BlueOak

I didn't mention my own optimism. When space travel, or rather space industry is more normalized, nuclear power could be everywhere by default. People can't conceive the scale of the infinity in space, compared to the grain of sand that is earth. One mineral-rich asteroid, is worth more than our entire global economy many times over. Whatever is fueling that, and whoever has access to that first, utterly dominates everything on earth. It'll make the colonial period look like a footnote. $10 Quintillion Asteroid: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/asteroid-16-psyche-may-be-worth-more-than-planet-earth-at-10-quintillion-in-fine-metals-180979303/ Global GDP: 100 trillion. https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/ Breakdown by country https://www.visualcapitalist.com/100-trillion-global-economy/ I know its not as simple as that. The industry, and R&D required to access that is massive, but there are also many asteroids of differing values. The people designing the mining robots in the UK know exactly what they are doing.

It's something that happens every so often, things fall away. It happens to everyone but you are more conscious of it, and perhaps it's happening more quickly as you are developing more quickly. You are not only a passenger in life. It's up to you to cultivate new interests, friendships, and careers. Otherwise, you'll be sat alone in a room miserable. - Even if those interests are solitary and you are more comfortable alone as some are.

There will be political violence. On what scale I don't know. People keeping telling me so from their own mouths when interviewed. While its much easier to talk. Some of them will do it, they did during his presidency, not even counting the end. There was some during Bidens term due to the Israeli conflict. I am from a conservative area also, I don't know if it compares. It's a farming area largely, slowly becoming a town. its a sleepy place where not much happens and nobody ever changes, for better or worse the drama of the outside world is usually sarcastically mocked or chided. Nobody here speaks like I've heard trump supporters speak in support of a candidate. Their identity is directly tied to his, so they experience some of what he experiences.

I think she got a bump to 39% in the latest republican primary polls, so she has a chance still, despite what anyone says. If others eventually drop out during their primary, she could give Trump a run for his money. Though if we were predicting it, the primary is probably still in Trump's favor. Part of me would be happy, as faith in the rule of law in America is probably restored if Haley is the candidate, and the man running against institutions and the rule of law probably goes to Prison. Part of me wants Trump to run because he's less likely to win independent voters over, but that would be selfish because it's also a path to further social unrest if Trump wins or loses. If Trump is not in the race at all, social unrest is less likely. Why do I care about social unrest in America, well I don't like seeing our allies or countries generally damage themselves, plus we copy America in a watered-down way. I'll have to argue why America is doing dumb things again and not to copy their mistakes.

As it's not a resource out of the ground, or tied to a locality. You can't tie it so easily to culture, they could with effort, but mostly they just get in experts from other countries. So there is less national interest, political capital, or care, besides the people directly earning money. Nobody is saying they are the nuclear power region and proud of it. A few countries are starting to realise it's beneficial to say this but that is harder because: Then there is the drama. One disaster is remembered forever. I would say if you add up all the accidents in the oil or gas industry over time I would wager they would have caused much higher casualties, because these are physically demanding jobs with a larger workforce, and spillage or damage to the local ecosystems from extraction. Plus all the environmental damage from global warming, and fallout that causes on people's quality of life, wars, famine, migration, disease etc The military-industrial complex cannot yet use nuclear reactors directly to power its vehicles. The car industry cannot use nuclear power to power its vehicles directly. Same with shipping, or rail networks, farming etc. I touched on that it's a smaller workforce at a nuclear plant compared to the entire complicated oil/gas industry, which is honestly incredibly inefficient by comparison of its size and related supporting network, but it does mean more people are given money to work in oil/gas, which they need to live or support their families. So the related special industry groups that work together, and have in all likelihood started working as groups of companies when lobbying politicians or running advertising campaigns to affect public perception/opinion, are not directly allied with nuclear power. If you want to understand why gas and oil are so directly intertwined with our lives, and the compounding influence and wealth that generates, you need to look at all the industries directly impacted. People just think its because they've got more money, well yes but that's a symptom, not a cause. Ditto environmentally friendly energy, which gets even more pushback. The thing I hate the most about the fossil fuel industry, is they are directly responsible for us as a species warming up the planet for our future generations, drying it out, and leaving it in a worse state. All the wars and suffering it has and will cause. They have warped people's minds, and lied for so long, that people resist looking directly at what is going on in front of them, let alone reading a chart or looking at a temperature graph. Thanks for the new video link i'll have a watch tomorrow, when its a better time of day.

