BlueOak

Do you travel much around India? Is it the same everywhere in India? The place I am in myself is socially conservative. I do know there are many places around the UK which are not, that have different attitudes.

People can deploy WMD to Russia from anywhere on earth. I think the concern was shorter range ballistic missiles, which are obviously more abundant. I understand Russia's position, i've had a huge education on it. The fear that Russia has of NATO getting closer. What I don't see reflected in many Russian's is them seeing Eastern Europe's position. I understand they have demonized the US and we in Europe are in the process of demonizing Russia. To look past that demonization you'll see the fear driving a lot of decisions from everyone, and why Russia caused this to itself. - Just as much as why NATO caused this to itself. People want to join NATO because they fear Russia, Russia pulls back because it fears NATO. So these two fears are what causes the problem for both. When I spoke about this previously I didn't clearly state that you can have fear and also a strategic mind. Its not just one or the other. I also understand and to be frank really appreciated until very recently how direct Russians were. To me they were strength, they were honest, blunt. I value those things. To see the complete opposite a denial of reality in things like losses, like armies fighting each other being a war to achieve a dream. It reminds me of the things I hate most about western society and in myself. The creation of a reality people want to see rather than what is there. We want it to be this way so we'll say it is. I hate that so much to my core. With how autocratic Russia has become that completely depends on one man alone. You are very top heavy as a country and many of the minds that would make that democracy happen are leaving. Its going in the opposite direction and in part this is because that's what happens in wartime. I see people complaining about Ukraine cracking down on political opposition in a war, but it's what happens, people become more nationalist. Outside of war that one man's autocracy is a problem. No leader can be everything to all people and is always going to be flawed as an individual trying to run 100 million people. The Americans have the same problem by the way but at least they have a lot of voices balancing that single individual out. There are not yes men fearing for their lives as much, although people still lie to save their careers publicly. People can speak more freely to their president and he can use that feedback, so can the supporting bodies around him. Also for example at least in China personal corruption is removed the higher that leader goes, in Russia (and in the west) its often the opposite. As you can see there are many problems with Russia as with all countries. The biggest though is you've given up your biggest strength, a cold hard reality for a dream. An ideology of what used to be.

It is an important question he asks because other people are asking it now. How the identity will change after this war. Same with the EU for example. Will it be more a defensive organization than deterrent. I think that answer is obviously yes, there have been a lot of changes being made right now. How much the EU will support it as its own organization has been discussed just a couple of days ago for example, and is changing. It had become largely dormant and was actually in decline, same with the EU. Its purpose was to ensure democratic countries are not overrun by Autocratic regimes. He understands, but here doesn't mention that those in Eastern Europe joined NATO out of fear of Russia. Because Russia is a scary county that has a stupidly large military that arms dictatorships around itself, topples governments around itself and sometimes invades its neighbors. The more Putin goes towards what Stalin was the more that democratic countries will want to cooperate against Russia. Putin has made steps in that direction, but he's still a way to go. He is certainly an autocrat at this point. *But I just noticed I wrote one of the possible changes which has already occurred, - 'to cooperate against Russia' - rather than to defend against Russia. So you see how the identity is already shifting. **And by the way Eastern Europe not America, are the ones pushing for further interventionist policies for example. I think the closer to the refugee crisis we are, the more we have that opinion.

The picture is a call for help. Distancing is likely to worsen the condition. Suicide often but certainly not exclusively, comes from loneliness. So i'd personally want to do my best to get them help but also tell them they can't send pictures of that anymore, they can't do that to themselves anymore, as its horrific and they REALLY NEED HELP RIGHT NOW. I'd go and find a few specialists or counselors, get a few numbers and even make a call myself telling a professional about the picture I was just sent. Maybe even the police if it was advised. If you want to be with them through the process that's a different thing, it sounds like you are not comfortable with that, and so you've got to respect yourself too. Your boundaries, what you will and won't do. I once had a friend with Asperger's, some aspects of that friendship I loved but I had to set strict limits on how much time I would spend with them, as they tended to draw me in to their life more than I wanted. Its about finding a balance, but definitely make a couple of calls and tell someone about that photo.

