BlueOak
Member-
Content count
3,031 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BlueOak
-
-
-
@Scholar
I could say they are god and their want to do something about suffering is a perfectly natural part of their existence/consciousness which has developed to this point. Easing suffering is something all humans do for themselves and many for each other; it's one of the primary things that drives human development. In this scenario acceptance of the result of that action is where acceptance comes in, not only a passive acceptance of the status quo.Ex: You decided to reply, that was an action for a result. Instead, you could have passively accepted the reply above; both would be acceptance if you accept the result.
@All
Consciousness develops in different forms. This needs more study, the process of it, rather than accepting it at face value. The connections between forms of consciousness always needs contemplation and is the primary way we understand anything, but the collective development aspect has relatively little time devoted to it.I am a vegan. I understand suffering is suffering.
I still kill pests in my house, and some of them suffer.
What is a pest? I defined that, or at least accepted others' definition of this. Why is it a pest? because I decided it or accepted it. This to me isn't enough, it's a poor answer, and doesn't take into account the effect pests have on others around me for example, or those I interact with. I show this to hopefully get people to think collectively.
-
I would say this is a neutral tone from a fiance site with a minor update.
https://fortune.com/2024/11/30/ruble-collapse-currency-crisis-penny-us-dollar-wealth-fund-vladimir-putin/
I am not a person that thinks the country collapses, its got too many partners propping it up, but I do repeatedly say the decline in Russia is going to be sped up because too many people want that to happen.
Another Update:
-
Info dump on this yesterday.
Turkish F4 Phantom intercepts Iranian F14. There is a ground clip of it.
Very unpredictable which force will win out.
My prediction is that Syria will not have one government but two or more areas of control. One for Turkey, One for Israel and One for Iran. Unless one government can somehow walk this tightrope between the regional powers. -
Your experience of life is the connections you have and how you relate to the world around you. Some of that is dictated to us, most of it we choose.
What do you want to experience in this life? -
2 hours ago, Scholar said:I love how you guys will create entire narratives around victimization when Russia and Putin themselves do not engage in it. They themselves won't come up with the nonsense you guys are to justify this war.
Well put, I think the victim mindset would probably offend Putin.
-
Yeah with the way things have turned out, its in Israel's and the US's interest now to boot the regime out and create a buffer state for Israel between Iran and Lebanon etc. Before it was merely useful to get involved, now its a higher priority and with Russia pulling forces out from everywhere, stretching what's its got thin, I think the regime is done.
What we might see is Iran, North Korea or indirectly China fighting there. This is where the US and Iran might fight, or their special forces at least -
On 27/11/2024 at 7:03 PM, Oeaohoo said:On the one hand: Thank God we’re finally free to express our true nature! All of our repressed desires have been liberated.
On the other hand: Human nature is evil, tribal, racist, bigoted, misogynistic, and must be overcome through a heavy program of brainwashing.
How do you square these completely contradictory ideas?
Elements of Socialism. It is the glue to regulate aspects of humanity that otherwise harm the collective, as well as provide for those who are stepped on by others.
-
17 hours ago, zazen said:@BlueOak I haven't justified their actions, just attempted to understand them and what can possibly lead to them. As a Westerner myself, I must confront what my own corner of the planet does, as that's the only possible chance at changing outcomes I have - via the ballot box rather than the bullet. At least that's what sold to us, that we're in a Democracy.. but even then, we don't get to vote on national security or challenges to corporate domination, or are lied to about being able to.
Just look at the recent government petition ballooning up to nearly 3 million signatures for a call for a general election in the UK - after only a few months of Labour being in power. The people were lied to and Starmer went against his campaign promises. Europe is economically struggling and we are expected to fight a war for elites that are despised and getting us into this mess with their warmongering rhetoric - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/700143
The hysteria about Russia’s imperialism is misguided. Historically, Russia isn’t the imperialist boogeyman it’s made out to be. They expanded centuries ago, just as every major power did when borders were drawn with swords and daggers. But using today’s moral standards to vilify actions that were universal in a time of conquest is unfair. By that logic, Britain, France, Spain, and the United States would also be guilty of imperialist sins that dwarf anything Russia has done. Yet we don't hear calls to roll back the US empire with it's 800 bases. Because such criticisms are selectively applied to fit the current narrative of Western hegemony.
