Posts by Anthony Garcia19

crimsonwolf21 said:What would happen if everyone stayed home? Maybe we'd see some social responsibility and the maturity to actually have a country you could manage according to a logical vision of success? Walking out and voiding ballots as a form of civil disobedience—if every single option is malicious—is a sign of maturity. Leaving things to chance is just immaturity or lethargy—basically a death wish, because leaving everything to fate is a straight shot to chaos.

I’m sticking to my guns: the responsibility lies with the people. If a nation can't keep its representatives in check, then that nation doesn't have a future. Americans—no matter how uneducated they might seem when they actually get involved in something—will push it through to the end. Around here, whenever anything gets organized, even for serious stuff, it looks like The Muppet Show or some kindergarten for the developmentally delayed. This is going to come back to haunt us—so hard that one day, our kids will be spitting in our faces. I really wish I were wrong.

Responsibility is something you learn through upbringing and education; you soak it up from your surroundings. It’s a cultural element that we clearly seem to be lacking...

It’s actually pretty worrying to see that other countries—even those famous for being highly responsible citizens—are also staying home on election day. There’s a global trend of skipping the polls. Honestly, after two centuries of playing this game, it feels like people have realized the whole modern democratic system is so rigged that most folks always end up losing anyway. They feel like nobody is coming to save them unless they do it themselves. So, everyone just minds their own business and tries to get by, while voting feels about as important as yesterday's weather.

Where does that lead? Who knows. Maybe things will spiral so far that global problems hit an impoverished and (sorry, I hate saying this) somewhat clueless majority so hard that the illusion of "every man for himself" finally breaks. We might eventually realize how interconnected we all truly are, which could trigger a massive shift in our values. Only then might we finally see the need to actually work together.

neonhound18 said:Of course it shouldn't, though I find myself wondering who, if anyone, would actually implement change. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party likely won't lift a finger until they're absolutely backed into a corner by a total lack of funds, and by then, it'll be far too late. I'd dearly love to be proven wrong, and I truly hope there's at least one individual within those parties possessing even a shred of common sense.

That’s exactly my point: people always hold onto that hope that someone capable will step up. No matter how unrealistic it feels, that hope stays alive because Americans don't actually support corruption, cronyism, or all that other nonsense.

crimsonwolf21 said:Oh, give me a break. These two parties have been running the show for 25 years and there is zero—absolutely zero—difference between them. An "avanguard of positive change" in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party? You seriously have a sick sense of humor.
Most people don't even bother showing up to vote—they'd rather stay home than spoil a ballot—and then they have the nerve to whine about being unemployed or begging their parents for cash. It's the same story with people working jobs that don't even pay them. The only ones hitting the polls are the small group of government bureaucrats voting to protect their own cushy perks, while everyone else just stays passive. So what do you expect? It's all just a bunch of nonsense to avoid dealing with reality.

Alright, fair point. But what if everyone actually showed up? People would probably just vote for their own interests again—stuff that outsiders call "privileges." In a society that basically celebrates selfishness in every aspect of life, you can't really expect a different pattern of behavior. That's exactly why we need a political movement willing to rein in that irrational individualism and bring back ideas like unity and cooperation. You can't blame "the people" for the lack of such an option, because "the people" barely exist anymore; we've just become a bunch of isolated individuals who feel powerless to change anything.

The responsibility actually lies with the few informed individuals out there. They should organize somehow—even within the current democratic system—to gradually push for new or even old-school ideas that differ from what's dominating right now. Until that happens, the politicians will remain the main culprits, since they hold all the levers of power and it's entirely up to them whether they use it for the common good or just for themselves.

Look, people don't vote for politicians because they want corruption. They vote because they hope for the opposite—they expect leaders to actually drive the kind of progress that moves society forward.

That’s why I think blaming the public instead of the politicians is a mistake. Politicians are the ones with the actual power to set the direction and make things happen. Most folks just adapt to the reality they're given because, honestly, sometimes that's the only way to get by. Sure, you have those rare idealists who refuse to bend, but their voices are usually too quiet to really shift the needle for the majority...

hvalanariba said:I won't quote everything...

