I won't even comment on your nonsense. For any significant political event, one can find rebuttals from suspicious witnesses to sow doubt about the events that took place. However, people in Ukraine know how the events took place in 2013-2014 in the central square of the capital of Ukraine. And they will trust their eyes, and not the similar evidence in the article that you provide.

There can be no middle ground in Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Either Russia will seize Ukraine and the terror of the civilian population of Ukraine will increase significantly, or Russia will suffer military defeat and will be deprived of the opportunity to carry out similar attacks in the future. Something in between means freezing the war and allowing Russia, over time, to revive its already lost combat power in manpower and equipment and, after some time, begin an invasion again. Russia is already close to defeat, and therefore Ukraine needs to continue to provide all possible support from the international community in order to eradicate the evil that comes from Putin’s Russia.

However, I do not understand your expression that it was Ukraine that forced Russia to attack their land. An aggressor, if he wants to attack a neighboring country, will in any case find a pretext for such an attack. But I would like to hear from you how Ukraine finally forced Russia to attack its territory, while losing a significant part of its population and half destroying its economy.

Hamas hit Israel with rockets on a very large scale and harshly, inflicting about 5,000 rocket strikes. Following this, about a thousand militants invaded Israeli territory through gaps in the fence, with the help of boats and even by parachute, and carried out senseless terror on civilians.
  In response, the Israeli IDF has already carried out about 800 strikes on Hamas headquarters and centers, and has also received permission to conduct a ground operation in the Gaza Strip, from where the attack was carried out.

Israel can use Hamas' attack, unprecedented in the last 50 years, to completely destroy this terrorist group, which is generally not supported by the Palestinian people. I don't think this war will be very long. However, the world received another military hotbed in Europe. The UN was unable to pass a resolution this time either. The reform of this international organization has already taken too long.

It is possible that today the world has become even closer to the Third World War. Yesterday, October 7, the Islamist group Hamas launched its biggest attack on Israel in many years. The militants carried out a surprise attack under cover of a massive rocket attack (reported between 2,500 and 5,000 rocket strikes) and infiltrated several Israeli cities.

The Israeli army IDF announced a military operation "Iron Swords" to repel the attack, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly said that Israel is in a state of war. While the United States and European countries supported Israel in its right to defense, Advisor to the Supreme Leader of Iran Ali Khamenei, on the contrary, congratulated Palestinian militants on launching the largest attack on Israel.
Radical Islamists from the Taliban movement, who seized power in Afghanistan, also supported Hamas attacks on Israel. They are ready to “conquer Jerusalem” if Muslim countries neighboring Israel give them the right of passage for troops. Thus, another hotbed of military confrontation is being formed.

Is this a major failure of Israeli intelligence to allow such a massive attack without proper preparation for it, or a deliberate creation of conditions for the subsequent complete Israeli takeover of the Gaza Strip? We'll find out the answer soon.

International human rights organizations such as the UN, OSCE, IAEA and others are very much corrupted by Russia, which did not spare its money on this. In addition, the charters of these organizations are very outdated and do not meet the requirements of the current time. Any UN resolutions assessing Russia’s attack on Ukraine are now blocked by Russia itself, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and can veto any decisions of this international organization. The paradox also lies in the fact that no one has ever accepted Russia into the UN; Russia is in the UN without permission and illegally, only because at one of the meetings it announced that it is the legal successor of the USSR.

A state that is accused of violating the UN charter should not have the right to vote in decisions made against it, much less have the right to veto its decisions. This is the essence of the current inaction of such international organizations.

If you think that punishing the aggressor country is not a solution to the issue, offer your options. You can offer Putin's Russia the territory of your country in exchange for peace. Just keep in mind that Russia does not keep its promises and after capturing some territories, after some time it will come to capture everything.

Most governments are now trying to issue their CBDCs primarily in order to maximize the efficiency of their cashless financial system. At the same time, the amount of cash will decrease, since servicing them is very expensive for the state. But it is unlikely that it will come to the complete removal of paper money from circulation. A certain part of society will not be ready for this for a long time.

Decentralized cryptocurrency will continue to exist alongside the national currency of states, and states will try through various regulatory methods to limit the growing influence of cryptocurrency on society. This will be a long process with varying success.