Russia is aging rapidly with a shrinking population. Their demographics are so poor they’ve been handing out incentives to encourage people to have children. That doesn't sound like a country gearing up to expand its borders for empire. Empires expand when they’re young, dynamic, and have surplus manpower. That’s the historical record. From Rome to the British Empire to the Mongols, expansion has always been fueled by youthful demographics. No empire in history has gone on a conquering spree with a population.
Russia is already the largest country on Earth. Its borders stretch across 11 time zones, from the Baltic to the Pacific. What would they gain by expanding into areas they’d have to station men in (which they have less of) manage, and maintain? Empire building isn’t just about taking land - it’s about holding it. That requires boots on the ground, manpower at checkpoints, and resources to fund it all - which as you've pointed out they have less of with a collapsing economy. With their declining population and weakening economy Russia doesn’t have the bodies or the appetite for such a burden. They have neither the demographics nor the need.
They do have an abundance of resources and a lucrative trading relationship with Asia. Why risk all that for a dream of territorial conquest? Russia is far more focused on securing its existing borders and protecting its sphere of influence within its neighborhood. Influence is different from intervention and imperialism which is what the West largely engage in.
sWestern pundits moralize about Russia’s historical expansions while conveniently ignoring their own nations colonial rampages. The British Empire didn’t just expand - it plundered, enslaved, and subjugated. The United States annexed half of Mexico and toppled governments from Guatemala to Iraq. Yet somehow, only Russia’s actions are put under the microscope.
The context today is that we live in a world of nation states with largely settled borders. Expanding territory today isn’t just taboo - it’s counterproductive. Russia knows this. They’re not marching westward in some Tsarist fantasy. They’re protecting their interests in regions like Crimea and Donbass, areas tied to their security and identity. These are defensive, not imperialist, actions - driven by NATO’s provocations, not a desire for global domination.
If anything, the real question isn’t why Russia is acting as it does - it’s why the West refuses to see the obvious. A shrinking, aging country with no demographic fuel for expansion, already sitting on more resources than it can use, has no logical reason to embark on imperialist conquests. The caricature of Russia as a marauding empire is a propaganda tool, designed to justify the endless militarization of NATO and deflect attention from Western failures.
Russia has no need to expand. They’re not the ones projecting military power across the globe - they’re securing their own backyard. And while Western powers cry imperialism, they might want to take a look in the mirror. If Russia’s actions are imperialist, then what are the United State's actions?
Russia has had 8 wars to establish control over former USSR territories; if that isn't expansion, tell me what is?
I go by people's actions more than their words, of which there have also been plenty of threats from Spain to Alaska.
Russia projects military power across the globe. That's what most wars we all hate America getting into are all about—fighting Russia-influenced or backed regimes.
Why is there a need for me to tell you America is psychopathic when seen in an expanded context? Is this for a wider audience, or are you trying to genuinely convince me of this? Because you can stop there. China, America, Russia, the UK and France every world power acts as if the only way to exist in the world is to club the other guy. As i've said many times Russia has done plenty of meddling in nations, they just do it with guns, training, special forces, assassinations, intelligence data, and money, rather than big pompous nation-building exercises that people watch on TV and get annoyed about (mostly, unless Russia is hitting an underdeveloped African nation in turmoil or they just want to eradicate population centers aka gassing Syrian rebels, Bombing Chechen fighters or Drone striking Ukrainian cities).
The real question is why do countries act like they do, a better question than that is how to change it
The answer to your question i've said 5 times now at least. People need to villainize the other side to fight them. Which is what most of the energy of these threads are focused on.Their bad we are good. I could just write that in place of most of these posts, then my various attempts to get people to realise the futility of that. That's 90% of your post. These guys were bad, so that justified what we do next. This is a terrible place of reasoning to be in.