No hard feelings. I've genuinely respected you as a fellow member on this forum for a long time, and I think highly of you.

But honestly? You’re living in a different universe.

By the time you finish checking off all your "coulds," "shoulds," and "ought-tos," the world will have flipped upside down twenty-five times over.
This isn't the time for playing pretend. Either you act now and pivot immediately—or you sink.

There’s no room for "we should" or "it would be smart."

What are you even talking about?! In my entire post, there was only one single mention of something being necessary. And even that wasn't anything that requires massive time or adjustment (like shifting toward alternative energy sources to cut our dependence on Russia).

David Baker2 said:Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue what their actual endgame is supposed to be. I mean, I’ve sat here staring at the situation for hours, trying to connect the dots, but the logic just isn't there. It feels like they're moving pieces around on a board without any coherent strategy in mind, much like that time my old boss at the firm tried to reorganize our entire department overnight without even consulting the staff—it was pure chaos, and frankly, this feels just as aimless. They might think they're being clever, but from where I'm sitting, the whole thing just looks like a disorganized mess of intentions.

But let's be honest here—I am fully aware that the USA is actually providing support and assistance to ISIS.
It’s honestly becoming impossible to ignore the blatant reality staring us right in the face: NATO is actively providing support and assistance to ISIS. You see these grand geopolitical maneuvers on the news, all this talk of stability and peacekeeping, yet when you pull back the curtain and look at the actual flow of resources and tactical backing, it points directly toward the very groups they claim to be fighting. It’s a maddening contradiction that defies any sense of logic or moral consistency.
It’s just like how America sent its own weapons over to ISIS.

Those are simply the facts.

And let’s not forget that there is also an ISIS map out there floating around.

Well, if you really want to sit there and play math games, then go ahead and try to add two plus two based on the "facts" you've cooked up—the ones where you’ve decided, in your own little world, that I’m not programming anything at all. Honestly, it’s quite amusing how people cling to their own delusions when the reality is staring them right in the face.
Is there even an ounce of fairness left in this world? Honestly, I find myself sitting here, staring at the sheer absurdity of it all, wondering if the concept of justice hasn't just become some outdated relic from a bygone era. It feels like we’re constantly being handed a raw deal, isn't it? I remember back when I was working that grueling stint in Chicago—years ago, mind you—and I saw firsthand how the scales can be tipped by anyone with enough influence or a loud enough voice. It’s infuriating. We talk about equity and playing by the rules, yet most days it feels like the game is rigged before you even step onto the field. It's exhausting, truly, to constantly question whether the ground beneath our feet is solid or just another layer of deception. Is it fair? Not by a long shot.

Look, as someone who’s clearly out of the loop here, I am officially calling on you—and anyone else who feels just as lost as I do—to pull back the curtain and explain this little game you're playing. Specifically, I want an answer to a very pointed question: why on earth would anyone argue that being tethered to Russia—whether we're talking about our energy needs or our military hardware—is somehow a superior path for America than having that same kind of dependency on the USA?

Honestly, I simply haven’t the energy to go around repeating myself a hundred times to every single paratrooper who decides to drop in on me. It's exhausting, really.
Look, if you actually want to understand what’s going on here, you need to go back to the very beginning of this thread and read every single word that has been posted. I mean it. Don't just skim through or jump straight to the latest comments like some impatient teenager; everything you need to know—every detail, every argument, every bit of context—is laid out right there from the start. If you follow my instructions and actually digest the entire conversation from the ground up, you won't be coming to me with these half-baked questions later. Just take the time, sit down, and read it all. It's all written right there.

I can only reiterate what I have already laid out before you—right now, looking at the landscape of Europe and everything surrounding it, the only nation possessing a military that is actually prepared, capable, and ready to step up to defend the European Union on, say, the Turkey-Greece border within a mere 48-hour window is Russia.

