Scholar

The logic of this is like, an abused girlfriend cheats on her abusers with another guy, and once the girlfriend breaks up with the abuser, he uses that as a justification to rape her. And everyone nods "Yes, clearly this is the abusers girlfriend, he has all the right to rape her, it is none of the guys business to protect his new girlfriend from her ex! In fact, he is the one who provoked the rape by making the girl cheat on the abuser! His evil non-abusing influence brainwashed the girlfriend into wanting to break up with her abuser, horrific!"

This is a profoundly naive and silly view. The entire world should be interested in upholding the standards of national soveignty. The only reason why nations don't go into wars over territory in this day and age is because we as a world community have decided it is unacceptable. If you no longer enforce this norm, it will cease to be a norm. By your logic, Hitler should have simply been allowed to invade whoever he wants, it wasn't the buisness of the US to get involved. What a silly and myopic view of politics. The fact that Ukraine aligns with western values, and that this is in the interest of the US and NATO in general, they should help Ukraine against this Russian invasion. The genocide alone is a valid Casus Belli against Russia.

CIA didn't orchestrate shit. Stop dismiss the will of the proletariat you capitalist enabler! I don't think this makes sense. The reason why nations join Nato is not because they are forced to, but because the benefit from it. Past soviet slave-states wanted to join NATO because they knew Russia could at any point have the desire to enslave them once again. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If Russia wanted to maintain it's sphere of influence, it should have offered the eastern block a better alternative to the US, rather than using KGB to inflitrate their political systems so they can use dismiss the will of the people in favor of corrupt oligrarch business. The people have chosen, they want democracy, they want prosperity. They don't want corrupt russian politics in their country. Everything else is utterly irrelevant.

No it's not at all as simply as that, this is an absurdly bias and simplistic viewpoint. You are not a systemic thinker whatsoever, you just like to be controversial by playing one-sided moral relativism.

It makes no sense to cooperate with a nation that invades other countries. The whole reason why nations wanted to join NATO is because they wanted self-determination. Putin, as his first act in office, invaded another country and genocided it's people until they submitted to his rule. That's what happens to nations that want to be independent of the corrupt influence of the russian imperialist dictatorship. It's gaslighting. Russia keeps invading soveirgn nations, the nations react in fear and seek western assistance, which is then used as a reason to further invade these countries. Nobody has ever invaded or attacked Russia. It doesn't make any sense because nobody cares to rule over moscovite barbarians. They can have their empty, worthless land all to themselves.

I agree, that is why we must support Ukraine and destroy the Russian empire, with guns.

Given that Kiev is the founder of "Russian" culture and society, maybe Ukraine should invade Russia to get it's vassal in order? Why exactly is it that Ukraine belongs to Russia, and not the other way around?

Everyone understands this perspective. The point is, it is imperialist. And of course western nations, and the whole world, ought to fight for the sovereignty of nations. This relativism you engage in is irrelevant to the discussion.

I actually can't believe you are making these arguments. You can't think of any reason why these things are fundamentally different? Both in essence and historically speaking? No, the problem was that he invaded sovereign nations. You are actually propagandized, lol. Ah, because Ukraine is slavic land, all Slavic nations have a claim to it? You realize Moscow once belonged to Poland? Ukraine also once belonged to Poland. Maybe Poland should invade Russia and Ukraine to get it's historical lands back, given it is the same slavic culture. This is just excuse making for actual imperialism, I can't believe you are making these arguments. Russia itself gave Ukraine and every other sovient nation the choice to either remain in their union or leave it. They decided to leave, and Russia ACCEPTED this.

Russia has not only invaded Ukraine. And no, the Ukrainian people have a distinct identity from the Russians, they have sought independence for centuries. Why do you think the Russians engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansings, starving them, deporting them and so forth to replace them with native russians? Even all the ethnic groups in Russia are not "deeply interwined" with Russia, they largely still view Russia as an imperialist force. The moscovites to them are imperialists. And by the way, this is how Hitler argued too. He viewed Austria and Switzerland as indistinct from Germany. That is precisely what an imperialist mindset is. You justify your imperial ambitions with various historical or ethnic claims.