There are a multitude of reasons for this war, but one you point out is to shrink their border with NATO so they can more easily guard it, while having a shrinking population. Actually, many empires try one last push before they sputter out, Mongols, the British, the Americans, Rome, Greeks, and the Russians—it happened all through history. In the wider context, this war is the acceleration of Russia's shrinking.
It obviously has the appetite for such a burden because it's doing it right now.
If you are going to say Russia's actions are defensive, then i'll say Eastern Europe's actions are defensive and ergo their allies. Invading another country is not defensive, I don't care how you spin it. -
@zazen
So instead you've picked a date that suits your moral compass better? Therefore you can moralize the current invasion is justified.
See Afghanistan, Iraq - September the 11th etc etc.
You are doing exactly what you claim I and others do, when I repeatedly in my replies say this is pointless.
If we were to take your logic back to its source it would end up pointing you at human behavior when organized into the collective called country, especially among certain expansionist cultures/communities. -
3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:Those are Russian nukes stationed in Belarussian soil just like Russian nukes were also stationed in Ukrainian soil.
Ukraine nor Belarus never had nukes on their own. The nukes stationed in Ukraine before 1994 had their command-and-control center in Moscow, not kyiv. These are basic facts.
That was a democratically elected government which the west overthrew. If the people of Ukraine elect someone, the world has to acknowledge that first. Else it will lead to civil war.
Truth takes the form of a Russian bot.
Russia is not the USSR. Just like Ukraine is not the USSR, despite how badly old men want to recreate that scenario. The world is different to what is was in that era. Hence the nukes did not belong to Russia, and why they had to be negotiated for.
Democracy in a Russian proxy government? Come on Bobby.
-
Oh and BTW all Russian Ruble Trading has ceased till 2025 as it entered a period of hyperinflation, so they can only barter now.
https://www.youtube.com/live/sY-PX9pVK_Y?si=xj8CeZf9RpRchtL1&t=1171
Everything is fine? All great over there I am sure.
-
12 hours ago, Hatfort said:You are such a propagandist, I just fact-checked some of your claims, the Ruble is not collapsing, it's quite higher than in 2021. It totally recovered from the high loss it had in the first weeks of the war when the sanctions started, and it's still doing fine. The Russian economy is fine, they changed their trade partners to Asia, and they got rid of the money escape they had been suffering from many of their oligarcs as a bonus. They sell their gas well, instead of to Europe, to other countries. It's Europe the one more affected by energy prices thanks to the US's kind actions toward the Nord Stream.
Bobby is right, Ukraine didn't have nukes, the USSR had them, they happened to be on that part of the Soviet Union. Once the USSR separated into different countries, obviously the location of such weapons had to be rethought, and it was. It was also agreed that NATO wouldn't grow to the East, which has been broken over and over, when Russia was too weak to respond. This time Russia wasn't that weak, so they said no, also because they have a bigger cultural connection to Ukraine. They tried the diplomatic ways of Minsk, but NATO was building a defacto army in front of their noses, like saying: so what are you gonna do to prevent this? Attack? Well, we got the answer, Putin wasn't bluffing. He doesn't want to escalate a war that is winning on the battlefield, but if it gets to higher levels, won't just sit and look. This is Biden's biggest loss, and now that he's done, he is dropping his last presents, but the danger of this game shouldn't be assumable. Stupid old man, he's risking a nuclear war.
North Koreans have not fought in Ukraine yet. If any country wants to send its troops to either side of the conflict, they've better be ready to face the consequences. NATO is playing in the grey areas, the long-range weapons indeed need NATO help to target Russian objectives, and that's why Russia considers that a direct NATO incursion. However, they are still winning on the battlefield, as said, week by week they take more land. Their losses are big, it's a war, but they have more than enough manpower to continue the war against a much smaller country. Ukraine is the one that has problems with that, losing many more men than Russians at this point, that's why they have no chance. Ukranian civilian men know that, they don't want to die, and they prefer to concede the Eastern territories if asked. Zelensky and Western warmongers have made the decision for them though, Zelensky whose legal term ended months ago.