If you’ve been paying even the slightest bit of attention to the ongoing mess over in Syria, then you ought to realize by now that there is absolutely zero chance of NATO launching an offensive against ISIS, let alone seeing the Turks step up to take them on. It’s all quite obvious if you actually look at the facts.

Do I really have to sit here and spell this out all over again? Honestly, I feel like I’m shouting into a void sometimes. It’s exhausting, truly, having to repeat the same fundamental points as if we haven't already covered them extensively in previous discussions. I thought we had moved past the need for such basic clarifications, yet here we are, circling back to square one. It feels like a massive waste of my time, and frankly, it’s getting a bit tedious to keep rehashing the same arguments for those who clearly aren't listening.
🤷

P.S. Let’s be honest, most of us would jump at the chance to be completely self-sufficient and never have to rely on anyone else for anything, but looking at the current global landscape of power dynamics and shifting alliances, that’s just a pipe dream—it’s practically impossible. Personally, when I weigh all these messy geopolitical variables, my philosophy is pretty straightforward: I’d much rather have a "boss" or a major superpower managing things from a vast distance than having one breathing down our necks right in our own backyard. It’s always better to deal with a distant authority than someone living right next door.

A peasant is always a peasant, no matter how much they try to dress it up.
And why on earth would anyone ever want to have a master? Seriously, what is the actual logic behind surrendering one's autonomy to some central authority or overlord? It’s a question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering how we ever fell into this trap of thinking we need someone to pull the strings for us. I mean, look at history—it’s just one long, exhausting cycle of people looking for a strongman to tell them what to do, only to realize too late that they’ve traded their freedom for a false sense of security. It reminds me of that time back in my college days when I thought I needed a mentor to navigate every single life choice, only to find out I was just making my own path much harder by following someone else's outdated map. There is something fundamentally broken in the human psyche if we believe that being ruled is better than being responsible for ourselves. Why submit? Why hand over the keys to your own destiny to some self-appointed boss who likely couldn't manage a lemonade stand, let alone a nation or a life? It’s absurd. It’s frankly insulting to our capacity for reason.
Are we seriously out here hunting for masters at Zaštov when what we actually need—what we desperately crave—are partners? It’s a fundamental question, isn't it? I find myself sitting here, staring at the state of things, wondering if we've completely lost the plot. Instead of building alliances based on mutual respect and shared goals, we seem obsessed with finding someone to pull the strings, someone to dictate the terms, someone to hold the leash. It’s frankly exhausting to witness this constant craving for authority figures to step in and tell us what to do, rather than doing the hard work of forging genuine, equal partnerships that could actually move the needle. We should be looking for collaborators, not overlords.

It really all boils down to this fundamental truth that I find myself ruminating on more often than I care to admit: the world is essentially a mirror reflecting your own posture back at you. If you walk into a room—or a boardroom, or even just a casual gathering in Chicago—carrying yourself like a subservient little servant, don't be shocked when people start treating you like one. It’s a harsh reality, but if you present yourself as a doormat, people will inevitably step on you. You set the tone for your own existence through the dignity you command; if you act like a lackey, expect nothing more than to be bossed around.

I honestly can’t wrap my head around where this overwhelming cowardice comes from, or how it managed to take such deep root within the American citizenry. It is truly staggering to witness; in just twenty short years, we have been transformed from fierce, unstoppable tigers into nothing more than obedient little lapdogs.
I truly, honestly, cannot wrap my head around it—no matter how much I try to process the logic behind it, it remains utterly beyond my comprehension.

If the day ever comes when Europe finds itself completely shackled to Russian energy supplies and their military might, we’re going to see a repeat of history where those Eastern Bloc nations were crushed under a heavy boot during the 20th century. It’s a terrifying thought, really—watching once-sovereign territories lose their autonomy because they can't turn off the gas or defend their own borders without permission from Moscow. I remember reading about how quickly those lines were drawn in the sand back then, and frankly, if we aren't careful about our dependency, we are practically inviting that same kind of subjugation to happen all over again in our modern era. We cannot afford to be that vulnerable.

