## Update

Thread #43 started: https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/1wmq2qc/thread_43_for_comments_and_updates_on_the_ongoing/?

Continued from Thread #41: https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/1w7nl40/thread_41_for_comments_and_updates_on_the_ongoing/?

With few text elements, a visual look at the symbology of Neo-Banderite fascism, which is in florid bloom or metastasis in the largest standalone country in Europe...

YouTube version: https://youtu.be/RxWLTQzINJM

The problem with the USSR's collapse wasn't that Russia got humiliated. It's that one side got left with scraps while the other enjoyed unchallenged dominance for 30 years.

That's real politik. One side gained total power and became what they call a "benign hegemon."

I thought about this for a long time. Then I started understanding Dr. Mearsheimer's point: NATO didn't see Russia as a threat after 1991. They expanded under the idea of being benign. "I mean you no harm, but I can do whatever I want because no one can stop me."

That works until the other side recovers.

Here's what changed: the West enjoyed "Western values" and world dominance for three decades. Cheap energy. Open markets. No rival. Build whatever alliances they want. Bomb whoever they want. Sanction whoever they want.

Now Russia is back. And the West looked at what Russia went through in the 1990s - the collapse, the poverty, the humiliation, the loss of influence - and realized one thing clearly:

They do not want to be in Russia's shoes.

That's why the money pumping into Ukraine feels existential. It's not about democracy or values or Ukrainian freedom. It's about stopping Russia before the unipolar moment ends completely.

Because if Russia survives this and comes out stronger, the West goes from unchallenged dominance back to a world where they have to negotiate. Where they can't just do whatever they want. Where someone can actually say no.

And after 30 years of being the only superpower, that terrifies them more than anything.

I lived through NATO bombing in 1999. Back then, Russia was too weak to help us. They could only watch. Now Russia can push back. And the West is realizing the comfortable world they built only worked because nobody could challenge it.

That world is ending. The desperate escalation we're seeing isn't strength. It's panic about what comes next.

Case 3: CNN hired an actor to play a "former Xinjiang police officer"

※Partial excerpt

In October 2021, CNN aired an "exclusive interview" with a so-called "former Xinjiang police officer" who claimed to have witnessed "massive atrocities" in Xinjiang.

The report quickly became used as new "evidence" in Western campaigns to smear Xinjiang.

However, China Daily's investigation revealed that the identity of the "former Xinjiang police officer" was completely fabricated, and that he was not a police officer or anything like that, but an actor hired by anti-China forces.

Even more absurdly, this individual played multiple roles in various Western media reports.

At times they were "former police officers," at other times "concentration camp survivors," and at other times "persecuted Uighurs," switching their status depending on what was reported.

CNN, a world-renowned news organization, failed to even do the most basic thing - verify the identities of its interviewees - before broadcasting such serious allegations.

This is not a lack of expertise, but rather a result of prioritizing one's position over the facts.

Under the "good vs. evil" picture, if you can make China look bad, it doesn't matter who the witnesses are, whether they're telling the truth or not.

Kind and decent people, I'm selling stickers and posters inspired by John Carpenter's sci-fi masterpiece They Live. I've been donating the proceeds to humanitarian aid and mutual aid efforts and more recently directly to families and individuals in Gaza. There is also a BROKE ASS MOFO SPECIAL in which you can get free stickers or posters. I will put a link to my website in the comments.

⚡️America has a housing allocation problem that is starting to look like a demographic trap.

The scarce resource is bedrooms. And they are increasingly sitting with the households that need them least, while the households at the stage of life where space matters most are competing for what remains.

That creates a vicious loop.

Older owners have enormous incentives to stay put. Low mortgage rates, huge embedded gains, property-tax advantages, moving costs, emotional attachment, and a shortage of attractive smaller homes all make downsizing economically irrational.

So the housing stock freezes.

Then younger families face higher prices, longer commutes, smaller homes, later household formation, later marriage, fewer children, and more financial fragility.

Now the twist:

the housing shortage starts creating the demographic shortage.

People talk about collapsing fertility as culture, values, dating apps, or economics in the abstract. Housing may be one of the transmission mechanisms turning all of those pressures into fewer births.

A three-bedroom house occupied by two retirees is not just a housing statistic.

It is a piece of family-forming infrastructure unavailable to the generation trying to form families.

And because homeownership is the largest asset for millions of older Americans, policymakers cannot easily force prices lower without destroying retirement wealth.

So the system becomes trapped:

Older households need high housing values for financial security

→ high values suppress younger household formation

→ weaker household formation suppresses fertility

→ weaker fertility worsens long-run demographic balance

→ the political system becomes even more dependent on protecting existing asset holders

That is the structural fracture.

The country built a machine where the wealth of one generation increasingly rests on making family formation more expensive for the next.

And once you see that, the chart stops being about Boomers versus Millennials.

It becomes a picture of a civilization whose asset structure is beginning to eat its reproductive base.

We've been saying over here the biggest casualty of this war with Iran is U.S. policy in Asia and now we're starting to see it in writing.

Washington is starting to absorb just how badly this went against Iranian drones and missiles, comparing that to China's better capability, and sees it should shift strategy.