It doesn't matter what they are doing. If germany invaded polish territory because in the past it was part of it's empire, then that is imperialism. And we aren't talking about just Ukraine, history didn't start in 2014. Are you unaware of all the invasions Russia engaged in since Putin became dictator? Why do you think Putin views the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest tragedy in history? You don't think that has anything to do with why he wants to bring past Russian-Empire nations back into Russian influence?

What do you think imperialism means? If you invade countries to change their regimes and literally conquer their lands, that's imperialism. But more profoundly, Russia fundamentally is imperialistic in it's structure. Do you really know so little about how Russian politics works, and has worked for centuries? Let me ask you this: If Germany was going to invade poland, france and half of europe again to reestablish the Third Reich, would that be a form of imperialism in your eyes?

That is not a contradiction. Russia still engages in genocides today, it uses tribal people as cannon fodder in their wars. These stories do not reach a lot of people, but I spoke to multiple tribal group members from Russia. They view Russia as an imperialist force which is subjugating them, genociding them, destroying their culture. Russia is so large that because of the great distances, the only way you can maintain the empire (you have to look at how many ethnic groups exist in Russia, and inherently, many of them don't feel Russian at all) is through an iron hand. Just look at what Putin did in Chechnya only weeks after he stepped into office. This kind of offensive, imperialist war has not been wages by western nations for a significant amount of time. What happened in Georgia, and several other nations that Russia felt it had a right to pull back into it's sphere of influence through force? You seem to be unaware of the stark difference between a far less developed Russian imperialist culture and the current US culture, which is a more modern form of imperialism. I thought you are a realist? Under the realist perspective, nations will inherently act based on their interest. You can't apply this to Russia, to excuse away it's crimes, but then talk about the US as if it was excluded from this framework. Of course the US has needs to intervene in world politics, you just seem to not care about those needs because you seem to want to view all of this from a moralistic lense, which is not very explanatory of how the US acts. While you can critique US policy, in the end what you are engaging in to me is a whataboutism, which has little relevancy to the analysis of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. By focusing and framing it as a US-Russia conflict, you neglect the reality of the Ukrainain will. This is what geopolitics looks like. If you don't engage in such things, someone else will. This is the selective application of realism that I was speaking of. Fiat currencies are far superior to gold-standard currencies. And what you speak of I consider conspiracy theories which are not at all substantiated, but common america-bad talking points. With all due respect, but we will not arrive at any common ground because I view you as propagandized by alternative media sources. In the end, I don't have the time to go through a lengthy historical analysis to show why this viewpoint is simplistic and wrong.

One of the problems with this is, how would you, as an observer, know whether or not the drones are just, regular drones that are being used by people? Obviously ever since this became a public phenomena, everyone would be recording any drone they saw and claim it was "unexplained". But maybe most of these drones are actually licensed drones that are being used by drone enthusiasts or whatever, and it's been like this the whole time but nobody paid attention to it. Some people claim it's the russians trying to intimidate the US population after they authorized long range missle strikes in Ukraine, showing them how helpless they would be against drone warfare or terrorism, if Russia decided to engage in it.

We are actually entering a dystopia. And we don't even notice it because we are like a frog getting slowly boiled to death.

It does seem like mass hysteria to me, click bait gone wrong. But an interesting thought is that, if UAPs would want to remain undetected, this is probably the era they will be able to do it most easily. They can just disguise themselves as drones such that we no longer would be able to detect them as UAPs.

You're not engaging with what I am saying in any shape or form.