If you want what we call a tier 2 answer. You look at the planet as a series of interconnected systems. Do those systems benefit collectively, from intervention or not? That is things like: International Trade, supply chains, the Creation of Jobs, Technologies, and Interconnected Global Networks. Things that don't require each country to be an island, thus decreasing costs through specialization of the above factors, or instead as is sometimes preferred, encourage independence and jack-of-all-trade approaches in critical industries - Domestic food production, for example, is the global food supply affected, ditto energy. The level of fear or safety the action generates globally, fear negatively affects all other things you can name, except perhaps things like military readiness or the push for change within a country. Populations are incredibly easy to manipulate on the fight/flight response within an established and understood framework, people are using this in a more saturated propagandist way pre-war to try and achieve outcomes. Tourism, Growth, Development/Education, Stability, Opportunity for Crime, Mischief or Malevolence, the Current trends being magnified, accelerated or slowed. The stability of a region is a huge factor, and without it, all kinds of negative side effects happen. Whereas education for example de-radicalises a population, and leads to more positive growth, job creation, and stability. Long-term global strategic and security outcomes. For treaties, diplomacies, alliances. No world leader is thinking about this on a planetary scale, only from their side of it. BRICS vs NATO, leads to a constant undermining of each. The actual borders. Seemingly nobody ever thinks of this until decades afterwards, or diminishes the importance due to other immediate concerns. The mess borders are left in, and the claims either side has on a piece of land, is often the cause of future skirmishes or wars. Climate impacts of fuel use, political and social impacts of further financing military-industrial growth. (There is a social and cultural impact related to all industries and state-level actions). Now we have to consider diseases and viruses, more than we have. As the biosphere weakens and the proximity of urban centers is closer together, as well as the density for virus mutation, the natural barriers to infection (ex: distance/air and food quality) and cures taken from nature are reduced as well, giving a compounding effect. - In wartime, or the decades of social breakdown that follow virus and disease are rife. Migration. Seemingly everyone hates it. Seemingly almost nobody understands the many above factors that cause the imbalances, which necessitate or at least encourage it. Radicalization of the youth, again touching on the fear, stability, and education aspects. The growing interconnected communications across the globe, allow for that fear to be exported effectively. Thus meaning we have an ongoing and never-ending core of instability within our societies and flashpoints of violence. With sometimes net beneficial outcomes, but usually not. This is a snippet of some of the bigger ones, we could keep going, you get the idea. Everything about you is interconnected with everything and everyone else. The more a leader can model or keep this systemic approach in mind, the better they can answer your question. Isolation and inaction is also a choice, and not always the best one.

@Devin Yes, Israel is a big one it will certainly deflate the democratic vote, depending on how long it goes on for. However, the cost of living, safety etc is always the primary reason people vote. On whether their own lives are what they consider good or not. Safe, comfortable etc. That's why a lot of effort is put into magnifying or manufacturing causes for fear by whatever party is not in power. - Drugs/Housing/Crime certainly all fit under the fear or comfort feeling people vote on. I'm not even going to do a comparison because that's not the point. If people feel like they have more money for things, safety, and a level of comfort, they trend toward the status quo. If they don't, they look for change. I can't predict 6 months from now, we'll see. Abortion was the primary issue the Democrats hit the Republicans with, in this latest round of voting that happened, even Fox was forced to acknowledge for a time it was a dagger in their side. This is not a statement of validity, or not, to anyone wanting to challenge it, validity is secondary to propaganda-fueled public perception: If I can say to you, they are coming for social security, your healthcare, and choice whether you have a kid or not, that's a big thing to hit the opposition with. - It is the primary dagger in the republican side currently.