The ruble has been continually collapsing for years now.
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/interest-rate
It is propped up by soaring interest rates. Check your own facts before insulting my credibility next time. The fact you think someone can double its military budget and not take an economic hit is mind-boggling, where do they get this money out of thin air? Its set for 6.3% in 2025. What they did do is effectively delay the inevitable with their cash reserves and former Soviet military stockpiles.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-braces-more-tax-rises-fund-ukraine-war-2024-10-31/
The Russian economy is not doing fine at all. 20+% interest rates is not 'fine' in a country which already has relatively low wages and a declining population. Next you'll be telling me Europe is somehow in its golden years by that standard and the hardships everyone around the globe faces don't exist. Even without the war spending and Putin burning their reserves, most economies are barely in recovery or still in an economic winter.
Again the location of the nukes is what led to the treaty. They were in Ukraine hence Ukraine was guaranteed by Russia, the UK and the USA. When the USSR dissolved, they were no longer in the USSR because it didn't exist.
The fact you paint Russia as a victim when its on its 9th war into former USSR territory and continually pushes its sphere of influence outward, like everyone does, meddling in everyone around it labels you as the biggest propagandist in this thread. Here'll i'll mirror this.
Poor old NATO a defensive treaty, just couldn't help but accept the weak and defenseless countries Russia was threatening, and Putin just kept pushing his luck. He kept trying to interfere in their country's political processes; he kept invading his neighbors over and over again. NATO is a victim, because it just had to secure its borders further outward in this zero-sum game you describe. So therefor I can label Russia the bad guy forever. Russia is the second biggest arms dealer on the planet, it propped up some of the worst men on planet earth in positions of power (from my moral valueset), and now it seeks to undermine the world order with rampant imperialism. Now it has threatened food, energy and nuclear war repeatedly, and its leader is a fascist tyrant.
We can do this cyclic moralising all day to no avail whatsoever. Its just justification for our own feelings.
Russia invaded; like all invasions into Europe it will be fought back against and that is what is happening. NATO expanded, BRICS rose up and Expanded. You might not like the reality but that's it. Until You and I, and everyone in this thread stop looking for victims to make ourselves feel better, it'll continue.
North Koreans are involved right now. However, you want to propagandise (to use your reasoning) their presence. Any country has the justification to do the same. It was an idiotic strategic blunder.
The fact is Ukraine is holding Russia in the east, and its taken some Russian land. This will always be a fight, even if it was an occupation. People don't take over land without force and violence, it's not a Disney movie. Russia better be prepared to face the consequences also, it isn't, nobody is. It isn't a massively smaller country in terms of population; its merely a smaller one with more motivation to fight than Russians have to invade. Better training and equipment make up the difference in the population sizes.
You might want that reality above to be different but it isn't, that's why the war Russians keep telling me will be over in 3 days, in 3 months, in 3 years, isn't over. I told everyone it'd be a decade of violence, and I stand by it, 10-20 years of unrest on the occupied territories. The death ratios compared to the population sizes are comparable. -
I'm not doing much to better mankind or the collective when I am facing poverty or survival challenges, as much of the world is.
There is a certain coming together I see around me, but it's only from those perspectives; nothing grander. -
On 24/11/2024 at 11:38 AM, Bobby_2021 said:Ukraine did NOT have nukes.
Ukraine never had nukes.
It's the nukes of the USSR stationed in Ukrainian soil that is moved back to Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
If you are talking about the Budapest memorandum in 1994, perhaps the pertinent issue is that Ukraine promised a non aligned stance, which was violated by the west by allowing Ukraine into NATO.
Ukraine is supposed to be a non aligned state for a reason. This is exactly what Putin says too.
You have managed to condense so much misinformation in one post.