Let’s be perfectly honest here—it’s nothing new, and anyone pretending otherwise is just being willfully blind. Europe has been tethered to Russian energy sources for an absolute eternity now. It isn't some sudden crisis that popped up overnight; it is a deep-seated, systemic dependency that has been baked into the continent's infrastructure for decades. I remember sitting in a coffee shop back in the early 2000s, listening to pundits debate energy security, and even then, the cracks were showing. We’ve spent years building our entire industrial backbone around a single, volatile source, and frankly, the sheer level of delusion required to think we can just flip a switch and walk away from that connection without massive consequences is staggering. It's a mess, plain and simple.
It is an absolute, undeniable reality that Germany finds itself completely shackled to Russian gas whenever the winter chill sets in. It’s a precarious, frankly terrifying dependency that leaves them essentially at the mercy of Moscow's whims just to keep the heaters running when the frost hits. I remember sitting in my living room back in Chicago during one of those brutal polar vortex winters, staring at the thermostat and thinking about how much we take our energy stability for granted, but over there in Germany, the stakes feel infinitely higher because their entire industrial backbone is tied to a pipeline controlled by a regime that has zero regard for Western interests. It’s a massive strategic blunder that they’re still grappling with. 🤷

I did the math. And even then, I don't see how ISIS and the USA are the same thing.

I really don't feel like repeating myself a hundred times to every newcomer who drops in.
Just go back to the start of the thread and read; everything is already laid out.

🙂
No, nothing is laid out. There are differences in views and opinions, but I'll try to find your arguments since they actually interest me.

All I can say briefly is what I've already said—right now, the only one in Europe and around Europe with a military ready and capable enough to act as a Protector for the EU, say at the Turkey-Greece border, and send troops within 48 hours, is Russia.

If you follow the situation in Syria at all, you probably realize NATO isn't going to attack ISIS, nor will the Turks attack ISIS.

Do I really need to keep explaining this?
🤷

You don't have to. Nobody is forcing you to answer "newcomers."

As for NATO, my take is they won't strike right now, but that doesn't mean they won't ever.

A peasant is always a peasant.
Why would they ever want a boss?
Are we looking for a Protector because we want masters instead of partners?
..........

Where did I say I was looking for or wanted masters?! It's actually the opposite; I'm looking for partners, specifically within the Visegrád Group. But I am convinced that even a partnership like that can't avoid being tied to the bigger players at first. If the interests of those larger powers are opposed, you're forced to pick a side.

But Europe has been dependent on Russian energy for a long time.
Germany depends on Russian gas during the winter. 🤷

They don't have to be dependent; they should be working on having an alternative. From what I can see, that's exactly what the USA is doing—creating an alternative. Even though it serves their own interests, it's good for Europe too.

David Baker2 said:Honestly, I don't see what's so surprising about any of this.
Little Merkel has turned toward the Russians and asked for help.
Zoran Milanović is working in lockstep with Little Merkel.

And there is really no reason to act shocked by that.
Because this entire surge is organized and bankrolled by the USA.
Not to mention the fact that through NATO, all the European nations have been rendered militarily impotent whenever they might actually need to act independently on their own.

Meanwhile, the Russians are currently the only ones in the European Union—or the general vicinity, for that matter—who possess a military capable and large enough to respond to an open attack on the EU (think ISIS maps).

To build something like Fortex (or whatever the hell it's called, I can never remember the name) or any kind of EU army capable of defending its own borders, it would take Europe at least a decade of organization.

So, here we go: the Merkel - Putin deal. Putin opens up Syria to buy Europe the necessary time to organize and consolidate itself without NATO, which has essentially left all of us in the EU high and dry on this issue (and frankly, even Turkey, as a NATO member, is throwing us under the bus).

Therefore, it is perfectly logical to seek help from those who actually have the capacity to provide it and who are willing to help.

The only ones left are Kolinda and the Republican Party, who are busy kissing the asses of the Americans and playing right into their hands.
I don't know if you noticed how she practically attacked Merkel simultaneously when the Americans launched their strike against Merkel and Germany over that "auto industry scandal"?
Everything is always, of course, "accidental" in these political games.
Who cares about them in America? They are merely acting for their masters.
And the people? Well, the people pay the price, no matter what.

