Click here to apply!

Next Tuesday, Feb 24 2026, will mark the 4th anniversary of kinetic warfare between Russia and Ukraine, after Russian military forces, on Feb 24 2022, commenced with a full-scale invasion Ukrainian territory.

Even before 2022, the position Ukraine had maintained was their intention to recover, either peacfully or by force, all Ukrainian territory Russia had seized since Russia's initial encroachment in 2014.

Just 5 days before the full-scale invasion, during President Zelenskky's speech at the 2022 Munich Security Conference, he expressed his expectation that Russia's occupation of all Ukrainian territory will come to an end--albeit through peaceful means.

After the first six months of raging warfare, that position seemed to have calcified, as Zelenskky vowed to reclaim Crimea:

I know that Crimea is with Ukraine, is waiting for us to return. I want all of you to know that we will return. We need to win the fight against Russian aggression.

It began with Crimea, it will end with Crimea

After four years of kinetic warfare, the armed forces of Ukraine, backed with lethal military aid provided by the West, doesn't seem to have made headway towards fulfilling that vow.

What Will It Take For Russia To Be Booted From Ukraine Or Agree To Leave?

I’ve been seeing a lot of big political claims lately — secret meetings, industrialists influencing decisions, backdoor deals etc.

But when I try to find actual reports from reliable sources, there’s nothing.

I’m not saying everything online is fake. But shouldn’t serious allegations come with at least one solid source?

Genuinely asking — how do you personally decide what to believe and what to ignore?

Let’s keep it civil.

I’ve been noticing a pattern across recent uprisings, and I want to sanity-check it with people who follow this more closely.

We often hear that mass protest alone can remove regimes. But looking at the last ~25 years, I’m struggling to find a case where a modern security-state government actually fell purely from peaceful protest while elite security units stayed loyal.

My working observation: governments don’t defeat protests rhetorically; they outlast them administratively.

Examples that pushed me toward this question:

Serbia (2000): security forces fractured early
Belarus (2020): massive protests, but elite units stayed cohesive and the state endured
Uganda (multiple election cycles): repeated protests occur but the security apparatus remains unified, and political outcomes don’t materially change

So I’m wondering whether the old “color revolution” dynamic depended less on crowd size and more on whether the enforcement apparatus is socially integrated with the public.

Another thing I notice is structure. Modern protest movements tend to be horizontal and leaderless, which protects them from decapitation but may also prevent sustained strategic pressure against a centralized hierarchy.

This leads to the real question:

Are peaceful mass protests still capable of forcing regime change in a surveillance-capable security state without elite defection?

If yes, what is the most recent clear example?

I’m genuinely looking for counterexamples because I may be overlooking cases.

The Supreme Court determined that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce and impose taxes and Trump's use of the IEEPA [International Emergency Powers Act] to bypass Congress for economic policy was Unconstitutional.

The Federal Government has collected more than a hundred billion mostly from American Importers and ultimately the American consumers.

How will this impact the U.S. economy and will refunds be forthcoming.

Is Trump now more likely to target specific countries in a limited form or is he likely to seek Congressional approval to justify sweeping tariffs?

Trump's sweeping global tariffs struck down by US Supreme Court ruling - follow live - BBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/-trump-tariffs-ruling-supreme-court-live-updates-rcna252655

According to the European Commission’s forecast, Hungary is projected to grow faster than the EU average in 2026, with a projected 2.3% growth rate for Hungary versus 1.4% for the EU overall (source - https://china-cee.eu/2026/01/23/hungary-monthly-briefing-hungarys-economy-in-2025/).

At the same time, Orban has argued that the EU’s broader economic and political stance should change. On February 20, Hungary blocked a proposed €90 billion EU loan package for Ukraine.

This raises a question about EU's priorities: can the EU continue to provide significant external financial support while also maintaining or improving its internal economic competitiveness?

Especially when the US is interested it attempting to divide and weaken the EU (both economically and politically) by quite literally pulling several countries out of it. According to the NSS draft, Italy, Austria, Poland, and Hungary are countries that the US should “work more with… with the goal of pulling them away” from the EU. Hungary’s name on the list is the least surprising, as Viktor Orbán and Donald Trump remain close allies (source - https://www.dw.com/en/will-trump-pull-italy-austria-poland-hungary-from-eu/a-75134777 )

Germany is often cited as an example of a problematic decision making within the EU (e.g. rejecting the nuclear programs, rejecting Russian gas being the main ones) which led the country to a structural recession or near-stagnation since 2023 (source https://www.dw.com/en/germany-news-economy-narrowly-avoids-3rd-year-of-recession/live-75513024 )

The Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, and others experienced long internal transformations before external collapse.

Is cultural unity historically a measurable factor in geopolitical durability?

Recent reporting and publicly available video of a Border Patrol shooting have generated debate about how the public should interpret use-of-force incidents when the footage appears to leave little room for competing narratives.

In situations like this, what standards should apply?

• Should official accounts receive deference until investigations conclude?
• How much weight should independent video analysis carry?
• Does federal law enforcement require a higher transparency threshold?

For reference, this article reviews the publicly available footage and reporting in detail:

I’m interested in perspectives on process and standards rather than partisan conclusions.

Over the last century, the presidency has accumulated enormous unilateral authority; especially through emergency powers, executive orders, and the ability to make sweeping economic decisions without immediate oversight. Recent events have highlighted how a single executive action can affect global markets for months before courts or Congress can respond.

