Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,3192,3202,3212,3222,3232,3242,325. . .2,6342,635»

Nation of ecologists

Cuillin wrote:I am a proud pacifist, and I think war is a scourge on our planet. At first I was of the view that we in the west should be bolstering our NATO allies, and sending supplies to Ukraine etc.

My view has now changed. I think we now need to stop Putin with whatever means are necessary, and if that means war then so be it. He is never going to be satisfied with Ukraine, and he is already threatening Sweden and Finland. People always say references to Hitler are not relevant, but the west sat back when he took Czechoslovakia. I don't think we should wait for whatever country is our modern day Poland.

Liberal democracy and freedom from tyranny needs to be defended.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/26/valdimir-putin-russia-ukraine-inside-his-head

You see I must disagree. Do you want WWIII? I mean, it would be truly a shame to just end our species via nuclear war after how far we've come. Has humanity destroyed the environment? Yes. Are we going to go extinct if we don't try and stop climate change in the next few years? Yes. But does that mean we should kill our planet with nuclear bombs just because an old man who's probably going a little senile decided to invade a neighbouring country? No, certainly not.

Even if we do deserve to go extinct, it shouldn't be because we irradiated the planet and caused a 6th mass extinction event. We should try and help Ukraine as much as possible but getting NATO formally involved will not only result in thousands, probably millions losing their lives but also the sparking of another militaristic, nationalist age that will be extremely difficult to come out of. Trying to fix war with war will only result in more war, not peace.

Einswenn, Siornor, Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and 3 othersUan aa Boa, Middle Barael, and Phillip isle

Nation of ecologists wrote:You see I must disagree. Do you want WWIII? I mean, it would be truly a shame to just end our species via nuclear war after how far we've come. Has humanity destroyed the environment? Yes. Are we going to go extinct if we don't try and stop climate change in the next few years? Yes. But does that mean we should kill our planet with nuclear bombs just because an old man who's probably going a little senile decided to invade a neighbouring country? No, certainly not.

Even if we do deserve to go extinct, it shouldn't be because we irradiated the planet and caused a 6th mass extinction event. We should try and help Ukraine as much as possible but getting NATO formally involved will not only result in thousands, probably millions losing their lives but also the sparking of another militaristic, nationalist age that will be extremely difficult to come out of. Trying to fix war with war will only result in more war, not peace.

Putin's government are running out of money, and that is why I think they are heading for talks. I think they thought taking over Ukraine would be a cakewalk, but the Ukrainians have resisted well. Some predict that the Russian government could manage 10 more days of war before running out of equipment and fuel. I don't know if that is true, but it is expensive for the government to have this campaign.

No frankly I don't want WW3 and I find your post a little bit patronising to be honest. What if he does take over Ukraine and tries to invade Finland and Sweden? What would you suggest?

Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Alsakah, Middle Barael, and 2 othersNation of ecologists, and Difinbelk

Cuillin wrote:No frankly I don't want WW3 and I find your post a little bit patronising to be honest. What if he does take over Ukraine and tries to invade Finland and Sweden? What would you suggest?

That's the kind of warmongering I could not support though. Situation with Ukraine is nothing like one with Finland. To understand this you need to dig deeper into Russo-Ukrainian history which began long time before annexation of Crimea. It's personal grievances of Russia to "brother nation", the same realm and the same universe, the same mentality and the same language of solving issues. Finland belongs to another realm despite being part of Russian Empire for some time ago which is not enough justification to start a war against the Finns. Yes, I won't be really surprised [anymore] if this senile man invades our other neighbours but I'm very much against fears about Finland getting involved. Even if it joins NATO.

Also I was against fearmongering about nuclear warfare until the recent Putin's order to put missiles on the alert mode.

Cuillin, Siornor, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, and 6 othersDaarwyrth, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, Cat-herders united, Nation of ecologists, and Phillip isle

Einswenn wrote:That's the kind of warmongering I could not support though. Situation with Ukraine is nothing like one with Finland. To understand this you need to dig deeper into Russo-Ukrainian history which began long time before annexation of Crimea. It's personal grievances of Russia to "brother nation", the same realm and the same universe, the same mentality and the same language of solving issues. Finland belongs to another realm despite being part of Russian Empire for some time ago which is not enough justification to start a war against the Finns. Yes, I won't be really surprised [anymore] if this senile man invades our other neighbours but I'm very much against fears about Finland getting involved. Even if it joins NATO.

Also I was against fearmongering about nuclear warfare until the recent Putin's order to put missiles on the alert mode.