In general, we can agree with your statements. But the global economy is not confused: current applied technologies in all sectors of the economy are rapidly becoming more complex. Any strong state can no longer produce all the necessary products and therefore countries are forced to follow the path of specialization in certain groups of goods. As for agriculture, the need for specialization is even more severe, since it is necessary to take into account the moisture content of the soil. Therefore, not all states can successfully develop agriculture. This is especially felt during periods of natural disasters and major wars that affect traditional agricultural producers. Russia's current military attack on Ukraine, which is a traditional exporter of agricultural products, is an example of such an artificial imbalance.

The world's oil reserves are dwindling, and food is increasingly valuable as food becomes increasingly scarce in a world with a growing population. While it is relatively easy to switch from oil as a fuel to other energy sources, and this is very important now, when the climate is changing rapidly, it is not yet possible to replace agricultural products.

Sea mines can be used not only to protect the sea coast from enemy landings, but also to intimidate any shipping in a certain area of the sea. Previously, Russia frightened Ukraine and the whole world with its Black Sea Fleet, and it was with the help of its military fleet in the Black Sea that it blocked the supply of agricultural products from Ukraine to the world market. However, after the Ukrainian Armed Forces launched a missile attack on a dry dock in Sevastopol on September 13 and destroyed the Russian large landing ship Minsk and the Rostov-on-Don submarine, Russia transferred at least 10 ships from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk away from the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Among them, the frigates Admiral Makarov and Admiral Essen, three diesel submarines, five landing ships and several small missile ships were withdrawn from Crimea.
https://tsn.ua/ru/ato/rossiya-vyvodit-svoi-korabli-iz-kryma-analitiki-obyasnili-chego-boyatsya-okkupanty-2423728.html

Since Russian missile and drone attacks on the Danube ports of Ukraine do not produce the desired effect, and Russia hides its Black Sea Fleet even further, sea mines are another factor in intimidating civilian shipping so that they do not export grain from Ukraine, and you correctly noted this. An aggressor country and a terrorist country, Russia continues to increase the number of its bloody crimes.

In this message, you clearly indicated that a Turkish cargo ship was blown up by a Ukrainian mine, and that: “Ukraine refused to comment, only mentioning “WW2 mines or mines left from last year's efforts to protect the ports from Russian assaults.” However, in the text of the article, on which you refer to, this is not the case. In this article, Reuters refers to information from the British maritime security company Ambrey, and regarding the commentary of the Ukrainian representative, it states: "A Ukrainian government source confirmed a vessel had struck a mine, adding it was "probably a World War II mine, or the landing mines that were left there last year", falling further comment". Moreover, the text of the article you are referring to indicates that this sea mine could have been installed by the Russian military: "Russia may use sea mines to target civilian shipping in the Black Sea, including by laying them on the approach to Ukrainian ports, the British government said on Wednesday citing intelligence. Ambrey said on Thursday the incident occurred on the same day that the company "informed its clients of a likely additional sea mine deployment by the Russian navy conducted to frustrate Ukraine's grain exports."
You claim that the mine on which the Turkish cargo ship was blown up is Ukrainian, which does not correspond to the text of this article.

You indicated, with reference to a representative of Ukraine, that the mine remained from last year’s efforts to protect ports from Russian attacks, which is also illogical. After the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the missile cruiser Moskva, was scuttled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on April 14, 2022, with two Ukrainian Neptune missiles, since then Russian warships have been afraid to come close to the shores of Ukraine, which means that since then it has made no sense to the Ukrainians lay mines to protect their ports. It turns out that for the last year and a half, no one has been blown up by Ukrainian mines, and as soon as Russia began to impede the export of Ukrainian grain along the Danube and attack this particular route off the Romanian coast with missiles and drones, suddenly Ukrainian mines that were installed a year and a half ago appeared, sailing all the way from the waters of the Black Sea ports Ukraine. It’s completely illogical, given that Russia is now interested in installing such mines.

If stablecoins are backed by the dollar, then this, in my opinion, will only strengthen the dollar, since it will mean the circulation of the same dollar. If a stablecoin is supported by another national currency, then, on the contrary, to some extent it will weaken the dollar. If the stablecoin is backed by another financial asset, then this should have virtually no visible impact on the dollar.