Probably in order of current importance. The top 3 of each are core issues each party can work on certainly Hurting the Dems 1, Economy. - If Biden cuts cheques in some form for people toward the election, he could give this a temporary bump. If trump promises it, he gets the same. This is by far and away the giant in the room. 2, Israel - If this ends early enough the damage might start to reverse, but I don't see it ending early enough. Yemen tensions are picking up. 3, Migration is successfully weaponized by a variety of factors and clever maneuvering, causing the majority of people to want a stricter approach. 4, Killing Leftist Populism for Fanatical Corporaistim. Dismissing people's concerns in an aloof way is the usual liberal position that works against them to deflate their vote. Then they try to shame people for not voting their way. 5, The move to the right in part caused by the above, to the point where more and more people cannot align their values with the current political dynamic, and fewer people are represented or they shift right collectively. if you are not seen as the most supportive of bloodshed in Palestine, or the strongest response to Mexico (bomb Mexico's cartels one Republican suggested), then you are seen in a more negative light or less masculine. 5a, Hero-idealized masculinity (which is not objective reality), when used as a way to govern society, is a fascist trait. 6, Crackdown on protests, are all part of the above chain of democratic self-sabotage among their base. ? Maybe, the perception of being Anti guns, in Ameria is probably a net negative. One of the few things we differ with you on. This is borderline, i'd say it hurts more than helps, but I am less certain. Hurting the Republicans 1, Policies I'll list two obvious ones. Being fanatically anti-abortion, is a terrible position to take in a liberal democracy. 1a, The constant reference to cutting social security, toward an aging population, is politically stabbing yourself in the foot over and over for no gain. Just stop people doing this, at least till past the election. 2, Crimes of their candidate, and being against the legal system, or traditional conservative institutions. Plays well with a fanatical base, and gives everyone else pause for thought. 3, Trump's narcissism and victim mentality. Accepted by his core base of 25-30%, hated by everyone else. His general words are loved by his base, but these two aspects of Trump are harder to swallow. The victim mentality especially does not play well with right-wingers, why someone doesn't stop him from using that language is probably due to his narcissism. 4, Conspiracy lunacy, and acting the fools. If they just took all QANON from their discussion, and stopped attacking each other, it'd be a huge step in the right direction. Kick the crazies like MTG out of the party, she does nothing good for you at all. 5, Their need to vilify the left rather than liberals, at this point they'd start to pick up actual leftwing votes if they just stopped that language. Sadly its all about appearance for and against the reasoning for not doing. They need to be more unified in the general message, but being selective would divide and conquer an already divided liberal party. 6, Climate Ignorance. I realize it still plays to core support, but for everyone else as they see more and more evidence of it, it looks increasingly foolish. At the moment Trump wins, we'll see what happens when he's convicted of a few crimes, and if things like Yemen don't turn into a war for the democrats, which seems to be about to happen on some scale. Republicans would have more likely won with a more traditional candidate and by a wider margin. Picking someone who can at least appear respectable, goes a long way with how the average person views the world (sadly). I realize some of these also help each party, but net it would be a loss. We get some of this in England too so I see it play out here, only of course we are supposedly more civilized - Which is funny, go view an MPs behaving badly House of Commons video for a laugh, it might also make you reflect more positively on your politics, though it looks more fun here. Provided in a spoiler for levity.

I'm severely stuck in my spiritual/personal development. This is either the crux or a good part of it. I cannot get past my need for people to acknowledge others' pain, fear, and suffering. Usually between two third parties external to my own identity (which I acknowledge is also me) Thoughts? Solutions? Opposites for healing? Seeing the pattern though clearly obviously helps.

Yes. I thought of this. Its not a bad business model at all times, but especially good in hard times. What I would like to do is not feasible without financing. A small youtube improvisation semi-professional theater or show. It would cost about 3,000 an episode for cast/crew/location. Perhaps being able to do 2 in one day if things run smoothly, because that covers the whole day shooting. That would be a hobby if I was ever successful. I have been thinking how to use AI more deeply. At the moment its like blindly shooting, as there as so many ways it could go. The best guess I have is to take an established industry or medium, and use AI to enhance it.