This idea of 'brother nation' is what Putin was saying as one of his pretexts. I don't know if Ukrainians see it that way now. I read an interesting article written by a Ukrianian artist and she was basically saying that Putin's actions will drive a wedge. She made the point that the more Russia conquers, the further that Ukrainians will feel mentally from Russia. I live in the UK and Scotland/England have a similar 'brother nation' relationship. Throughout history they were at war with England being the aggressor believing that Scotland should be part of England. Ultimately the crowns were unified and it became the UK, but the history and past actions even when joined together made it worse. Despite having so much culturally in common there is still a large independence movement in Scotland which is getting stronger all the time. Smaller countries hold onto grievances, and even if Ukraine is swallowed by Russia those grievances will remain, and like a caged bird it will always seek freedom. National hurts can strengthen national identity, and that is why I think the harder that Putin grasps Ukraine more it will slip through his fingers.

I think him putting the missiles on alert mode suggests he is panicking because the war isn't going well, and the response is a bit like a cornered animal. I don't think it makes any kind of logical sense.

Einswenn, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, and 2 othersNation of ecologists, and Phillip isle

Imperial states of duotona wrote:If we send troops to Ukraine, we may be sparking a much larger conflict with more bloodshed than what is going on now. I believe sanctions are the correct idea, but they need to be very severe if they're going to have a lasting effect on Russia.

See, that's actually why I'm in support of not-too-extremely-crippling sanctions. We do want the Russian oligarchs (well, namely Putin and the military) to be drained of resources and make sure the cost of war is not worth it. It's definitely economic warfare, but at least no (or at least very few) lives are lost. Frankly, I think many of the actions taken that specifically hurt the wealthier Russian population is actually impressive in today's world, and frankly I may've underestimated the strategic lengths they'd truly be willing to go.

But I definitely recommend not having any "lasting" impact on their economy - at least for no longer than Putin's out of office. That said, economy's a tricky thing to calculate and predict. Then again, whatever sanctions they hold will probably compound with a probable economic crash up and coming so time will tell.

Einswenn wrote:Also I was against fearmongering about nuclear warfare until the recent Putin's order to put missiles on the alert mode.

This is sort-of why I'd rather not see Nato get involved with Ukraine, and I think the governments around the world (thankfully) darn well know this. A military escalation that involved any of Nato will see to it that, by law, it involved all of Nato. And if Russia's threatening nuclear devices now, could you imagine what'd happen if he had the entirety of the western powerhouses on his doorstep? (And lets not even get into what might happen should China get involved.)

Personally, I do believe this nuke statement is a flex of power to say to the west, "Don't get involved." It's also probably a bargaining chip for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine that will hopefully happen shortly! Does that make the threat of nuclear war justified? Heck no! But who knows? Maybe he does somehow think it's on par with Russia's (or at least his) own existential threat from the west - especially when western leaders start calling him a Hitler - which, no, he's not. To say he is (at this point in time anyway, heaven forbid ever) is disgraceful both to Russia and to history, and western leaders should frankly know better than that.