Some time will pass before humanity will be able to deliver minerals from cosmic bodies in space. By that time, people will definitely have invented relatively cheap ways to deliver them to Earth. It is likely that their delivery from asteroids may involve towing them to Earth and controlled dropping them at the desired point on our planet. Considering the expected large volumes of the substance delivered, their “extraction” may be even cheaper than it costs on our planet.

This method of obtaining minerals will definitely have a beneficial effect on the inhabitants of the Earth. In this case, there is no need to be afraid of inflation, since there will simply be a revaluation of values.

Stablecoins first appeared as private and other commercial financial assets, but more recently we have seen the emergence of CBDCs - digitized national currencies of states that are created primarily using blockchain technology. The number of state stablecoins will grow, and since they will compete with commercial ones, states, by regulating and complicating the rules for the circulation of commercial stablecoins, will create tangible obstacles to their development. Therefore, I do not expect strong further development of the current stablecoins, much less their assistance in the dominance of cryptocurrencies in the financial market.

You incorrectly state the events that took place in Ukraine from November 2013 to February 2014, which went down in the history of Ukraine as the Revolution of Dignity. Since many participants in this forum probably do not know these events, I will provide a brief chronology of them here.

On November 21, 2013, the government of Mykola Azarov decided to suspend the process of preparing for the signing of an association agreement between Ukraine and the EU. This happened at a time when President Viktor Yanukovych assured journalists in Vienna that Ukraine’s European integration was continuing. At the EU summit, Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union. After this, people began to gather in the center of Kyiv. At this time, fighters of the Berkut special forces began to arrive in the Ukrainian capital from all regions.

On the night of November 30, security forces brutally dispersed activists, mostly students, on Kiev's Independence Square. The authorities motivated this by the desire to clear space for the New Year tree. Berkut's actions sparked new protests in Kyiv.

On December 1, people occupied Independence Square. Since that time, the protests have not stopped. Activists demanded the resignation of the government and early elections. Activists created a tent city and stayed there around the clock.

On the afternoon of December 11, information appeared about preparations for an assault on the tent city. Activists strengthened barricades in anticipation of an assault. The security forces began storming the barricades on the Maidan, but were unable to capture them. On January 16, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted so-called “dictatorial” laws in order to minimize protests. This led to a new wave of confrontation.

On the night of January 22, the first two unarmed activists, Sergei Nigoyan and Mikhail Zhiznevsky, died from gunshot wounds on the Maidan. Residents of Kyiv began to move en masse to the site of the clash between protesters and security forces on Grushevsky Street. At about eight in the evening on February 18, security forces announced the start of an anti-terrorist operation and began storming the barricades on Independence Square using armored vehicles.

February 20 became the bloodiest in the history of Euromaidan. The security forces began to use firearms. A video has appeared of how on Instytutska Street snipers are shooting at activists who, without weapons, under the cover of wooden shields, tried to approach along Instytutska Street in the direction of the Verkhovna Rada and the Presidential Administration. Snipers pierced through homemade shields and the bodies of activists. According to the Prosecutor General's Office, 2.5 thousand people were injured during Euromaidan, 104 of them died. The dead protesters began to be called the Heavenly Hundred.

Negotiations lasted almost the entire night of February 21, in which the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych, representatives of the European Union and Russia took part. In the morning, the presidential administration announced their completion, and in the afternoon an agreement was signed to hold early presidential elections in December 2014. But their results did not satisfy the people. People present at Independence Square booed opposition leaders who came out to them to tell them about the signing of an agreement with the Ukrainian authorities to resolve the crisis. One of the Maidan centurions came onto the stage and declared that after 77 Maidan activists were killed, if information does not arrive by 10 a.m. the next day, February 23, that President Yanukovych has resigned, his self-defense hundred will go to storming of the Presidential Administration. https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/21/7015590/

  Already that same evening it became known that President Viktor Yanukovych fled from his Mezhyhirya residence and flew to Kharkov, then to Donetsk. There he tried to fly out of Ukraine by plane, but the border guards did not let him out due to the lack of properly executed documents. After that, he arrived in Crimea by plane at 12 o’clock on February 23, where Yanukovych was met by about 30 Russian military personnel who accompanied him to the Russian Navy sanatorium in Yalta. (At that time, there was a treaty Russian naval base on the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, which Russia later used to seize the peninsula.) Yanukovych was taken from Crimea to Russia by the Russian military. Yanukovych’s last step before leaving Ukraine was to write a statement renouncing state protection. After that, some of the guards went with him to Russia, and some stayed behind. A detailed chronology of Yanukovych’s escape from Ukraine after he ordered the shooting of unarmed Maidan activists can be read here. https://nv.ua/ukraine/events/podhotovka-panika-i-tajnye-perehovory-kak-janukovich-sbezhal-iz-ukrainy-v-rossiju-2453201.html

Thus, no one overthrew Yanukovych from the post of President of Ukraine. He himself fled from Ukraine like a coward, fearing popular anger and never appeared in Ukraine again.

