Scholar

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?

Don't overestimate yourself. If you had been born in those times, you would have supported him or just considered anti-semitism as normal, just like you consider today's atrocities as normal. I don't see you ripping anyones throat out, despite there being far greater atrocities committed today.

Even if this was true, the solution to this it the destruction of Russia, of course. Given that it is the aggressive invading force. If there truly is an existential, necessitated conflict here, there is only one moral way of resolving it. And in practice, this is how you sadly have to deal with the Russians. They do not understanding anything but power and violence. And so, that's exactly what you need to give them. But of course this is not the reality. Russia doesn't actually have to fear anything from Nato, because if Russia simply did it's thing, nobody would care about that backwater country, because they are geopolitically utterly irrelevant. The only reason why Russia ever had any historical and geopolitical relevance was because of it's imperialistic ambitions. That is the only way for it to sustain it's position of power. Thankfully modernity has transcended such motivations as justifications for blantant violations of state-integrity. Not even the US, in it's imperial functions, deems it justified to annex territory. But all of this is nonsensical. The russians themselves don't think the west is a threat, Putin thinks the west is literally falling, that democracy is inherently doomed to fail. They were wrong, because there are not enough people like you around, not yet, to allow these regimes to conduct themselves in the way they please. What is happening here has nothing to do with the actual security of Russia. There are plenty of nations that have been plenty of antagonistic in the past that are able to live in perfectly vulnerable, peaceful ways with the rest of the world. Putin has inherently imperialistic aspirations that are ideologically motivated, the second reason is regime security. Either way, a senseless, unwinnable war is not the solution for Russia. Any rational state actor would realize this. They lost Syria, they might lose Africa, and much more if this conflict continues. If you want to look at this from a position of realism, as you pretend to do, then you have to recognize that for Russia to maintain it's position of power as it did in the past, it has to do so in the most vile, imperialistic ways possible. That's the only way it could compete with the US. But the US is not an artificial, imperialistic hegemon. The US is geopolitically positioned to be the, or part of, the hegemony of the world. They don't need to annex Mexico and Canada to be the prominent world power. They have the natural position in this world power hierarchy, and as such they should be the hegemon of the world. Because they don't need to enslave half a continent under their regime to even participate in the competition for hegemony. So, from a realist perspective, the only sensible solution is to destroy Russias ambition as an unnatural (meaning, their default position does not lend itself to hegemony at all) imperial force, the same as we did to France, UK, Germany and any other nation that attempted to do so. You don't want to lose power, but that's what it has to be, because your little shit country in the corner of the world should be utterly meaningless in the transpiring of world history. But you don't want that to be the case, so of course you are willing to dominate half the world, having to maintain your power through barbarism, because you have never had the proper, geopolitical fate to be what you seek to be. This is the rule from realism that you should abide by: The weaker you are, the more violent and oppressive you have to be if you want to be the hegemony, because you do not hold the natural position of hegemony. The natural position of hegemony, naturally goes to the one who is strong, so to maintain your power, you must constantly and violently oppress those who would be more powerful than you, if you simply allowed them to be. This is why the US can afford to act from a non-coercive position geopolitical speaking, which benefits not only the US, but all nations in the world. They have the natural hegemon, so they don't need to suppress anyone in violent and oppressive ways to maintain their own position of power. So, from a realist position, the US should maintain it's power, and suppress weak nations like Russia who have false aspirations of competing for hegemony.

Because you are, it's unacceptable that we have to tolerate such drivel on this forum. You're conspiracy brained propagandists who are not even aware of it. There is no arguing or conversing with you guys, you just poison the conversations.

God this is the most cringe, embarassing post I have read on this forum for a while.

Lol, the US didn't take shit.

Ah "intuition", so your nonsensical, america-bad ideological commitment you mean. Of course Russia has more casualities, they have more people, and they have a doctrine of absolutely no care for having causalities. They are an empire, the difference is when they send their cannon fodder to die, they don't need to give a shit because the moscovite imperialists won't care one bit if all the half-genocided, occupied indigenous people are upset about their sons, brothers and fathers dying in a completely irrational war. They are also the invading force, which in a symmetrical war will yield more casualities on the side of the attacker.

The video you provided is an argument against alternative media. Even the video I provided is one, given how few people see it and how absurd of a skewing towards idiocy and lies the alternative media landscapes allows.

You didn't provide anything of substance, I can just reassert that you are wrong, and say the opposite is true. That's the only level of engagement you are capable of which to me is a waste of time. I think people like you should be removed from this forum.

Jesus Christ, lmao.

You literally are too unsophisticated to notice the nuance of "Not every war is the same.". An irrational distrust of government is just as stupid as a unquestioned faith in it. People like you are a bane on existence.

lmao, I hope it's finally apparent to people that Mearsheimer is an absolute clown. But to be honest, it probably won't be given how utterly brainded some of you guys are in here.