Your womanhood, your strengths?

Again this is false. There was constant coverage of civilian deaths during Iraq, Afghanistan I had tuned out to politics when Syria came around.

The root cause of suffering is to be that which we are not. But so is the root cause of everything. Thanks for this.

Its an identity. How you perceive yourself. In this case to put someone ahead of others in a social context in their own mind.

Uncertainty is okay. Its normal. It doesn't have the trauma that it used to have. We are all going through shit, you are not alone in that. Forgive yourself. The last comment. Yes. That. Always that.

@Razard86 Thank you

So a behavior trait I am disliking in myself and so will now begin to create/reflect that dislike in those around me. The need to convince myself of something. I was rewarded as a young kid for this, it was seen as a beneficial thing to do. If I am talking to myself, reflecting the aspects of myself, back to myself when conversing with an imagined other. Then convincing myself that one aspect is better than an imagined other I have always felt a bad feeling from. Now that feeling forms resistance to splintering right from left, or yes from no. Doesn't mean I can't assign meaning to different aspects of reality but I want to separate out trying to piece together understanding through sharing conversation, from trying to achieve a result with a conversation. They've always felt different and at the moment that feeling of disliking it is magnified, resistance in the body itself. I feel it in the solar plexus. I see people stuck in loops, stuck with the same meaning reflected, consistently saying it. It bothers me, perhaps the consistency is bothering me and its something I need to try and address again. My feelings of apathy are still there, which makes consistency toward a particular goal that isn't survival based unappealing.

People can make life easy or hard for themselves. I guess I prefer easy.

From the perspective given. Of everything being self. Unless you want a difference there is no difference.

The stupidest thing the Taliban did was not rename themselves. Half the world wouldn't even know who they were.

Second this.

Try it, you'll be suprised how unaware most people are of what Russia does and has done around the globe. Like training, arming and support Iraq for example, Which is no small reason why Iraq was able to invade Kuwait, providing them equipment and what led to the US response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq–Russia_relations - Referenced at the bottom. In the west they don't have much of a clue either. It helps fill in the gaps as to why things are as they are. Two sides of a story that most people only want one side of. By giving them the other it normalizes the distance or polarity of the opinions people have. At first you might get well NATO is bad for X,Y,Z reasons and I say yes or maybe expand as to why they happened, and then tell them how Russia has done A,B,C. After that the conversation usually concludes. A completion of self, or two sides of something.

Pro vs Against. For vs Anti. Them vs Us. They are all parts of yourself. We can divide forever to understand ourselves but here is demonstrating the opposite.

Whenever you define what you are you imagine a separation that doesn't exist. @Nivsch

There was no inevitability of a war between NATO and Russia. This was a fear of a possible outcome. There has been no war between Russia and the west directly but there have forever been proxy wars or wars by association. Its not saying fear is unjustified to admit there is fear either. His fear is driving his actions here. Shown sometimes in his displays of anger at the inevitable result of what he is doing. A long and protracted bloody war or occupation even if it were surrendered tomorrow. He understands by acting against Ukraine NATO would reply too. He doesn't want to call armies shooting at armies a war, I understand that. Because it would mean admitting to himself he is going down the path to the conflict he feared. Sure he hasn't yet caused the world war WE ALL FEAR, which is why we need to make pains to tone down that fear, but at the same time he is on the path to causing what he fears. Again fear is not wrong, bad or something to avoid. Its just what's fueling most of the actions, by everyone here, not just Russia, but Ukraine, Eastern Europe, NATO and even India has some too in how it see's itself caught in the middle for example.

Russia scares Eastern Europe, so they join NATO for safety. By pulling back diplomatically they caused what they don't want. By becoming an autocrat the democracies fear you, there is a history there. Like most people, countries or societies cause what they don't want. Its not exclusive to Russia or Putin. They see something like an unwinnable war so they go and make sure it happens for example. NATO doesn't want China and Russia to ally so they do the things that make it happen. Europe wants to stop India becoming more easternized so their actions cause it, fear. Fear often causes what you don't want to happen, to manifest.