On November 30, 1939, Russia, then still part of the Soviet Union, attacked Finland, trying to move the border from Leningrad and create a pro-Soviet puppet government in the country. Soviet military leaders planned to end the war in 20 days and march to Helsinki, giving Stalin a birthday present on December 21. The population of Finland at that time was 3.7 million people, and the USSR was more than 180 million.

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a large-scale attack on Ukraine, ostensibly attempting to push back possible NATO borders while installing a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Putin planned to end the war in 3-7 days and on May 9 to hold a parade of his troops on Khreshchatyk in Kyiv. But the war has been going on for more than a year and a half, and the successes of the Russians in this war are more than doubtful.

Many researchers and analysts now compare these two wars and find a lot in common, including the fact that these wars were the greatest disgrace for the USSR/Russia and their armies. As in the war against Finland, many Russians now do not know why they are dying in Ukraine, and low morale leaves a big imprint on the results of any wars, largely leveling out the population in the countries of the aggressor and the victim of the attack.

Russia declared its territory not only the Ukrainian Crimean peninsula, but also the Zaporozhye, Kherson, Lugansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine. Moreover, even those territories that were never occupied in this war. Why doesn’t Putin use nuclear weapons, since the Ukrainian Armed Forces are now located in the officially annexed territories of Russia?
Now the Ukrainian Armed Forces are very actively attacking Russian military installations on the territory of Crimea with the help of missiles and drones, periodically conducting landings and openly declaring the imminent liberation of Crimea. Where is the retaliatory nuclear strike?

Russia's large-scale military attack on Ukraine has been going on for the 19th month, that is, for more than a year and a half. The fact that Putin did not want Ukraine to join NATO is not the main reason for Russia's attack on Ukraine. If the question of Ukraine's membership in NATO had not arisen, Putin and his circle would have come up with another reason for attacking Ukraine.

If Putin was so afraid of increasing Russia’s direct border with NATO members, why then did Russia not react in any way to the fact that on April 4, 2023, Finland became the 31st NATO member state after the attack on Ukraine? After all, after its entry into the North Atlantic Alliance, NATO’s common border with Russia doubled and reached 2,600 kilometers. Finland, which joined the Western defense alliance against the backdrop of the Russian invasion of Ukraine that began in February 2022, has a 1,300-kilometer border with the Russian Federation in the far north.

Putin has a manic idea to forcefully return the former Soviet republics to his new empire, and he puts this idea into practice by attacking Ukraine. Let me remind you that every state has the inalienable right to determine its own foreign policy and decide which military or economic unions to join, and to indulge some underfuhrers only means increasing their appetites.

If the root cause of Russia’s attack on Ukraine is not clear to anyone, then it is worth recalling what Putin said about such goals. This is “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine. Taking into account the fact that several months before the start of a full-scale war, Putin denied the existence of a Ukrainian nation as such, it becomes clear that Putin’s Russia wants to destroy Ukraine as a state and Ukrainians as a nation.

Such goals were expressed more eloquently by one of the former leaders of the so-called Donetsk People's Republic, Pavel Gubarev, in October 2022 in a videotaped statement about the Ukrainians: “These are Russian people possessed by the devil. We are not going to kill them, but we want to convince them. But if "You don't want us to convince you, we will kill you. We will kill as many as necessary - 1 million, 5 million, or exterminate all of you. Until you understand that you are possessed and need treatment." Even after a year and a half of war, Gubarev’s views did not change. He recently stated that Ukrainians “are the same people, indistinguishable from us, simply infected with the bacillus of anti-Russianism.” They “believe in some completely mythical idea,” namely, that they are a separate nation.