The opposite of this is brutal but possibly balancing. If you can imagine the opposite. The career of this is counseling between families or marriages for example, perhaps healthcare. Though this indulges the behavior, it is the same as how some people utilize their own trauma or bias to their advantage. I don't think it'd cure me of it, only through repetition lessen the need for it more quickly. I can understand why someone might think this is not harmful behavior, but anything to an extreme or any behavior that is invasion and overriding of others is usually harmful. Also any 'need' or expectation from others towards themselves or a third party is just not realistic or very helpful.

@Starlight321 Reading your link. Ukraine will never be demilitarized. Think about that. Russia has bombed it to oblivion, killed many tens of thousands of civilians, hundreds of thousands of people total. Done every conceivable horror I've ever witnessed in war, I saw some truly horrific things. Deported, tortured, force conscripted, aand now they say just put down your guns, you can trust us. Despite the fact they assassinate or imprison anyone who disagrees with them, which is the entire country at this point. There are more guns there than there ever was or will be, that isn't going to change even if the Ukranian government wanted it, its an impossible ask. As for Denazification that is a conspiracy that doesn't exist, and so is impossible to achieve. How can you do something that is purely in Russian fantasy? Putin has given impossible goals, that can never happen even if people wanted it to, so he doesn't have to make peace. Then Ukraine's surrender, that's not happening either, for all the reasons i've listed. He's spent 18 months bombing the population and uniting everyone against him, I don't really think he wants peace. He wants an extended war so Ukraine cannot join NATO.

@Starlight321 I agree I don't acknowledge the fear of survival or change in Russia as much as I should. A long time ago I said that part of the reason people don't understand the Russian perspective is because it's kept private. They are not a culture prone to speaking about it openly and honestly with strangers. They almost do the opposite and prefer privacy and secrecy, at least that is my experience. So what happens is people blunder all the time in dealing with Russia, and sometimes it helps Russia and sometimes it hinders them. Here almost nobody knew or believed that Russia would invade, so that ambiguity in negotiation hurt them a lot. I also want to apologize I shouldn't have pushed back so hard on Maersheimer's perspective, people need to be told NATO's expansion was a factor in the war, one of many, they need to realize their own agency in what's happening too. I've just heard it so much used as a justification for mass violence and terror.