The Mexicans are trying to play both sides, but they simply lack the capacity for such maneuvers, and it’s going to blow up in their faces. Just like it will for the Canadians.

And as for what happens to us—that depends entirely on how we vote very soon. 🤷

I only know five things, which are actually two things, which are really three things (Tomislav Karamarko):
1. I have never liked Merkel, nor have I ever enjoyed her persona. But now, I feel instinctively that we must work with her rather than against her, as that is currently in the greatest interest of America.
2. I voted against joining the European Union. But in a confrontation of this magnitude, we have nothing to bicker about with Germany (as Kolinda and the Republican Party attempt to do); instead, we must engage in dialogue, act as partners, and align our interests.
3. I keep hearing the accusations on this forum that I am a "Putin-lover." That is simply not true. I have been watching the winds shift for years, and I have spent years studying geopolitical developments. When I look for allies for America who can practically and functionally help us survive this massive historical shifting of the geopolitical chessboard (and it has begun, it is happening, and there is no need for panic, only for work and decisive action), logic dictates who we ought to be on good terms with today.

Having good relations with the Russians would also be vital for us the moment the scenario involving the creation of an ISIS map is activated, because we can expect help from them, and if we mend those ties, we will receive it.
If we pin all our hopes on NATO helping us... we’ll be left waiting for nothing but the bare essentials from ISIS.

So, I am not a Putin-lover; I am a pragmatist looking at what is best for us amidst all this chaos.

Look, I won’t even attempt to wrap this all up in one go because, honestly, if I wanted to properly map out every single cause-and-effect relationship here, I’d be writing a full-length book rather than just tossing a forum post into the void.
The reality is that the entire European Union is pivoting toward Russia right now, simply because they've finally realized which way the wind is blowing and who exactly is preparing to dump all the garbage on them.

The fundamental issue with the Mexicans and the Canadians is that they are essentially playing by the rules of the American playbook.

Just take a look at a map of ISIS. Seriously, just pull up Google and take a moment to observe where the fences are being built—who is being kept on the outside and who is being let in—and you will see the American strategic plan laid bare before your very eyes.
It becomes immediately obvious who is actually pulling the strings and who is merely a pawn in the game.

EDIT: I actually posted this initial thought before I sat down to read through the rest of your comments. Now that I've seen your follow-up posts, I realize we are fundamentally on the same page, identifying the exact same problems and proposing the very same solutions. 🙂

If I’m following you correctly, you think the USA has a plan to use ISIS to militarily conquer parts of Europe outlined in those ISIS maps. While I fully admit I'm a total amateur when it comes to geopolitics, that scenario sounds completely nonsensical to me.

What's the actual argument for that? The fact that the USA is behind this immigrant wave isn't proof of anything on its own. It could be a strategic move with plenty of different goals, and using it to militarily subjugate Europe is the least likely one. One goal is maintaining dominance in our part of the world (by "squeezing" Germany and preventing the EU from becoming energy-independent from Russia, which strengthens Russia's position here), but that's a far cry from what you're claiming.

EDIT: And if that's not what you mean, then why would the NATO umbrella be any worse than the Russian one?

The entire EU is turning toward Russia because they realize where the wind is blowing and who is setting the trap for Europe.

The problem with Mexicans and Canadians is that they're playing American games.

Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are turning toward Russia? They are actually asking for a stronger NATO presence in their countries... Their opposition to immigration, building fences, and supporting each other to protect the Canadian border doesn't mean they're pivoting to Russia. It means they're protecting their sovereignty, something the USA and NATO aren't making difficult at all.

Just look at the ISIS map. Use Google to see where the fences are being built and who is inside versus outside, and you'll see exactly what the American plan is.
And you'll see who's playing whom.

So, since I'm such an "amateur," why don't you explain this game to me and people like me? Specifically, tell me why relying on Russia (for energy or military support) would be a better solution for us than having that same kind of reliance on the USA?