However, if he's really willing to go to all of these lengths to "show power"... I think we do need to see this thing through, very methodically and carefully, which is not the easiest thing when things happen quickly and are somewhat unpredictable (as they have been so far).

~~~~~~~~~~

For what it's worth, I watched two really interesting videos that further shed light on some of the events that led up to all of this, and I'd be very interested to see your stances on this. (Particularly you Einswenn ;p)

The first is an extremely recent upload by some guy named RealLifeLore, who frankly made this before the invasion but still uploaded it to help give some context for today. It's about half an hour long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE

The second was made in 2018, so Trump was still president. It's a 2-hour talk at the Yale University from this person named Vladimir Pozner. He has a lot of interesting things to say about Russian history (and Putin) as well as the US. Edit: Forgot the video xd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ

Put these two together, I'd still argue Russia's not justified. But at the same time, I don't particularly sympathize with how the non-Ukrainian west handled things after the Cold War, and frankly if you and your entire nation were struggling and constantly put under an existential threat (like Ukraine is now), you might be willing to do unjustified things. Which, if I may be so bold, is in large part why I'm still quite concerned about the nuclear threat - thus far, common sense and logic from my perspective has proven to be wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~

For what it's worth, if nukes are used, I think a military invasion will also be moot. tl;dr I'm really not in favor of moving troops out to Ukraine unless absolutely necessary without fear of existential levels of cataclysmic destruction, which I'm not entirely sure exists as a criteria at this point.

Einswenn, Daarwyrth, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Difinbelk, and Phillip isle

Cuillin wrote:This idea of 'brother nation' is what Putin was saying as one of his pretexts. I don't know if Ukrainians see it that way now. I read an interesting article written by a Ukrianian artist and she was basically saying that Putin's actions will drive a wedge. She made the point that the more Russia conquers, the further that Ukrainians will feel mentally from Russia.

There are three “basic” East Slavic countries, Belarus included. The major disagreements started with the fall of the Union, and further these three moved forward the more troubles were revealed. But limitless international families and long term friendships from these countries were the reality, above politics. Open borders, similar culture and mentality. Basically “the one nation”, and then politics intervened.

First it began with so called “Orange Revolution” when they got new president Yushenko, you probably haven’t heard of him since Europe was less interested in what was happening there. Putin considers him an American puppet so that’s where it went down and kept degrading. The sentiment you provided about Ukrainians feeling more and more distant is justified because it really does seem like that. Many families broke, friends self-separated themselves from friends. I’ve lost some good long-term mates because of that, and they ended our story simply because of me being a Russian citizen, despite all we had. Politics went above personality. For me this process looks borderline irreversible now when one started to kill another. I would have never, never ever guessed I will witness this. I am still appalled. But I still want to believe that all those three nations are too relative to be enemies, even though I’m not that much of a Russian myself yet I have been growing up here and still have my people both in Ukraine and Belarus. It all hurts.

* * *

Jutsa I will do my best to check those videos some time soon but the length is stressful for me almost as much as my loss of aspiration these days :P But I know Pozner guy, he is (was?) quite respected journalist in Russia and had his own talk show on the main federal tv channel (!) where he interviewed many public figures and challenged politicians (!) in quite a deep and well-educated manner, I’d dare to say he did it very smartly.

Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Difinbelk, and Phillip isle

So Russia's up to some nonsense to put things lightly. I'm not really directly responding to anyone, so I'm not going to quote people here. Geopolitics is a pretty complicated issue, of which I am no expert, but for the sake of open dialogue, I think it's important to have the uneducated masses (i.e. me) give their uninformed opinions. That's the nature of democracy.

I want to start by saying that I absolutely support Ukraine in this. They are being actively invaded by a despotic oligarch attempting to restore the glory of the Soviet Union, in spite of their own wishes. I get there's issues with ethnic and cultural Russians living within Ukrainian borders, and I can sympathize with feelings of alienation to an extent, but I'm very much in favor of globalism and multiculturalism. The way I see it, if they want to live in Russia, they can feel free to move there, but I'm not really sentimental over ancestral land, so I don't feel like my judgement in that respect should be the enforced perspective. Really, I think the solution would be peaceful communication with Russia. It's a different scenario for sure, but I don't hear about Americans here in Canada feeling isolated by our imaginary lines on a map, and I think it's because these lines are permeable, not just for migration, but for visiting, commercial purposes, and cultural influence.