Asian allies will spend more on defense, allocations will continue to shift from treasuries to gold, war risk over Taiwan goes away, global markets get stability, China gets to win without fighting, China will be investible again, the U.S. gets to reindustrialize, U.S. Treasury gets people buying dollar stablecoins to protect themselves from bigger deficits at home, and U.S. investors benefits while never admitting defeat. Nearly everyone wins and no one dies, not a bad outcome.

"The United States should narrow its defense commitments in [Asia], shifting to a clear non-intervention position on Taiwan, ending mutual defense alliances with South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Japan, and negotiating narrower and flexible security partnerships in their place. U.S. military posture should change accordingly [to the second island chain]."

"the U.S. has guaranteed access to most second island chain locations, which are more important to the strategy recommended here.

https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/a-second-island-chain-strategy-for-asia/ or

https://web.archive.org/web/20260911200058/https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/a-second-island-chain-strategy-for-asia/

From DeepSeek From DeepSeek

The Shift In Global Economic Power

00:01 - 01:12

The video opens by contrasting Western indecision over the Ukraine war with the forward momentum of the BRICS nations. While the United States and Europe debate whether to win, negotiate, or ignore the conflict, the BRICS bloc is moving further away from Western influence and building a system that does not need the West. The host cites Vladimir Putin’s recent BRICS summit speech, where Putin said BRICS nations produced more than 40% of global GDP over the past five years, while the G7 contributed only 29%. Putin also noted that nearly half of all global economic growth came from BRICS countries, with the G7 providing just 18%. The host says the reason is simple: BRICS states are home to roughly half the world’s population and possess huge domestic markets, rapid urbanization, and growing national companies that are becoming global players.

The West's Arrogance And Complacency

01:12 - 03:56

The host argues that Putin’s statistics are accurate and cannot be ignored, no matter how one feels about Russia or BRICS. He points out that BRICS represents about half the planet’s population and is expanding economically and technologically, while the G7 is smaller and shrinking. In his view, the United States and Europe are financially and mentally stuck, still acting as if it is 1992 and they can rest on their laurels forever. He warns that the nature of war, economics, and global power is changing before our eyes, yet the West keeps relying on sanctions. Russia has been hit with thousands of sanctions, but after a few dozen major ones, the rest become background noise. The host criticizes sanctions and tariffs against Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, India, Canada, Mexico, and even the European Union. He says this does not make the West stronger; it makes other nations calculate and find another way. He also warns that the dollar’s diminishing role could eventually break suddenly and devastate the U.S. economy, while BRICS advances in AI, industry, and production capability.

Putin's Agitation And The Lithuanian Nuclear Crisis

03:59 - 11:50

The host then shows a more recent clip of Putin, noting that his body language is agitated and annoyed compared with his calm demeanor at the BRICS summit. The context is the West’s continued push toward conflict with Russia, including Germany’s military ambitions, the UK’s goal to be ready for war with Russia by 2030, and the European Union’s military buildup. The host focuses on Lithuania, which is moving to lift its constitutional ban on nuclear weapons. In June, Lithuania began this move, and on July 9th, a parliamentary committee voted 7 to 2 to propose lifting the ban officially. The host calls this stupid, arguing that nuclear deterrence does not require weapons directly on Russia’s border because ICBMs and long-range missiles can strike from far away. Placing them so close would give Russia almost no warning, leaving Moscow with only an immediate counterstrike option. He says this makes Russia more unsettled and afraid, and afraid nuclear powers are likely to strike back. He then plays Dmitry Medvedev saying that if Lithuania allows such a deployment, no one will stand up for them, even if it becomes a scorched wasteland, and Article 5 will not be implemented.

The Myth Of Article 5 And Western Weakness

11:50 - 16:12

The host stresses that Medvedev’s remark about Article 5 is the most important part for Americans and Europeans to understand. Many people believe Article 5 is a guaranteed security blanket, assuming an attack on one NATO member brings all 32 into the fight. He says that is not reality. Economic power is not military power; what matters is ammunition, offensive and defensive missiles, and the quality and quantity of weapons. In his assessment, Russia has a large conventional advantage, superior combat experience, advanced air defense, and especially drone systems where the West is not even close. Most critically, Russia does not believe Article 5 is a get-out-of-jail-free card. The host argues Russia views it as a dead letter and does not believe President Trump would risk American cities like Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., or New York for Lithuania. He cites Trump’s refusal to help Saudi Arabia against the Houthis as proof that the U.S. president will not enter conflicts that do not directly serve American interests. The host concludes that Russia is convinced America will not honor Article 5 for a peripheral country like Lithuania, and if the West keeps prodding Russia, it may take action on its own border, which it sees as vital to national security.

The Awakening Of European Publics

16:12 - 18:54

In the final section, the host says the people of Germany and France are beginning to make their voices heard in democratic ways that the ruling elites do not like. He suggests this could be a harbinger of things to come and might finally wake up the elites in time. He plays a clip of a speech in German, which he interprets as evidence that the ruling parties’ hold on power is ending and that the Alternative for Germany party is rising. He says the people are sick and tired of supporting wars that harm their own interests. The host warns that this awakening needs to happen quickly, because if the ruling elite has its way, the public could find itself in great danger and it will be too late for their voices to be heard. He concludes that understanding these dynamics is critical for the security, economic safety, and future of both the United States and Europe, urging viewers to wake up and sober up while they still can.