PS. Most of us would love to be totally independent, but let’s face it—that's just not happening given how things are set up globally right now. Personally, I figure it’s much better to have a "boss" located far away rather than someone living right next door. If we dealt with Russia, we'd end up with that second scenario. They're way too close for comfort and would meddle in every single part of our lives. Plus, their main ally in this part of the EU would traditionally be Mexico, which would likely get all sorts of favors and concessions from Russia just for helping them reach their goals. Since we know what Mexico has been dreaming about for over a century, it's pretty easy to guess how that would play out for us. Even putting the Mexican issue aside, Russia proved itself to be the absolute worst kind of "tutor" in Europe during the 20th century. So, I don't see any real basis for the fantasy that Russia could act as a guardian for the EU or serve as a better option than the USA.

If Europe ever became dependent on Russian energy and military might, we'd end up just like the Eastern Bloc countries in the 20th century—living under their boot.

Since it was a long one, I didn't quote your entire post, just the main points. I think that's plenty to get the discussion going.

Paul Thomas46 said:You're overthinking the Americans.
Sure, they have a surplus of bombs, but they aren't running the whole show anymore.

And I’ve touched on this before: if Europe stays steady, everything stays steady. If Europe goes downhill, it's all downhill from there. History is pretty clear on that point. Honestly, when discussing the relationship between the USA and Europe, the timeline is actually quite short—since Americans have only been a major factor for maybe 100 years, which isn't much—but even those 100 years have been "educational" enough regarding this issue.
They love to convince themselves they're the center of the universe, and they try hard to shove that idea down everyone's throats (and often succeed), but reality tells a different story.

But what’s truly fascinating about everything happening right now is the ridiculous lack of self-reflection coming from Europe. And I don't mean participation in certain so-called military actions somewhere far away, because none of that is the root cause. For centuries, Europe has been draining everything it possibly can from Africa and Asia. It wasn't the Americans who were the long-term colonizers, but the Europeans (and in that regard, the USA actually started as a colony). We haven't lived on our own resources for a very, very long time.
The die was cast a long time ago...

I haven't read your posts on this yet, so I'll go check them out.

I keep my eyes on the USA because since the early '90s, all I see in Europe is confusion and hesitation, driven by constant bickering and internal power struggles. A community of nations like that isn't really a global heavyweight or a driver of major events.

I don't really know who else to watch. The Chinese are too far away—both geographically and culturally—to be considered reliable, long-term allies. As for Russia, they've caused way too much damage to so many people on European soil in recent history to just overlook it.

So we're left being small, on our own, without much influence, though there's always potential for new alliances. Even then, they'll never be big enough to hold their own against the current global balance of power without broader coalitions.

Not exactly a great list of choices, right?!

Lisa Patel4 said:

How would leaving NATO actually save Germany? I mean, isn't it probably too late for that anyway?

If they left the NATO alliance, the country wouldn't be occupied anymore, I guess.

If everyone else is still in NATO, and there are millions of immigrants and refugees inside the borders, I don't see how leaving would actually help her.

Lisa Patel4 said:We shouldn't rule that out either. Nostradamus spoke of women on the Rhine, a scorched France, and a savior from Central Europe. 🤔

You're wrong about the cake. The American elite is greedy and furious. Their influence depends entirely on the petrodollar, which is being systematically dismantled. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, WW3 would already be raging. That’s why they’re rushing TTIP; the US is desperate for fresh capital that just isn't there anymore.

In reality, we're seeing the collapse of the neoliberal capitalist system. The theory of infinite growth has proven impossible because it fails to account for controlling vital resources. The stock market doesn't feed people; food does. It doesn't run cars; oil does. It doesn't heat homes or power industry. And America doesn't have them anymore. America has run dry on oil, is already importing gas, and those projects in Alaska have been absolute disasters.

It's what I've said before. The US has nothing left to use for blackmail except military force. The global banking system isn't dominantly in Western hands anymore. They can try pulling industry out of China, but that takes years of massive investment, and they don't have the time. That's why they signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, even though it doesn't actually mean much to Americans.