I think the fact that Russia is recognizing some eastern Ukrainian areas as sovereign nations is a pretty interesting issue. They've done this in the past, with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but I'm not too familiar with the situation between Russia and Georgia, so the precedent is lost on me. Maybe I'd support these Ukrainian breakaways' independence if the situation was different, for example, if Ukraine was oppressive to these people or generally unstable (prior to the invasion, obviously), but as it is, it just seems like justification more than anything. Maybe if Russia wasn't invading and a large majority in a defined area wanted to be independent for good reasons, there could be talks over that.

The other reason I've been seeing for Russia's invasion is Ukraine's ties with far right groups, with some pretty fascist-adjacent people in positions of power. Obviously, I'm against this, and something should be done about that, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that if that wasn't the case, Russia wouldn't just invade anyways. They're not exactly big on liberty themselves. The solution to a troubling government position, so long as it isn't actively causing harm, should never be an invasion. It was nonsense when the U.S. was doing this in the Middle East, and it will continue to be nonsense into the future.

There's also Russia's aversion to NATO to factor in, which is moving it's way east. Russia doesn't want NATO on their borders, which is understandable. However, NATO is moving east because eastern countries are joining NATO. If Russia doesn't like NATO, they can be against it, but they can't force other countries not to join NATO. As is, NATO is mainly defensive anyways, so I don't think Russia's under a legitimate threat of invasion from Ukraine aligning itself with them.

So yeah, Russia's in the wrong here. That's pretty clear to me. I think it's more than evident that the Ukrainians don't want Russia in their borders based on how the invasion has played out so far. The topic I'm less sure of is what the global community should do about it. Obviously, the best case scenario is that Russia and Ukraine hash it out in peace talks, and Russia goes away, but I think I'd be justified in my skepticism towards that as an outcome. Maybe in two hours, exactly that will happen and I'll look dumb, in which case I'd be more than happy to admit as much. But at the very least, I don't think we can expect that to happen with a large degree of certainty.

Normally, I'd be fully in favor of going to war. Hell, in an ideal world, I'd have started WWIII in 2014 when Russia started on Crimea. This is pure imperialism, and it will not stop until either Russia controls Europe (or, at the very least, Poland), or a war starts. So start it sooner rather than later, strike with as much force as we are able to, and put a stop to any future invasions. We know from WWII that appeasement doesn't work, so there's not really another option, in the absence of Putin leaving power and a drastic regime change occurring. However, there's a pretty huge issue with that stance.

Russia's a nuclear power, there's no getting around that. There's a pretty significant risk that war with Russia will result in the literal end of the world. Ukraine is not a nuclear power, so if our goal is to minimize the risk of nuclear war, then it would make sense to let Russia have it, maybe even to assist their invasion. However, I don't think that's the correct course of action. The best way to prevent nuclear war is to disarm ourselves and just let Russia and North Korea do as they please, which I'm not really a fan of, and I don't think the rest of the world would like that either. Freedom is worth fighting over, and over 40 million people live in Ukraine, so their free will should count for something here. To me, it comes down to how great a need there should be to risk nuclear war.

There's a strong argument to be made in existentialism. Humanity isn't going to last forever, so we shouldn't live as if we are. Ukraine is being invaded, and that's bad, so we should take action to prevent it. If Putin is willing to end the world over that, then so be it. We were all going to die anyways. This is a solid line of reasoning, but I think it's a disservice to the world as a whole. So what if we don't live forever? We never were, that hasn't stopped us from continuing to survive in the past. We're not even capable of conceptualizing "forever", but we are capable of thinking about tomorrow, so we should live to improve the temporal landscape we can perceive, and I don't think Bethesda's Fallout series is a "better future".

There's also a good argument on the grounds of keeping peace, which I've already kind of made. If we can prevent the very real consequences of nuclear war with 100% certainty by letting the imaginary lines we call "borders" shift, then we should do so. However, just because borders are imaginary doesn't mean they have real world weight. The aforementioned millions of people in Ukraine don't want to deal with the consequences of being part of Russia, and I think they have good reason to believe their quality of life will be diminished as a result of the invasion. It's a disservice to them to just abandon them to the hands of Russia, and it sets a pretty terrible precedent, which is relevant since Russia's probably not stopping at Ukraine.

So I think our best course of action lies somewhere in between. The risk of annihilation needs to be balanced with the harm caused through inaction, because at the end of the day, it's just a risk of annihilation. Putin knows as well as everyone else that firing nuclear weapons on NATO countries will result in his, and Russia's, demise, and as such, will not do so. Thus is the beauty of mutually assured destruction. This, however, assumes that Putin is a purely logical person with the endgoal of preservation of Russia. Putin is as prone to emotion and irrationality as everyone else, and if he feels Russia is threatened, there's a good chance he decides to just end the world out of spite.