What I quoted was 1 month afterward, coming from Ukraine, when they realized the reality of the situation and Russia's commitment to it. Previous to this neutrality offer, it was a matter of trust. Nobody in Eastern Europe extends Russia much trust, because of the history of violence both overt and covert, and the fear that is there. Maersheimer and Breaking points are idiots. Sorry. I'm a lefty also on many things, but they talk like children in black and white. They still to this day can't understand Eastern European fear or resentment toward Russia, which now is hatred. Breaking points talk about it like some kind of business competition or friend you've fallen out with. Not a country or opponent with centuries of terrorizing their countries, and now hundreds of thousands dead. Oh just come together and sing Kumbaya. Breaking points dismiss all the things Ukraine achieved, which was huge given their opponent. They are NOT in a worse place, than Russia ruling over their country again, not for the people living there. That's why the coup happened in the first place, it's not magically more suited to being ruled by Russia just because Putin wants it to be. Maersheimer cannot ever give you more than half of the truth. He can't see that people joined NATO, NATO didn't come to them. He can't tell you its a collection of voices, not one voice. Same with Putin, because Russia is unable to perceive what a collection of leaders or a multi-polar governance means. He can only understand one voice ruling not many. They joined out of fear of Russia, something no Russian apologist i've ever spoken to or seen can acknowledge. It's like there is a mental block in them. Why do people join NATO, I dunno, just because one day they fell over and ended up in NATO I guess, nothing to do with anyone else's actions, no consequences to anything anyone does, because everyone lives in a vacuum.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/30/ukraine-offer-neutrality-meaning-constitution-russia-what-does-neutral-status-country-mean-how-would-it-work https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-offers-neutrality-exchange-nato-style-security-guarantees-russia-talks-2022-03-29/ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukraines-zelensky-to-offer-neutrality-declaration-to-russia-for-peace-without-delay https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-zelenskyy-says-ukraine-is-willing-to-consider-declaring-neutrality-and-offer-security-guarantees-to-russia-12576688 Here are articles from less than one month into the war, when the casualties were still relatively low compared to what they are now, but everyone had accepted the reality. Not many people in Ukraine believed Putin would invade, most of Europe didn't, it caught a lot of people by surprise. Not everyone, the US and UK were telling Ukraine they were coming. Reasons for the war: 1, Southern ports, southern industrial centers, and black sea access. 2, Landbridge to Crimea. 3, Russia's dwindling population crisis. 40 Million people fixes it. 4, Russia needs smaller borders because of the population crisis, and the growing strength of its neighbors requires more manpower there. 5, The diplomatic coup in a former Soviet state. 6, Putin's natural desire to rebuild the USSR. His 8th war to do so. 7, Ukraine's gas supplies. 8, A focus on Imperialism, to divert attention away from a faltering economy. 9, BRICS challenging the west. 10, A way to encourage fuel use globally. Its primary export. 11, At the time, a weak NATO and a Europe that was fracturing. He expected to decapitate the government with special forces, and win fast before they started to care. 12, Putin was fed up with nobody taking him seriously. Ego. 13, An opportunity to smash NATO, it was already weak and fracturing. The pandemic was already straining Europe. This could have had the alliance shatter. 14, More control over the global food market, Ukraine is a big supplier and requires (required) port access. 15, To take Moldova not long after. 16, To secure his energy pipelines to Europe that run through Ukraine, the lifeblood of his economy (at the time). 17, Political opportunism, assuming a liberal America would be weaker. What he doesn't calculate is the liberals act as traditional conservatives these days. 18, His head is filled with conspiracies, and yes men. The pandemic isolated him further, he drank too much of his own propaganda. 19, What good are endless stockpiles of weapons if you don't use them, and demonstrate them to potential buyers? 20, The reason the NATO line is used, is because drum roll. It lets people see him as the victim. Oh woe is me, they are all against us, we need to fight them. Yada Yada, typical fascist line, eternal victims wanting to look like the hero. We must liberate the population! From themselves! Nazi's are coming! etc. Its not just narcissistic or fascist, obviously, but there are strong influences in Russia pushing it fascist or Ruscism/Rashism, and it has bought into a lot of these. The level of suppression in Russia is higher than its ever been in my lifetime. There is certainly a practical consideration for keeping people off their borders and missiles away from their territory, but nobody was going to give Ukraine missiles or much beyond infantry weapons, now instead they have a country full of them.

Something I should have linked up also, is that safety is a big factor in crimes. Violent crimes especially tend to flare up in unsafe areas, and poorer areas are generally more strained for police presence, people willing to report criminals to prevent more serious crime, organized crime or gangs, and the cause for violence (defensive or not) to occur. Fear is one of, if not the main motivator for a higher crime rate and social disturbance over a population, which in turn is magnified with world tension rising, gang culture it fosters, and the media using migrants as their current punching bag.