The EU is the largest economy in the world, and that's where the money is that Americans need. Germany realizes that Anglo-Americans are historical rivals and that they rely on Russian energy, so they stay tied to them. Germany will probably try to leave NATO at some point, though I doubt they'll be allowed to.

Muslims aren't really part of the equation here. They're just leverage for blackmail.

For America to maintain global dominance, they need Siberia. Everything else is just too little.

You say the American elite is angry and greedy. But maybe it's not such an unrealistic scenario that they finally assess the situation and make concessions. We're already seeing hints that they'll compromise during the TPP negotiations (even if they hate it). It's possible some new winds will blow through the USA. Not because of sudden altruism, but pure survival instinct. Even among the powerful and greedy, there have always been enough wise souls to back down for the sake of future stability... 🤷

I also think it's too late for Germany to break away from the USA and leave NATO. I think Americans will pull off that scenario I mentioned earlier: first weakening Germany and Russia economically using immigration and conflicts involving Muslims.

Lisa Patel4 said:Other than that, there's just no solution.

Demographic projections show that at current birth rates, Africa will have 4 billion people by 2050. That’s basically 8 European Unions. Africa simply cannot support that many people; it's just a fact.

To make matters worse, most of that population will be in sub-Saharan Africa. And if you factor in theories about the Nile drying up, what are we looking at?

We're talking billions of people with the US just across the water. The reality is that African nations rely heavily on aid in the form of cash and medicine. As Earth's resources dwindle, it isn't hard to guess where everyone will look. They'll hear from relatives saying, "God Damn, God Damn, only cash," and that's how they get here.

Then there's the Middle East. Projections suggest Saudi Arabia will run out of oil by mid-century. Qatar and the other Gulf states will be tapped out, especially once Americans finally realize their access to Iran is blocked as long as the ayatollah system is in power—not to mention the likely exit from Iraq. In that case, the USA and the UK will have to grab whatever Middle Eastern oil and gas is left for themselves, which could spark fights with other nations over the spoils. At some point, Europe might find itself completely cut off from Middle Eastern oil.

If the EU wants to survive, there's really only one move. Close all external borders, stop letting anyone in, and fully integrate energy-wise with Russian gas. Anything else is just a fairy tale for children.

Maybe the USA actually wants to avoid that mess, which is why this refugee crisis was manufactured. The goal would be to create a collective resentment toward Muslims across Europe, painting them as the cause of everything wrong with native European life. This creates the necessary motivation and unity for the next big war against Arab and Muslim nations (and no, I haven't been reading Nostradamus! 😉). I'd include Russia in this anti-Muslim alliance too, since it's highly probable that these populations will push into their territory through Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, where tensions are already simmering.

If the USA, EU, and Russia win that war, they get exactly what they've always dreamed of, and the pie will be big enough to prevent any fighting over the slices.

It won't happen tomorrow, obviously—preparations take years—but this could be the beginning.

A fellow forum member gave me the initial idea on another thread (he'll know who he is if he's reading this!), and I just expanded on it a bit in terms of timing and scale.

Lisa Patel4, what do you think? 🙂

Some people will probably finally see why this refugee crisis started. Germany's only hope is to leave NATO. I've mentioned before that this crisis really ramped up right after the Nord Stream expansion deal was signed.

How would leaving NATO actually save Germany? Isn't it already too late for that? 🤷

Lisa Patel4 said:Oops, my bad. 😁

Best wishes. Goodnight.

I should probably change my name to Anthony Garcia19 so there's no more confusion! 😁

Lisa Patel4 said:They are. You misunderstood me. I'm not against cooperating with America. Not at all. In fact, I think if Trump wins the election, things might actually settle down.

Poland is pro-American for historical reasons. But then again, that doesn't mean it'll stay that way forever.

Look, Germany works with Russia, yet now they're best allies with France. Just look at their history...

Politics has no room for emotions; it’s just pure, cold rationality. When it comes down to American interests, they'd work with anyone. There are no eternal allies in politics, only eternal interests.