There plenty of chances for a ceasefire that were sabotaged by the west and told Ukraine to fight on because Russian are fighting with shovels and crumbling from corruption. Well, that didn't happen.
West has openly commited to the "strategic defeat of Russia". How can Russia engage in good faith conversations with a party that want to see itself defeated? So not going to happen.
There is nothing NATO can do to push Russia back to it's pre 2022 borders. They aren't afraid of escalation and nukes. NATO literally directly attacked Russian motherland this week.
The only way forward is Ukrainian surrender. This would be bad PR for NATO.
There is absolutely ZERO risk of Putin attacking any Baltic state.
The west loves to prop up boogeyman figures to justify attacks and invasion.
Remember when Iraq has weapons of mass destruction booho. Sadam hussain boooho.
The west has given everything it can give. There is nothing more to do. Trump would be the final nail in the coffin. Even with endless support Ukraine couldn't do anything. They have a manpower problem. No amount of western support can solve this.
Ukraine was never going to defeat Russia. This was obvious from the get go. Saying this was akin to Russian disinformation. Amd that Russia would crumble in weeks. Obviously the Trust has come to bite you.
Ukraine had nukes, Ditto Belarus now having them. That was the purpose of the treaty to get them back. You can word it any way you like Bobby. The nukes were in Ukraine and the USA, Russia and the UK guaranteed Ukraine to get them out.
A Russia proxy government in Ukraine is not a non-aligned state. Nor is Putin pushing his influence further and futher outward to establish a Russian Empire.
The Russian ruble continues to collapse. They've wrecked their established trading relationships. They've killed off population they don't have to spare. China owns more and more of their industries. Many of their best have left the country for somewhere safe, and their actions to destroy the arts and liberal part of their population will lead to stagnation long term, as it always does, in their development. They've hastened their descent out of being a major power or even significant regional power.
The only way forward is Ukraine in NATO, or Ukraine with Nukes, or Ukraine in an Eastern Europe or EU Military Alliance. Ukranian surrender is a fantasy.
Everyone loves to prop up a boogeyman to justify attacks and invasions. You do it in every post you make.
Endless support. Not really no. The western economies have barely altered production, whereas Russia is almost in a total war scenario (they are not yet but a large % of their GDP is in support of the war). That's a bit like saying China or Iran is giving endless support, they are not. This is again your and Russian hyperbole.
Actually, if North Korea stupidly keep sending foreign fighters, lots of countries can solve the manpower issue. The door is open now.
Ukraine have done very well against Russia. But as you repeatedly fail to understand, and I have repeatedly told you, its about holding Russia in the east, nothing more.
-
@zazen
The first six minutes is a morality argument:
How many people do Russia have to kill before they get a video of a man in a chair saying how bad their foreign policy is?
How many arms do they have to sell, they are 2nd to America currently; do they need to be at the top?
How many dictators do they need to finance, arm, train, and deploy in support of? Because they'd need a second chair right now.
Is this really still they are bad, we are good reasoning? Is there a scorecard being kept for people's grudges? Because these people one side of the world have done harm, then we can just condone whatever anyone does around the globe because it makes us feel better in our own convictions.
I am supposed to now tell you how bad Putin is, list several reasons, and use that to condone someone dropping bombs on Moscow or Beijing. What is the point of any of this? Do I need again to tell you how psychopathic the pursuit of profit is when set against even a single human life and American oil or the black blood of the earth? Or the pursuit of land and empire for that matter when Russia does it?
None of this is okay. I wish people would stop lying to themselves it was. I could then look them in the eye and have a wider discussion. Instead, I need to argue morality with you, which will bring nobody closer to a solution, but it can remove the fog surrounding finding one.
Or we can go on pretending one group of apes armed with machine guns acts better than the other I suppose. Trying to pretend most of the globe isn't clawing for everything it can get its hands on. -
2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:This is factually false.
Ukraine doesn't have the technical knowledge, training or authorization to use western advanced missile that are integrated with western GPS, satellites, guidance system etc.