I did have a second post but I hid it because that was already a lot, I'll repost part as its not numerical and bolsters some of what you say, in the adjustment to cultural biases. The conclusion I made was, that if you can cite cultural and religious influence among or on german citizens, you remove a lot of the bias associated to (and from) the perspective of an immigrant. We can both assume it's not distance or travel that causes this (see the analysis of tourists), but the argument is whether culture/education/religion does, and this can be looked at domestically. - Assuming a period of adjustment when arriving. @Nabd I always rationalized the truth regardless of culture usually is. When someone is well-fed, has a roof over their head, clothes on their back, no addictions etc, crime isn't their first choice. Why would it be? It's high risk for little reward for the great majority of people, especially when you can get deported for minor things. I hadn't taken into account bias enough or education levels, for my wanting to see the world through a purely culturally neutral lens, effectively ignoring bias. As you say propaganda is done both ways, it skews people into positions they wouldn't usually get themselves in. Thus any rationalization towards the practical truth of a situation I can give towards anything, is prone to falling short in encompassing all possible beliefs and values people have. Yes, you see the reverse of this too, where some behaviors that would see leniency or be ignored completely in their country are criminalized in the country they move to. Thus increasing crime Insurance fraud doesn't exist in some countries. Especially some former soviet ones. Scams are not just permitted in certain countries they are encouraged due to corruption. India has a huge industry purely built on scamming people, Nigeria too, a bit like the old western mafias extorting people. People speak of rape for example, I hate discussing this topic for obvious reasons. However, some countries do not grant the same rights to women, they are considered property more than an individual, they would pursue this crime with less vigor, and lesser sentences. Several countries just don't report rape statistics at all.

They did, they offered neutrality, it was rejected. NATO was just one reason of many for the war, several of which i've highlighted but I can break them down again if required. Its also the reason why there is going to be another war, because pending NATO membership is still just one reason Russian invaded out of a dozen. *Unless Ukraine is in NATO, then its secure.

Thanks. @Nabd - NB You could make a refined argument related to culture/ethnicity and DEFINITELY education, or a broader one into spatial spillover, the technical term for the spillover effects in this case on the general population. If any data shows German citizens of different cultures, it would prove your point more, because there would be fewer variables other than culture/religion etc. Especially across the social spectrum, if it includes different levels of income. The first is a link documenting islamophobia or public perception, which I agree is an issue, but isn't a reference for how many migrants commit crimes. It has a % number but doesn't source it or go into detail. The second link is something we can compare for reference. I'll do this in two ways, one my own figures of the general population, and then just migrants. Highlighting up front that these are suspects, not criminals. The General Population 1, https://www.statista.com/statistics/886209/foreigner-numbers-germany/ - Total non-German citizens living in Germany - 13,383,000 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings - Tourists visiting 28,500,000 Million Not accounting for people who came just to commit crimes illegally entering, we can assume a relatively minor number but it's an unknown variable that will skew the figures somewhat. Total: 41,883,000 Germany's population: 84,432,670 Your link shows German citizens suspected of 1,309,906 of the total crimes. Non-German Citizens suspects: 783 876 41,883,000 / 783,876 is one in 53.43 people suspected of a crime. 84,432,670 / 1,309,906 is one in 64.45 people suspected of a crime. Not much difference. As you've said in the first link, there is a perception bias toward Islamophobia, which police are not completely immune from either. As this is suspects, not criminals, that is part of the disparity. One disparity for these figures will be, petty crimes of tourists who are unaware of the law/cultural values, and as referenced people just crossing illegal to commit crime, ex: organized crime, or otherwise state-sponsored bad actors. Focusing just on Migrants. So let's take the 310,062 who are migrants. According to your linked article, more than half of those suspects are immigration violations. It lists 142,720 suspects as not immigration-related crimes. One of the factors is that many of them are young, and young people are more prone to crime, 57%, so we could take 7% off again off the end result, to get a comparative social value. You might argue this but if we want a flat average value, eliminating the age variable, and the fact native Germans cannot commit immigration violations is preferable. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Migration/Tables/migration-total.html In 2022, net Migrations to Germany was 1,462,089, but total migration was 2,665,772. These 2.6 Million would be the people you are talking about. 142,720 is 1 in 18.6 Migrants being suspected of a crime (non immigration related), we could reduce this a bit for it being a large male bias (86%), and men being slightly more likely to commit crimes, (much more likely on violent crimes.) However, a big factor will be: https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/crime-and-income-deprivation/ Quote: Overall, 52% more crimes were recorded in the most income-deprived areas in 2022 This takes us to 18.6 x 1.5 = 27.9 or 1 in 28 From what i've read. If you are following me here, using this helps eliminate socio-economic conditions from the equation. Finding data specific to Germany is nearly a nightmare without paying for research articles, (Corporatists don't like to show the ugly side of income equality). So i'll source what I can from a broader collection, if you want I can certainly grab more sources. Figure 2 - https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/07/08/how-neighborhood-inequality-leads-to-higher-crime-rates/ https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/07/the-stark-relationship-between-income-inequality-and-crime This gives the view from the victim's perspective, living in those poor regions of the world. More of a macro view. The graph trends upwards. The conclusion I have here is that yes all things being equal. There are more suspects among migrants, we are talking over twice as likely if you look at all this data in as close a direct comparison as I can make it (minus our 7% for age). That in part is reflected in the media's perceptional bias filtering through the general population, the economic downturn looking for an outlet to vent frustration, Russia sending people into Europe specifically to cause social chaos, and the social pressures of such drastic migration. I will concede that some of this has to be down to a lower level of education, and your cultural points. I just wish there was some statistic of actual CRIMES, not suspicion out there. Then I could directly compare manipulated public perception vs reality. Hopefully, that was a helpful analysis it was certainly interesting.