That’s just how I took it (I'm a woman, by the way!) because it still feels weird to support someone you view as the ultimate villain. That was just my takeaway from those messages you swapped with Rachel Reyes93.

I don't have any issues with the rest of the post!

Anyway, I've gotta run, time for 🙂. Have a good one!

Lisa Patel4 said:Hehe, good luck with the learning curve.

The Višegrad-style group is just where we naturally fit in. Personally, I'm all for strengthening ties with Poland.

But they (the Poles) are extremely close to the USA. I'm not sure how that fits into this critical view of America... 🤔

Anyway, we’ve drifted way too far from the actual topic (even though we started off fine—discussing potential causes of the migrant crisis). It’s probably a good thing the moderators are asleep (hopefully)! 😉

Lisa Patel4 said:In today's world, a small nation can barely survive on its own. That's just realpolitik.

Russia and China are allies only because it serves them against American imperialism. Once America falls, they'll be rivals again. The USSR and China actually fought a war back in 1969. It’s definitely not like India and China are allies. Brazil is basically politically irrelevant here. And China depends on Russian energy, much like Germany does.

What the Russians want is a Europe without Americans, a divided Middle East, and control over Central Asia. That way, they control almost 80% of the world's resources. Everything else, the Americans can just take for themselves.

The Visegrád Group is a decent start.

I need to chew on this some more! 😵 I'm still pretty new to all these geopolitics!
Glad to see we're on the same page regarding the Višegrad Group.

Lisa Patel4 said:I guess nobody actually wins here. China would lose its biggest customer, and Russia would suddenly find itself facing a massive new rival right on its doorstep. Without America, even BRICS falls apart. And Europe? They’d be left totally exposed without any real protection.

Americans are basically driving themselves off a cliff. Their own reckless, irrational, borderline psychotic policy of triggering color revolutions and constant wars is just self-destructive.

I don't think China or Russia would be any better off if America collapsed.

I actually think China is a big enough market all on its own, and they still have the rest of the world to deal with (regardless of what the USA does).
Russia might face a huge rival in China, but if they want to avoid that, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place: it's either the USA or China. Or am I totally missing something?

If everyone else is a heavyweight and we're just left feeling small and insignificant, what can we even do? I guess we try to stick together to protect our own interests where we can. That's why I'm such a fan of the idea behind a regional alliance like the Visegrád Group...

Lisa Patel4 said:Who profits from looting and wars? The exact same people who have been doing it for centuries.

The US government basically declared itself the New Roman Empire. They even drafted their own blueprint for a New American Century.

Personally, I have an immense amount of respect and appreciation for America, especially back before the fall of the USSR.

But today? Today, America supports the absolute worst elements of humanity just to maintain global dominance.

I think you missed my point. I was talking about profiting from crashing the American economy.

Rachel Reyes93 said:The whole plan is to shake up Europe economically and now with these migration issues, and then they swoop in acting like the "reliable friend."
Everything just works on the principle of whoever's stronger gets to call the shots.
I'd sure love it if migrants were just a "tiny piece" of the puzzle. To us, they're a total catastrophe.

I'm pretty much on the same page. There's no real friendship here, just pure self-interest.
A single puzzle piece in a much bigger scheme. Whether we get swept away or just temporarily sidelined... I honestly don't know.

Lisa Patel4 said:Look, it's about American survival. If the US gets kicked out of the Middle East, those alliances vanish, and then everyone is just looking out for themselves.

The US views the European Union as a vassal. Not an ally.

But what if that doesn't happen? If we stay in the Middle East...

Lisa Patel4 said:The US objective is to suck capital out of Europe and crush any potential German-Russian alliance. Otherwise, their economy—which still relies on the petrodollar—might just implode.

Maybe the US needs a war immediately because its entire economy depends on them.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cut...rns-2015-08-17

And who stands to gain from all this? And how do winners usually act?

I don't know what to tell you. Some people think Americans are pure evil, but honestly, evil just follows power wherever it goes (mostly because power tends to exploit others). It just shifts around; it doesn't ever really disappear, at least not in the history we know...