This is pure Russian Nazism, when they kill only because the residents of Ukraine consider themselves Ukrainians and at the same time extol their Russian nation. This is also in the context of the fact that the topic of supposedly Ukrainian Nazis was raised above.
It is pointless and useless to sit down for negotiations with people who propagate such an ideology.
https://www.svoboda.org/a/byvshiy-narodnyy-gubernator-dnr-gubarev---ob-ukraintsah-vseh-istrebim-/32076556.html

I wonder what is the basis for your assertion that it is impossible to defeat a nuclear power, which, as follows from the text, means Russia? Everything happens for the first time. Until the recent attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the port of Russian-occupied Sevastopol, there had never been a case of a missile hitting a submarine. Ukraine has successfully opened such an account.

Do you mean that Russia, with a military defeat from Ukraine, will begin to bomb Ukraine with nuclear strikes or even the whole world? Firstly, Ukraine does not yet intend to seize Russian territory within its internationally recognized borders. That is, Ukraine is not going to attack Russia, but is only defending its independence and territorial integrity. Whatever the outcome, it should be clear to sensible Russians that in this war Russia is attacking, not defending, and therefore the need to use nuclear weapons on a neighboring country, receive nuclear contamination from their own bombs and die from it is completely absurd.

  Secondly, in order to use nuclear weapons, in Russia the president must transmit a code signal to unlock nuclear weapons and thereby authorize their use. This signal is transmitted through a portable nuclear briefcase control system. The Minister of Defense and the Chief of the General Staff have the same devices. The actual possibility of a nuclear strike is feasible if permission comes from all three devices. Then the signal goes to a special service of the General Staff, which, in turn, transmits the order to the specific command in whose location the nuclear forces are located. After this - from the command to the specific officer responsible for the actual launch. In addition, the president is always accompanied by a group of General Staff officers responsible for the “nuclear briefcase.” The chain is long enough, so it seems to be foolproof. On the other hand, if this fool nevertheless decides to use nuclear weapons, will all the military in this chain want to carry out this criminal order and expose themselves, their relatives, loved ones, and so on to the danger of destruction?

As for non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons, the chain is even longer. The troops do not have tactical warheads. It must be picked up from a centralized storage warehouse, transported, media prepared, loaded, and military training conducted. It's a long chain, and at every step there may be doubts about whether we really want it. In addition, all this is tracked. US and NATO intelligence will quickly discover this, and NATO has developed, in case of such a danger of using nuclear weapons, a preventive non-nuclear strike, as a result of which any such state will cease to exist within thirty minutes.

  Now some states are simply afraid that as a result of long-term military failures in Ukraine, a wave of protests and centrifugal influences may rise in Russia itself, which in turn could lead to the disintegration of Russia into a number of separate independent state entities and nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of uncontrolled individuals. All other options for the use of nuclear weapons are still unrealistic, even if Russia loses to Ukraine in this war.

In recent years, we have experienced dramatic climate change very strongly. At the same time, scientists and experts argue that it will become worse every year if humanity does not radically change its behavior in relation to environmental damage. Largely due to the high consumption of oil, gas and coal, humanity has come to the brink of destroying itself and its planet. Therefore, states and their unions will be forced to take very tough measures to prevent this from happening. The transition to electric cars and the abandonment of gasoline and diesel engines is just the beginning of such global changes. And no one will any longer look at the whims of individual groups of people or even individual states. Those who oppose will face very severe sanctions and punishments.

Well, in theory, a new financial system not based on the dollar could exist. But the currency of such a financial system must have the same liquidity as the dollar, that is, it must be freely bought, sold and exchanged in almost all countries of the world. It would also be good if such a currency were not the national currency of any state so that such a state would no longer dominate the financial market in the world, like the United States now.
Cryptocurrency will not be suitable for this purpose, at least in the foreseeable future, since most states will not want to take such risks.
Going back to barter also makes no sense. It is not for nothing that the evolution of financial relations, through centuries of practice, has moved to money in its various forms as a more convenient and higher format for the development of financial relations.

Every human society and even the animal world has its own rules of behavior. They are based on the mistakes of previous generations and are generally necessary and useful. But since our rough physical world is imperfect, sometimes the rules set by people are stupid and useless. Therefore, not everything is so simple. Without general rules of behavior there will be chaos, war and violence. Therefore, rules are necessary, but they should not regulate people's lives too much, since they violate their freedom of choice.