding for the war. BRICS bought up the excess to continue funding or allow funding of the war to continue. Article Quote: Oil: China is the largest buyer of Russian crude oil, purchasing 52%, followed by India (33%), the EU (8%), and Turkey (5%) since the EU’s ban on crude oil from Russia on 5 December 2022. Oil via pipeline is only partially sanctioned. The EU’s crude oil imports have arrived via sea to Bulgaria and via pipeline for the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. But critically Russian LNG gas is not under sanctions, which remains a real problem in the EU, no arguments there. The EU was so dependent on Russian oil/gas it has been a real struggle to break that hold, but is happening. The problem is, its made little difference because BRICS just bought up the difference. - So, do you understand why economic pressure is no longer an effective tool in a multi-polar world? It'll have to be words, followed by force, which is war, and with two large blocks, with far-right governments gaining ground in all major countries, a high potential for WW3. Article Quote: China was the largest importer of Russian fossil fuels in January, accounting for 33% (EUR 7.1 bn) of total imports. Turkey recorded the second highest imports, accounting for 20% (EUR 3.1 bn), while India was third with an 18% (EUR 2.8 bn) import share. The EU and Brazil contributed 13% (EUR 2.1 bn) and 4% (EUR 0.7 bn) to Russian fossil fuel exports, respectively. Source: https://energyandcleanair.org/january-2024-monthly-analysis-of-russian-fossil-fuel-exports-and-sanctions/

Sure let's tackle that. I sympathize because, for years, I hated being called 'the West' or NATO. I'd never considered my part of this nebulous 'the west' until it was shouted in my ear every week. Firstly, economic support for Russia's war against democracy in Europe is obvious in Russia's case. India's purchase of oil/weapons and countries like Brazil for fertilizer/oil is a huge reason why the war has been able to continue from Russia's side. BRICS is directly trying to topple the Dollar as the world currency, and they support China, Iran and Russia's aggressive expansionist policy. Here are a few references to get started on that front, I didn't comb these for details thoroughly but I can pull 15 more if needed. For Russia: India: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russian-oil-shaves-indias-import-costs-by-about-27-bln-2023-11-08/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-64899489 Brazil: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/22/russia-ukraine-war-whats-behind-brazils-neutral-position https://www.ft.com/content/7ebb679e-099e-49ac-a750-73ca46538dee South Africa: https://theconversation.com/south-africas-pact-with-russia-and-its-actions-cast-doubt-on-its-claims-of-non-alignment-206020 For Iran: India: https://thediplomat.com/2022/10/the-challenges-and-limitations-in-india-iran-relations/ Brazil: https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2024/05/30/3095400/iran-brazil-joint-economic-cooperation-commission-meeting-to-be-held-soon South Africa: https://www.cfr.org/blog/shedding-light-iran-south-africa-relationship If you are going to come back with, well, it's the same as X country helping Y country. Yes. That's the point. Or if you say, Brazil, India, or South Africa are not involved in what this or that country does with the support they offer. Welcome to my world before all of this started, yet NATO has been blamed for the actions of one or two members for decades. So it's going to happen to BRICS, too. If these countries trade with the aggressors and fund and support their efforts, they will be associated with them. It's not unreasonable either; their money has allowed Russia, Iran, and China to finance their wars and expansion of their influence. There are two competing powers in the world, with BRICS trying to overthrow one of them and take their place. If you split the world in two you conflict. This is shown in BRICS colonial ambitions, the expansion of their territory, stealing claims of trade routes, the attempts to replace the dollar, putting countries into debt traps so they can buy up ports, their cyber attacks on Europe, their funding of extremists in Europe, flooding Europe with immigrants and general chaos their members want to cause. You can't deny the political support they've given other BRICS members as well; although they try to cloak it under the pretense of non-involvement, they are involved, they are not neutral. Neutral would having no interest in the result of something; they clearly favor a Russian, Iranian, and Chinese victory in the current geopolitical struggles. 'European Liberalism' is a threat to BRICS, according to Putin, which is part of his want to drive further into Europe, politically, financially, and militarily. Its not uncommon now for Chinese and Russia spies to be arrested to uncovered in Europe. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-66609633 Brazil's push for a common currency is being taken seriously. I want you to consider this carefully. If a common BRICS currency is agreed upon, sanctions no longer work hardly at all (they barely work now with so many countries feeding the aggressor's war effort). So, the political tool for pressure is either words or violence instead. *If we want this to continue in-depth, we should probably switch topics, so I'll see how you reply. However, if I do another long one, I'll spin it off into its own topic.