I can't fault people for thinking they'd rather have no risk at all to themselves, and leave it all on Ukraine. I feel the threat is less in one unified block, rather than an everlasting proxy war on the continent. With another highly predictable war to come, if another wave of refugees, missiles and threats start flying, if people are constantly losing family and friends, feeling ever more threatened, Then there is no guarantee a more militarized and fed-up Europe will react with the same restraint, especially with increasingly right-wing governments, selling inaction to their populations will be increasingly difficult. No guarantee that some chest-beating moron in Belarus's military or leadership won't push things too far one day, that some act of sabotage or espionage will go badly wrong and cause a flare-up. On the other side of that we have Putin's Ego, which is not insubstantial, but his military forces are crippled for the moment, and never likely to recover to the same level they were at, due to their USSR stockpiles being depleted, and their population issues.

I understand what you are saying, I also get that that NATO thinks if Ukraine is a buffer state we have less contact. That isn't true in anything but a technicality if Ukraine falls to Russian rule, it'll just be Belarus version 2. NATO is safe, that's exactly the point. How is anyone going to avoid another war without Ukraine in NATO? Another war with Ukraine becoming a Russian puppet, means the borders will be there anyway, just with a hell of a lot more suffering and violence. I see that Ukraine has hurt Russia enough to discourage it but a big part of me thinks we'll all do this again if Ukraine isn't in NATO. Again I keep coming back to Russia did gain land, and it's a long-standing pattern that Russia is fanatically ideological in retaking all the USSR territory, the few old KGB fossils running Russia are still going to be there in 10 or 20 years even if somehow Putin falls dead tomorrow. When it comes to threats it was threat overload, every threat that could be made was. Everything from nuking the Queen's funeral, to a full Russian mobilization, to the absurdity of retaking Alaska. The actual impact of another threat at this moment is almost nothing at all, just one more on a pile of a hundred that was made all over the world.