It's NATO that is directly firing missiles into Russia. Which means NATO weapons operated NATO personnel is firing the Missiles. It's NOT Ukraine.
This fact is never addressed by the western media.
NATO can't attack Russia without consequences.
NATO can do everything to defend Ukraine. This is why Russia is okay with ATACMS missiles being fired into disputed Ukrainian territory under Russian control.
Ukraine has been trained for years now. They've been fighting a war for years. Their army is one of the best in Europe.
Its not addressed in western media because it is a figment of Russian imagination, used as a way to encourage their people to throw themselves into a slaughter so an old man can feel like an emperor.
2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:What was guaranteed exactly? The only thing guaranteed now is Ukrainian defeat.
European armies couldn't take these many casualties. So deploying armies is a joke.
What took a 1000 days for the west to manifest their guarantees anyway?
There is nothing that anyone can do to change the direction of the war. Trump will seal the deal for good. Weakening NATO would be the cherry on top.
Now if Russia retaliates against NATO, don't claim that it's Russia that provoked the war. NATO attacked Russia for no reason really.
Ukraine was guaranteed to be protected by the US and the UK in return for giving up its nukes.
You really like to twist things its amazing. Putin invades, Putin continues to threaten and push everyone, terrorises countries in multiple wars, kills civilians on mass, and threatens energy, fuel, leadership, the people of our countries, then supposedly if they attack our countries, we are to blame in Europe. Incredible logic, how people will jump through hoops to avoid responsibility for their own positions.
Sorry it's not happening. If he really wants a war with us he'll get one. We are not backing down from a fascist tyrant on either side of the atlantic. Hint, he doesn't. He has no hope in a conventional war, he has two options to keep throwing his people away or not.
2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:Again, the peace deal in Turkey in April of 2022 was legit until Boris Johnson told Ukraine to fight on.
The deal sabotaged 3 days after Johnson's visit.
Ukraine and Russia were in the right terms here. But Russia didn't reject the deal.
And so what? US also shares military resources with BRICS.
Drones made in Ukraine comes from chips and components made in China. So BRICS share military resources with Ukraine too.
Germany military and auto industry works on cheap Russian gas.
It's Germany that funded most of Russian aggression by buying their gas.
BRICS buy far less Russian gas than EU even after the special military operation.
You are trying to paint a passive trading entity as some violet offensive organization like NATO which is so comically wrong because NATO backed by US has an actual violent history of offensive operations, coups etc.
Yeah i'm sure.
I'm sure old Boris went in there and was supposedly told Ukraine, the US, France and the entirety of NATO and all the negotiators how things were going to go. Doesn't that run counter to your narrative that everything west of Ukraine = the USA? Or is that an inconvenient detail in the narrative?
China sends materials to the war effort. Iran sends missiles and munitions. North Korea are now sending personnel.
BRICS as a whole do their best to keep the Russian war economy going.
Nobody in NATO is trying to keep the Russian war economy going by choice. By necessity at times, but anything economic they do, BRICS counters. So there is only war, they've largely given up on the economic angle. That's what two powerblocks leads to, they can't settle things by economic means as we have done in the past, so when leaders decide to fight they fight just with force and a larger amount of casualties is required to decide the outcome.
You trying to paint every country west of Ukraine as the US is comical to me also. When most of have them have neither the temperament or capability to fight offensive wars on the other side of the world against regional powers. Your hatred for the US weakens every post you make as a result. If you could for once remove the bias to say NATO is more than the US and Ukraine itself is fighting for Ukraine, you'd have stronger more balanced perspectives all around.
I can see that in Russia, I can see in Eastern Europe, I can see it in US interests, Chinese Interests, BRICS interest and in Ukraine itself. For some reason, though you have divided the world up into Good and Bad, and you've decided you are on the good side so it's all okay, and one sort of violence is somehow more correct than the other. Rather than being able to see through the perspectives of others, you shut them down.