Russian's playing the victim here over and over. Scaring Eastern European into joining NATO while pulling back from the west at every turn. These things go both ways, its a two way dynamic. It always has been a push and pull since the cold war and long before that. These smaller countries don't exist in a vacuum. Then we turn on the TV and see why that fear is justified. The dynamic reached Ukraine, it should have joined NATO immediately but they hesitated trying to find a balancing act and in this case its costing them their lives.

Dream is the reality and is god. So there is not the separation you imagine. You still have a duality, the biggest one left.

Russia has been doing what NATO has done for centuries. Who do you think most modern wars was really against? Russian influence, Russian arms, and Russian backed countries. Russia has toppled governments, armed dictators, meddled in politics, sent mercenaries and invaded others in just the same way. Sure sometimes everyone turns on a particular country or movement. Its more usually superpower vs superpower. *Or a border dispute between neighboring countries. You can take all that and apply it to NATO. Minus dictatorships and autocrats as a preference, and the wish to completely level populations if necessary. Not much difference but it is there.

I usually see the opposite. Funny how we see what stands out to us the most. Thankfully I see a lot of Russian opinions because I begin to understand that part of myself and begin to see it in me too.

@Husseinisdoingfine Its obvious he's got the hate inside himself that he doesn't want the other to have. Life works in the opposite way. What you have you will find. I will expand more. Russia will not hit all of the weapons, that is obvious because those weapons are already in there all around the country, and continue to be delivered from many sources. There were not 10's of thousands of Anti Tank, several thousand Anti Air, Millions of clips of Ammunition and guns in one building. There were not 30-40 thousand foreign fighters, which is an estimate of the Ukrainian and Georgian Legions strength combined in that one area. This is something Putin can't accept when he asks the country to disarm, its simply practically not possible to do so. The way this strike was likely done with such accuracy is with a spotter on the ground. Sure its a message, but this is the ongoing strategy and a course that was chosen from all nations that were in opposition to the war. Reversing that now is impossible. Much like Russia can't afford to lose, NATO can't afford to lose and Ukraine definitely can't afford to lose. That's the combined problem all of them face and leads into his next point. His take on failure and leadership was excellent. People still value image over substance. His take on the air superiority yes that's partially true in the US, its more that they usually train with combined arms but not exclusively. The same is applied to Russia and not knowing how to fight without a proxy infantry to support, because they always have done. Again not exclusively but its a factor. Their own infantry are conscripts and often have bad equipment like light soft top vehicles that are not doing very well. Their logistics outside of rail are appalling, everyone has their failures. They instead prefer to fight supporting someone else's infantry in an easily supplied area. Many people have to look at their opponent as animals or insane, its the only way they can pull the trigger. What usually happens is as they go up the ranks, the ones that do, can at least see them as rational and begin to counter what they would rationally do. He's not fully in reality here because both sides have more rational generals and commanders in positions of power who have failed plenty to learn and get where they are. Politicians and News Anchors, sure those people are like paper to blow around in the wind these days. Sadly Putin surrounded himself with Yes Men, which he has since fired several of, many Autocrats that fall into one voice rather than many opinions attract yes men. A failure of leadership. Then I paused at 23 minutes where he went from condemning people for hating a country, to calling American's pigs. Its obvious he's got the hate inside himself that he doesn't want 'others' to have. Don't get angry with me while I call you a pig. What a stupid thing to say or expect from reality. As for propaganda that's necessary in war that is why all sides do it. Russia has not surrounded or cut off Ukrainian troops barely at all. Otherwise they would be out of supply. As for his take on surrender, well the problem is people will die and suffer for a hundred years if they do. Disappearing, suppressed, shot, killed, etc. In conclusion his perspective is heavily Russian biased and heavily hating on America. Which is okay, but I take it with perspective in mind.