First I will apologize for assuming, I have to call that out, as it's often put into discussions and I go through the same old response each time to it. I also want to thank you for giving me a connection I had not made between the starvation and the second world war. Russia steamrolled them because back then Ukraine was not fully militarized and had only limited Western weapons, mostly infantry carried anti tank or anti air weapons, which did a lot better in urban areas further from Russian supply lines. There was a Russian convoy early in the war for example, in the North of Ukraine that was just completely blocked and chipped at from every direction. Ukraine has a very big border to defend, a huge countryside to move about in, there was also a general or two who betrayed Ukraine early on, I believe the betrayal was in the south, and a few officials were arrested. Plus a lot of countries were not taking the threat seriously, and many civilians in Ukraine also right up until the moment didn't believe it was coming. If you think Mariupol was easy for the Russians though you need to go rewatch the war footage there, they lost generals there, loads of manpower, and the city was utterly destroyed in a siege. The battles there were horrific, close-quarter vehicles shooting at each other street to street. Then the tide turned and Russia was forced back in Kyiv where it got utterly annihilated, special forces cut off with no good support, and police units rushed into spots where infantry should have been, which didn't last. The Sumy area was very bloody but they were forced out there, fighting was more difficult further from Russian supply in the north. At Kharkiv, the open ground meant the tables could be flipped on the Russians, and just a few brave breaches in the line sent them into retreat. In Kherson, is where the war started to reach parity, and that was a bitter fight, with Ukraine just getting the upper hand because of the river being a point they could cut the Russians off. Now the south is heavily mined, and entrenched, closer to Russian supply, and Russian air superiority makes attacking it really tough. Its not to say there are not areas Ukraine can make gains but direct attacks on the south have been extremely hard. https://www.youtube.com/@EnforcerOfficial This channel, if you can stand the obvious cavalier bias, covered the war from Day 1. I watched a lot of it. They had/have a map updated every day of the war. I don't doubt a lot of the old footage links are gone now, perhaps the maps too, but you can still learn a lot about the reality of the war. Did the people there want to be governed by Russia or Ukraine? Well none of them wanted war, only the Russian militias. Most of the men in the occupied areas have been force conscripted and are now no longer with us. Many of those that could run did run from those areas, and many of the remaining Ukrainians were taken to Russia. I don't think you'll ever get an answer to your question, not an honest one. I would guess like anywhere people just wanted to live in peace, and they didn't care much either way. You also have to consider, that Ukraine's national identity is stronger than it ever was or will be. They fully feel separate from Russia now, and have a great deal of understandable hatred. To consider things like should aggression like this be rewarded, should people just let others take whatever land they want, whenever they want? Should nuclear, energy and food threats be tolerated, sabotage, and spying overseas get no response? My answer is no, you've got to be strong defending your home and your neighbors, otherwise, people walk all over you. *Adding a lesser thing, but the southern ports and trade routes are required for Ukraine to maintain most of its industry, though they are working on rail connections now. Without them and the industrial south, or the gas supplies for example, Ukraine will be a poorer country.

Can you link Statistics or Data? Then I'll link the effect of poverty on crime. I will bet you all I own, that these two graphs will almost line up.

I think you added this so i'll address it. Ukrainians and Russians got on well, because their cultures were closer. Most Ukrainians spoke Russian because it was the former language of the USSR. I am sure there was friction, and a lot of it was caused by people wanting to stir up trouble, but the average person, everyone i've heard comment said we got on just fine. Were Russians represented in Parliment. Again the cultures were not as distinct as you make out, from everything everyone has told me. Just because Ukrainians all spoke Russian. So much so the Russians themselves i've heard say they consider this a civil war. Can you be more specific as to an actual case you know about? Then I can do some readings and educate myself. I think you using the Nazi - Liberators is extremely hyperbolic. What else could you be suggesting by name-dropping it. Than you implying Ukraine is Nazi aligned when Russia is hyper-nationalist. Do I quote now the many nationalist groups in Russia, the nazi group they have which exports far-right ideology overseas, then marches nationalists do in Russia? Or the very fact this entire war is inspired by trying to make Russia back into an imperialist great power. Azov, the former nazi's in Ukraine, were reformed before the war into a regular army unit, their leader left and got 2% of the democratic vote. I would wager this would be the same in any country. I can also guarantee war brings out nationalists, which is one reason why fascists require it.

@Karmadhi It is with the stipulation I meant south, east and north of the country.. Not west. Other than that yes. If you want the 8 wars listed for example you can find them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia Then just look for the recent ones involving former USSR countries, where Russia has either taken land, created breakaway states, or fully controls the new proxy government. if you need any examples of anything or anyone does, its fairly easy to find, or I can pull something up. This war, has hopefully if the final conclusion is the rest of Ukraine joins NATO, deadlocked the conflict forever. Because it was Russia's last real hope of pushing into Europe given their demographic problems and aging stockpile of equipment they had. If Ukraine don't join NATO or some larger regional alliance, there is a chance we do it all again. Not guaranteed because of the losses that Russia suffered, but their losses were softened enough by their BRICS allies to make another war plausible imho. Another problem of a multi-polar world is that regional conflicts are rarely settled outright.