In my opinion, sanctions are a good start, but that comes with it's own set of issues. The entire population of Russia isn't to blame for this, so we shouldn't cause needless suffering to them, the key word being "needless". We shouldn't plunge them into a famine, but we should stop shipping luxury goods and commodities to put pressure on Russia to stop. Basically, if we make the cost of invading Ukraine through sanctions higher than Putin's perceived benefit, then the invasion stops and we go back to normal. And ultimately, the west isn't responsible for the suffering of the Russian people if they are responding to Russia's actions, Putin is. He could just stop at any time. However, any sanctions we put in place should try to minimize the suffering of innocent people as much as possible, because it doesn't really matter who's fault it is as long as it's happening in my opinion. It may seem like I'm oscillating between two different positions here, but I'm arguing against extremes in favor of moderation. Sanctions are a good start, and the rest of the world should get in on it. These same principles apply to any non-violent action, such as closing airspace or blocking developmental projects, as well as supporting Ukraine financially and materially.

As for putting soldiers in Ukraine, that's a very touchy issue. I get the "show of power" arguments, but that can only go so far when your opponent has the power to end the world. NATO troops in Russia will result in either Russia retreating, or war with NATO, and if the former can be achieved in a reasonable time frame without troops, then I'd rather not risk the latter. However, for the reasons outlined, I'd rather start a conflict then just let Russia have Ukraine. I think we should wait and see before we put NATO troops in Russia. It's only been a few days. In the meantime, we should do what we can to support Ukraine and deter Russia without going to war, though that may change.

Edit: I didn't acknowledge it anywhere in my ramblings because it didn't fit, but I feel like I should add that Zelenskyy is a badass. The man is posting vlog content in the capital as it's under bombardment from Russian forces. It's insane that he's still in Ukraine at all, as he is the head of state while it's being actively invaded. Just in general, the Ukrainians have been incredible, and there's already been so many stories of people doing stuff I can only hope I'd be brave enough to do under their conditions. To repeat the sentiment I've heard elsewhere, the war of moral is very important in an attempted occupation of a territory, and thus far, Ukraine is winning the war of moral handily.

Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Lura, and 3 othersNation of ecologists, Forest Virginia, and Phillip isle

Palmyaarain warships wrote:The Chernobyl incident had made some animals's live shorter and deformed I think

And yet the exclusion zone is now possibly the most biodiverse area in Europe with the return of species that have disappeared from almost everywhere else. The brutal truth is that nuclear meltdown harms the natural world less than our simple everyday presence.

Siornor, Jutsa, Ownzone, Ruinenlust, and 5 othersCanaltia, Middle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Difinbelk, and Station 8

If anyone can find a better blue sky/yellow forest picture in high quality for the banner please let me know. I've got ones with more yellow trees than the current one, but the border between those and the sky also needs to be straight.

Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, and 4 othersMiddle Barael, Nation of ecologists, Forest Virginia, and Phillip isle

Mozworld wrote:If anyone can find a better blue sky/yellow forest picture in high quality for the banner please let me know. I've got ones with more yellow trees than the current one, but the border between those and the sky also needs to be straight.

Here is a good one I found featuring a field of sunflowers, Ukraine's national flower and part of a traditional Ukrainian curse.
https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/2/field-of-sunflowers-under-a-blue-sky-trout55.jpg

Uan aa Boa wrote:And yet the exclusion zone is now possibly the most biodiverse area in Europe with the return of species that have disappeared from almost everywhere else. The brutal truth is that nuclear meltdown harms the natural world less than our simple everyday presence.

Well that's depressing. Humans are worse than nuclear radiation for animals.

Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Nation of ecologists, Difinbelk, and 1 otherForest Virginia

Mozworld wrote:If anyone can find a better blue sky/yellow forest picture in high quality for the banner please let me know. I've got ones with more yellow trees than the current one, but the border between those and the sky also needs to be straight.

I wonder if we could also Ukraine-ify the regional flag? If the white parts became the correct shade of blue, and the green parts became the right shade of yellow, that might be cool. And since our region's flag is only two colors, and is ultimately top and bottom, maybe it would look nice. How would people feel about that? *also looks in the direction of Mount Seymour*

Cuillin, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, Daarwyrth, and 5 othersThe void territories, Alsakah, Nation of ecologists, Difinbelk, and Forest Virginia

Ruinenlust wrote:I wonder if we could also Ukraine-ify the regional flag? If the white parts became the correct shade of blue, and the green parts became the right shade of yellow, that might be cool. And since our region's flag is only two colors, and is ultimately top and bottom, maybe it would look nice. How would people feel about that? *also looks in the direction of Mount Seymour*

I'd support a change like that.