Russia believes it needs to fight this war, so it is doing. Right now I believe we need to fight back to stop them. -
40 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:Statement from the president of Russia
Notice that Putin acknowledges that ATACMS and storm shadow missiles on Russian territory constitute a NATO attack on Russia. This is the most important part. NATO directly attacked Russia. Let that sink in.
Putting this here because western media has a habit of twisting Putin's statement. So we need direct translation from the official site.
Putin knows Ukraine was guaranteed by the US and the UK. He invaded anyway. He's lucky their armies aren't already there.
And by the way, the war had almost reached parity held in the east, until Russia started attacking Kherson again, so the Russian border area was invaded, and now that isn't happening anymore.
As I have said many many times, right from the start. NATO will do all it can to hold the war in Ukraine, preferably in the east, it will do everything it can to create the conditions for this to occur, including letting Ukraine shoot missiles into forces hopping back and forth over the northern Ukrainian border.
I am over-dramatizing when I say WW3 is assured; it isn't if the fight stays in the east. -
53 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:Give me the source where the United states of america declares that Ukraine will not join NATO.
US has repeatedly doubled down on Ukraine joining NATO and Ukraine is already a defacto NATO member.
I know that clickbait article you are talking about. But that's not important. A neutral state cannot be in a western military alliance bordering Russia.
It reflects poorly on you to be honest. BRICS isn't a military alliance unlike NATO.
BRICS expansion is a means of fostering trade and business. NATO is in the business of Violence, Coups which they already have done.
It was a CIA orchestrated coup.
US missiles manned by US personnel is being fired from Ukrainian soil into Russia.
So it wasn't a misspelling.
1, Ukraine offered neutrality very early on. Here are 3 links again:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60901024
https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d375-4817-be67-802b7fa77ef1
2, The US, as a country (remember Trump, the Republicans, and the supposed anti-war 'far left' is also part of the US), seems the most reluctant for Ukraine to join NATO and somewhat reluctant to give aid. Its Eastern Europe, the Baltics, the UK and a few others in Europe that are driving aid to Ukraine. Mostly because Eastern Europe perceives itself to be the most under threat by the current pattern of Russian expansion, and the UK, France etc, don't tolerate expansionist powers in Europe without resistance.
3, BRICS is acting as a military alliance. Iran, Russia, and China share military resources, while economically the Russian war effort is supported by BRICS members. NATO is a defensive military alliance. If it reflects poorly on me mirroring you, you should reflect on that. Because until I started copying you it was driving me nuts in our conversations. Now i've just accepted that's the dialogue rather than argue it: NATO vs BRICS. (It isn't, its Russia vs Ukraine with support for each from other interested parties)
4, No evidence of that at all. Possible but I'd like to see your source. I watched the events; students were abducted, people protested, people were shot etc. If it was a coup, the dumb Russian government running Ukraine at the time did everything it could to play its own part. Consider why the conditions for a coup existed in the first place, and why for example Russia can't just flip Mexico, Canada, or wherever they like. They existed because Ukraine isn't Russia, and it resisted Russification from the new fascist regime which was causing internal tensions. Other countries can't create these tensions out of thin air.
5, No they are not. No American is firing missiles at Russia, yet. The conspiracies Russia puts out is part of what may make this WW3. They will create the reality they so desperately want to be true. That somehow they are fighting the entire collective west with a fraction of their military strength. This is a Russian fantasy to send young men to their death. -
2 hours ago, PurpleTree said:Ukraine needs their own nukes i think. They can’t trust the US to defend them.
Then Ukraine and Russia can be fun nukey neighbours like India and Pakistan.
Yes. That is one way that doesn't involve them joining NATO.
-
2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:Obviously. Talks were going on throughout 2021 and US refused neutrality to Ukraine.
No neutrality was ever offered.
Exactly like how NATO agreed to not expand eastwards and didn't keep it. West destroyed it's image as a reasonable party in negotiations and that's why Russia will not negotiate anymore.
There were many good deals and all of them were rejected.
Now the only thing that will end the war is complete surrender of Ukraine. Soon this will happen with Trump.