You are profoundly missing the point, because you're not a realist. You're a moralist. Realism has nothing to do with morality, with what is a dictatorship or not. When speaking of a natural hegemony, it doesn't mean the hegemon will rule in peace and be morally upstanding in all it's interactions. It means that in practice, times will be more peaceful and it will not necessitate nearly as much coercion to maintain it's position, because it already is naturally in this position. If you are born with pathetic weak genes that make your arms look like sticks, the only way you could maintain your position on top of the hierarchy, in a system in which physical prowess rules, is by basically preventing anyone and everything from growing stronger than you. You would murder all the babies, even your own, in fear of them growing stronger than you because most likely they will, given how pathetically weak you are. That is the only way you could possibly maintain power, through absolute brutality and barbarism. Now, if the strongest rules, he does not have to have the same fears. He still has to be wary of competition, but the amount of coercion and barbarism he requires to maintain power will not be nearly as high. Russia is the pathetic little boy who is in absolutely no position to rule at all, and the only way they could have any meaningful impact in this world is by creating an empire and subjugation the even weaker people around them to enslave them, as they have done for centuries. This is core to Russian siginficance. China and the US don't need to do this in the same way. They don't need to invade half the continent they exist on just to be relevant on the world stage. Now of course, China is extremely coercive, but not on the level Russia needs to be if it truly wanted to restore it's hegemon position. So ironically people like you are the most irrational of all. You don't understand realism, you don't engage in it, you mask your perverted, twisted moral position into a position of false realism so you can pretend like your proclamations are rational and objectively justified. But that is laughable. The US, such as any nation state, is engaging in immoral and coercive behavior. But it pales in comparison to the things the Russian is perfectly willing to do, has done and will do in the future. Just look at what Russia did in Afghanistan, they completely eradicated entire cities for no other reason than mild resistance against the communist ideals, intentionally wiping out civilians on a mass scale to teach them a lesson. You have no comprehension of the barbarism Russia engages in and is capable of. Your america-bad nonsense will not fly with me, you're the 21st century version of a communist to me.

I remember there were world records like this done 10 years ago, where a woman would have like sex with hundreds of men in a day or whatever. It was not that big of a deal. I just don't understand who cares about this. Let her do what she wants, the more offended you'll get, the more impact this will have anyways.

Like what?

What happened to the conversation that you wanted to have with him? I'm assuming it was cancelled.

To the people who are in support of this, I want to stress how absurdly infantile these power fantasies you guys engage in are. You have no conception of what violence even means and what it entails. You have no clue how privileged you are, that you can have such a profoundly naive opinion and not suffer the consequences.

This is a delusionally childish view. If you can bring down the government with bombs and guns, what that means is that any bad actor will be able to take you down with bombs and guns. If you are going to rule by violence, violence will be the instrument of power. And it is never those who are most developed who will rule in such a system. In such a system, you will get dictators like Stalin. You will be destroying the system, and because of human nature, and people precisely like you, you will allow the most violent and deceptful, powerhungry individuals to become the leaders. And once they have power, they will get rid of you and your fancy ideals, in favor of remaining in power. And not only will they do that out of selfish aspirations, they in fact will be forced to do so. If you come to your power through violence, the result will be that you will always understand that your own power could be taken away from you through the same means. Even the feudal system was more developed and rational than what you advocate for. At that point you will have no other choice but rule through tyranny and fear, and an iron hand. Your own survival will depend on it. You wouldn't even have legitimacy, which you need if you want to rule without the threat of being overthrown. We live in democratic systems that precisely do not require you to do any of this. But people like you, who I cannot tell you how much I despise, will literally give the fascists the key to ruling the world. Let's say you overthrow the US government or attempt to coerce it through violence. Once that is acceptable, what do you think will happen? You think your fellow socialist, pencil-neck twinks will win the civil war? No, what's going to happen is that those willing of the greatest brutality and violence will eradicate people like you, to establish a Christan conservative hellhole. You'll be happy if you'll get to live as a socialist twink slave in such a society, serving your Christian masterrace overlords. The only reason why you even exist and spout the absolute cancerous anti-capitalism and america-bad nonsense you do is because your twink ass is protected through the state from the people who would absolutely dominate you if violence was acceptable.

The worst is that these people are all hypocritical neanderthals who should immediately self-terminate given the type of atrocities they commit daily and fully support, like paying for individuals to be literally tortured, raped and killed perpetually on the basis of having a sufficiently different genetic code. If I only adopted a fraction of their justifications for violence, I'd have to become a terrorist and kill every one of these socialist subhumans.

The problem is, who is going to be accountable for the mistakes a Telsa car makes? Who goes to prison for it? If a Telsa car causes 2 families to die in a car crash because the AI made some miscalculation, who is culpable? The programmers? What if a new update causes a hundred people to die, because there was some sort of mistake?