Ruinenlust wrote:I wonder if we could also Ukraine-ify the regional flag? If the white parts became the correct shade of blue, and the green parts became the right shade of yellow, that might be cool. And since our region's flag is only two colors, and is ultimately top and bottom, maybe it would look nice. How would people feel about that? *also looks in the direction of Mount Seymour*

I would be on board for this. I myself would change my flag but because of the... uniqueness of it, I think that'd be basically impossible .-.

Unfortunately, Russia's flag is ironically much more doable. If anyone feels like taking their frustrations out on me, as par for the course for an elected official, let me know and I can do that, but joking aside that'd probably be a very terrible idea. Not to mention it'd still be a monstrosity in appearance.

Edit: Actually, that was remarkably easier than I thought it'd be.

Uan aa Boa wrote:And yet the exclusion zone is now possibly the most biodiverse area in Europe with the return of species that have disappeared from almost everywhere else. The brutal truth is that nuclear meltdown harms the natural world less than our simple everyday presence.

Preach it, brother. In a way that's a good thing considering how much radioactive and chemical waste we've dumped into the oceans that's bound to corrode away any time now (if it hasn't already). But overall? Fffffuu

Daarwyrth, Ruinenlust, Uan aa Boa, and Nation of ecologists

Ruinenlust wrote:I wonder if we could also Ukraine-ify the regional flag? If the white parts became the correct shade of blue, and the green parts became the right shade of yellow, that might be cool. And since our region's flag is only two colors, and is ultimately top and bottom, maybe it would look nice. How would people feel about that? *also looks in the direction of Mount Seymour*

Probably not as crisp as a Mount Seymour version, but it'll do for now.

Mozworld wrote:Probably not as crisp as a Mount Seymour version, but it'll do for now.

Made an SVG version: https://pastebin.com/1g9FQc8H
I don't know if regions are allowed to use SVGs yet, but if they are, that will probably be fine.
Here's that converted to a PNG: https://imgur.com/a/5eofEwk

Window Land wrote:Made an SVG version: https://pastebin.com/1g9FQc8H
I don't know if regions are allowed to SVGs yet, but if they are, that will probably be fine.
Here's that converted to a PNG: https://imgur.com/a/5eofEwk

I don't know how to view SVGs, but the PNG is super crisp. Great quality stuff.

Canaltia wrote:I don't know how to view SVGs, but the PNG is super crisp. Great quality stuff.

The best way to view that SVG is to download it, rename the file to have a .svg extension, and then open it with your favorite web browser.

Window Land wrote:Made an SVG version: https://pastebin.com/1g9FQc8H
I don't know if regions are allowed to SVGs yet, but if they are, that will probably be fine.
Here's that converted to a PNG: https://imgur.com/a/5eofEwk

Looks great, but shouldn't it be the other way up?

Mozworld wrote:Looks great, but shouldn't it be the other way up?

I'm not sure what you mean, is the SVG rendering upside for you? I tested it with three different browsers and it was fine.

Window Land wrote:I'm not sure what you mean, is the SVG rendering upside for you? I tested it with three different browsers and it was fine.

No, I mean the Ukraine flag is blue on top, yellow on bottom.

Mozworld wrote:No, I mean the Ukraine flag is blue on top, yellow on bottom.

Whoops, that was dumb of me. Fixed versions:
https://imgur.com/a/uDNE2O9
https://pastebin.com/zGsSb7kM

I don’t think I could do any better!

Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and Nation of ecologists

Mozworld wrote:If anyone can find a better blue sky/yellow forest picture in high quality for the banner please let me know. I've got ones with more yellow trees than the current one, but the border between those and the sky also needs to be straight.

What about the famous picture of the yellow wheat fields with a clear blue sky?

Jutsa, Ruinenlust, and Kase

Really hard poll to answer, sending troops could mean nuclear war... If Russia would not have nukes then troops would have been already there from Europe/NATO and soon in Moscow to cut Sauron's head off. So I guess I must vote no, althought in theory I support the option of sending troops 100%.

Oh, and today on the news fresh study about the effects of a nuclear war:

"Atmospheric impacts of global nuclear war would be more severe than previously thought"

"Bardeen and his co-authors found that smoke from a global nuclear war would destroy much of the ozone layer over a 15-year period, with the ozone loss peaking at an average of about 75% worldwide. Even a regional nuclear war would lead to a peak ozone loss of 25% globally, with recovery taking about 12 years.

Since the ozone layer protects Earth’s surface from harmful UV radiation, such impacts would be devastating to humans and the environment. High levels of UV radiation have been linked to certain types of skin cancer, cataracts, and immunological disorders. The ozone layer also protects terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as well as agriculture.

“Although we suspected that ozone would be destroyed after nuclear war and that would result in enhanced ultraviolet light at the Earth’s surface, if there was too much smoke, it would block out the ultraviolet light,” said study co-author Alan Robock, a professor of climate science at Rutgers University. “Now, for the first time, we have calculated how this would work and quantified how it would depend on the amount of smoke.”"

https://news.ucar.edu/132813/smoke-nuclear-war-would-devastate-ozone-layer-alter-climate
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/BardeenOzoneUV2021JD035079.pdf

Slava Ukraini!
Never surrender, never give up!
May freedom prevail!

Jutsa, Ruinenlust, Nation of ecologists, and Forest Virginia

Bokazhia

Hello.

Does my flag look like the Ukraine flag? If so then I’mma change it.

«12. . .2,3192,3202,3212,3222,3232,3242,325. . .2,6342,635»

Advertisement