There hasn't been a single year in which US has not been actively involved in wars and somehow BRICS is the violent one here lol.
1 and 2) I repeatedly link to you where neutrality was offered. I won't again unless you need it. Either you don't read the sources or forget. Putin chose violence and terror.
3) Again same old conversation. Authoritarian states invade neighbors, spread fear, interfere in surrounding states, people join NATO. They seek NATO out. People associate America with violence, so they blame all their allies, most of which have about 0.001% of the capacity or will to do what America does.
4) By Russia and its proxies used to cause civil war and chaos, because its proxy government in Ukraine was overthrown, due to them shooting people in the streets and trying to suppress the growing democratic sentiment there.
5) That will not end the war. States expanding in Europe are never allowed to just sit on the territory they take. BRICS have an idea that people will just sit back and take it, we are not too far from WW3 as a result. China, Russia and Iran are all the same, your view of the situation is the same. I think WW3 is unavoidable at this point.
6) Ukraine is not spelled USA.
BRICS is incredibly violent, China and Russia are constantly expanding and threatening neighbors.
(BTW I am doing what you do intentionally, and saying BRICS, when its actually China and Russia)
-
7 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:So far it seems kind of like it’s working though. Russians lose a lot of people but probably moreso from the poorer regions and Russians and Putin don’t really care.
If I can be very blunt, and qualify this with its a very disturbing sick way of thinking but some people do:
Population demographics are not on their side. In their mindset, they would need population to replace that population. I understand certain people consider certain races of humans lesser, and the overall goal of some in Russia is to Russify as much of the world as possible. That's why it values white Ukrainans more than some of the colored minorities in Russia, and certainly values those in the western areas of Russia itself. But they are losing a lot of people they don't have to achieve it. I know Putin wants to go out in a blaze of glory at this point, and fix some of the population demographic issues by shortening his European border, meaning he needs less of an army to guard it, but he's leaving a greater population problem for future generations.
I actually think Russia will need many more Asians in it to carry on in the future, but then again some in central and eastern Asian countries are happy to move there, so perhaps the inherent problem of racism in Russia's policymaking will eventually correct itself by birthrate and immigration/emigration. -
I usually accelerate healing with meditation yes.
Direct your body awareness there and the body responds. It's naturally relaxing, and you can put yourself in a sleep-like state, which is where healing happens the most. *Also with meditation, you can just let the larger mind run the show directly, as you do when you sleep and become/surrender directly sink into it.
As people indicate each disease is telling you something. Its not a direct 1 to 1 as the logical mind would like often, though it can be. Usually life is a sphere of different things going on which all influence each other. -
21 hours ago, Raze said:What destabilizes Europe is the US trying to bring Ukraine into NATO. They knew Russia wouldn’t tolerate a border state joining a hostile military alliance.
That's the only way to ensure there will be no more war. Russia cannot take NATO, or even a small part of it on.
If Russia take eastern Ukraine without sufficient damage, they will continue their pattern of invading former soviet states and invade for a 3rd time, the 9th war in total in its expansion.
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted · Edited by BlueOak
@Hatfort
You can't trade the ruble anymore till 2025 due to hyperinflation; all trading has been ceased. Interests rates are above 20%. You will see no changes because nothing can change. This was an emergency measure to stop it crashing.
Honestly I think you have blinders on if you think this is a healthy economy, there are not many on planet Earth right now least of all this one with the work force being killed off and a large percentage of GDP going into dead production like missiles.
Beyond that Hatfort I'm fed up with the personal insults, so on this topic I am done communicating with you.
I don't know how much you understand about economics. A 30% drop can quite easily kill an economy or send it to ruin. It does, however, make the fuel more attractive, but seeings as Russia imports most everything beyond the basics, the quality of life past the basics will become increasingly hard to afford.
I am no expert but the squeeze here seems to be on Gazprom, as that was what was keeping this import/export balance with a weak currency in the black. With it Russia could always seem to tip the scales, now it's more sanctioned the balance has gone the other way.