@LSD-Rumi True. Something that caused people to question and justify their own beliefs would be helpful to ground them in a collective understanding. Or more simply put cause them to focus on others too. The four core areas of Epistemology Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology @Nivsch Often yes. It depends on what the center is doing at the moment; the global center, yes, is usually more harmonious. This sort of analysis or inquiry typically draws people to the center because the only way to justify your beliefs is to look at the results of your belief reflected in, with, or involving others. When on the fringe, this reflection shows more harm than good unless it's for a brief moment of action. If someone is too selfish or narcissistic, they will never have this moment of self-reflection because all they see (or want to see) is their own ego. At best, I can hope this far-right swing is to strengthen European immigration policy and dies out as that is done, but the pattern and external forces pushing people that way won't let the momentum stop. The countries won't suddenly become white Christian stage blue nations, for example, and the suppression required to achieve that, if it's pushed, is just constant internal strife. @zazen I used to say swings were the norm, but it only becomes true when something is out of balance or being pushed. Governance is constantly being pushed and unbalanced by others, as well as internal pressures. BRICS are working overtime to unbalance Europe, and they are succeeding; the trouble is for them, if it goes too far to the right, then it's WW3. That's the natural conclusion of this long pattern we've been in. People always create what they say they don't want, but deep down far-right individuals need an enemy so *shrug*. As an example of the opposite, pick something or somewhere in your life that never changes. My home village never changes. There is no big swing; it's the opposite of what's happening globally.

At the moment the far right thinks it'll regain control by squeezing the population into narrower definitions of what is allowed. But that's a tale as old as time, and it leads to revolution. Its a cycle that's happened over and over and over again. Nothing goes away, it goes unconscious, and then gets expressed explosively.

You have to meet people where they are, otherwise they will not accept your governance. Even if the powers that be allowed a stage yellow leader who had the capacity and understanding to arrange a broad spectrum team to represent him both privately and publicly, one who had the temperament to fully allow his perspective to be adjusted and overridden on core issues that he was in duality toward - even in that rare 1 in a million individual, he's not going to adequately cover millions of people in what really matters to maintaining governance and peace: public and international perception. But we are not at the stage where any influential power will allow a stage-yellow leader because such a person, by definition, is less susceptible to being swayed toward any single position. Therefore, the government itself must be structured in a consciously higher framework so that it collectively gets as close to a tier 2 country as possible. Like this thread represents more than you or I; collectively, we represent a group. The highest form of which would be a council of leaders, not political parties, chosen not only for their skill (Skill is an important stage orange component), but also their capacity to adequately represent and speak to the concerns and challenges facing a wide spectrum of people. This is not a closely tied-together stage blue or red population; it is very well-educated and extremely diverse in makeup. Yes, skill is a factor, but it is one of many; skill should dictate who is selected after the shortlist to represent different sectors of business, the different faiths, the different civil institutions, regions of the country, infrastructure, environmental agencies, and educational bodies etc have been made. Then these positions need to be interlinked. Environment and Infrastructure should be, if not the same office or position, then closely linked as an example. Rather than replacing the whole government at elections, individual positions and how they link together need to become more of the focus. tl;dr A system is elected, not just an individual

That's like asking a religious person to give up faith, a capitalist to give up money, or a soldier to give up his uniform. You can't replace stage orange/green with blue/red and have it not result in massive social unrest. (Which should be demonstrated at the start of this thread).

Update: Russian air defense pushed out of Crimea under sustained attack.

@Karmadhi Pre 2014, In regards Ukraine and Russia all I can say is I was told the opposite if we are talking on a personal level, between people. There was not the level of hatred you are telling me there was. A vote before this would have been preferably yes from our perspective but Putin would have never respected any of Ukraine leaving his control, certainly not in those border regions. Why do the EU not donate as much as the US? They are, but also GDP https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ As a % of their GDP's some countries are giving more than the US is. On top of that, as you are aware though, Europe is still remilitarizing, and does not have the same military industrial complex that the US does. Its barely a few % of America's military budget, as opposed to a much large chunk of the EU's, In raw numbers if we added all of Europe together, the number is not as dissimilar as you are making out (one graph has it being more). https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors/ https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/ You keep coming back to the US does X. I really couldn't care less, when they were doing it I felt exactly the same. The moral equivalency as a reason to do something is what allows it to continue. It tries to excuse something going on. You wanting the war to end for humanitarian reasons is understandable, if it was going to end here i'd be with you. It won't until the will or capability of Russia to expand aggressively is stopped. They have a long pattern of fighting conflicts to expand their influence, and there is little indication that they have changed their mind: Their state TV says this nonesense all the time, and have done for decades in one form or another.