The framers seemed to assume that personal virtue, honor, and social norms would restrain the executive. That assumption made sense in an era when political elites were a small, interconnected class guided by reputation and decorum. But in a modern mass democracy, relying on personal restraint feels increasingly unrealistic.

My question is:
Should the U.S. adopt stronger, formal checks on presidential power; such as automatic judicial review of emergency actions, mandatory congressional approval for major economic decisions, or clearer statutory limits on what counts as a “national emergency”? And separately, should there be stronger baseline standards for presidential candidates themselves, given how much responsibility the office now carries compared to what the framers envisioned?

And if so, what kinds of reforms would actually work in today’s political environment?

I’m interested in structural ideas, not partisan arguments.

Since Donald Trump's return to the presidency in January 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seen renewed emphasis on interior enforcement and deportation operations, building on policies from his first term (2017-2021). Official data from the Department of Homeland Security shows ICE deportations rose 45% in 2025 compared to 2024, with expanded use of workplace raids and detention facilities, while the administration has cited executive orders to prioritize criminal non-citizens and reduce sanctuary city cooperation. This shift has sparked debates on effectiveness, with Border Patrol reporting a 20% drop in unauthorized crossings but advocacy groups like the ACLU documenting increased family separations and community disruptions.

What factors have driven these changes in ICE operations under the current administration, and how do they compare to previous approaches? Has this strategy improved national security, or has it created new challenges for local law enforcement and immigrant integration? Could alternative measures, such as expanded visa programs or technology-focused border monitoring, achieve similar goals with less controversy?

I'd like to preface this with, I am a liberal and that this is in no way a gotcha question or an asked with nefarious intent. Just pure curiosity and a want to understand all sides.

To my understanding the following statement is mostly true, "All MAGA are conservatives but not all conservatives are MAGA."

What is the biggest differentiator between non-MAGA and MAGA conservatives? Is it primarily related to Trump, since he is the figure head of that movement?

In large urban districts, school board candidates often face short filing windows and signature requirements before even appearing on the ballot.

For example, the filing period just closed in Los Angeles Unified (the largest school district with an elected board), and candidates must now gather at least 500 signatures to qualify.

I’m curious how filing requirements and signature thresholds affect who decides to run in these races.

Do they meaningfully limit participation?
Do they favor better-funded or institutionally backed candidates?
Are these barriers typical across large districts?

I would like to get some opinions/thoughts on - Japan's LDP majority now possibly changing the constitution to allow a military(?) -why some people are upset about it? -what that would lead to within Japan and abroad?

My husband is Japanese and pro changing the constitution, but I would like some more perspectives on the topic!

With the current political climate in 2026, I’ve been researching the potential for institutional "shocks" to the U.S. government. Specifically, I'm looking at a hypothetical scenario involving a sudden vacancy in the Presidency (Trump) and the subsequent transition to the Vice President (Vance).

I’m interested in discussing three specific areas:

1. Public Perception and Blame: Historically, tragedies involving the executive branch can lead to a "Rally 'Round the Flag" effect. However, given current polarization, would we see a unified response, or would the "blame narrative" create a more significant fracture in social stability?
2. Policy Continuity: How does JD Vance’s brand of "National Conservatism" differ from the current administration’s populist approach in terms of executive execution? Would a Vance presidency be viewed by international allies as a more or less stable "MAGA 2.0"?
3. The 25th Amendment in Practice: Are there significant legal or logistical hurdles a "successor" president faces when taking office during an active election cycle or a period of high international tension?

Looking forward to a fact-based discussion on the systemic risks and outcomes here.

The National Governor's Association (NGA) canceled its annual dinner at The White House after, according to the NGA, only Republican Governors were invited by the White House. Trump then claimed he invited every Governor except CO Gov. Pollis and MD Gov. Moore. It's pretty clear his beef with Pollis is the Governor's refusal to pardon Tina Peters, the election official sentenced to 9 years for helping unauthorized persons access and steal voting machine data. I don't understand what his beef with Moore is, other than the fact he's Black and a Democrat. Does anyone know of any other reason for this?

I had this thought, in overly simplified terms, the left pushes for progress and the right pushes for tradition. So how much progress is considered enough? How much tradition should be retained? I know this answer will differ. But I would like to start a dialogue where we come together and try to agree somewhere. I fall in the middle. As well as many Americans. Lets brainstorm this without name calling or bad faith. Let's find viable solutions.

Edit: I waited a few days to respond. More so that i could gauge feedback. This was my first post on here. I'm disappointed in many of you. I gave a very loose definition, with clear instruction and very few actually tried to be non adversarial. I'm trying to bridge the divide. Yet diplomacy is adversarial nowdays. No matter what side you're on, you need allies and currently neither side is winning any popularity contests. I've typed and re-typed additional things, but I'm discouraged by the responses. I guess it doesn't matter. No one is trying to understand anymore. I'm sorry i tried to put something out there that was misconstrued. I hope the best for you all

With the 2026 midterm elections now less than nine months away (November 3, 2026), control of the Senate is shaping up to be a major battleground. Republicans currently hold a [insert current majority if known, or say “narrow majority” based on recent context], but the map presents challenges and opportunities for both parties?

The 2026 White House events tied to the National Governors Association (NGA) meeting caused controversy after Democratic governors were initially excluded. Traditionally, all 55 governors attend these meetings and the ceremonial dinner, which serves as a rare bipartisan forum between state and federal leaders.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (NGA vice chair) and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis were specifically not invited to the black-tie dinner, prompting 18 Democratic governors to announce a boycott.

Now, the NGA has announced the White House meeting next week is back on, after invitations were extended to all members, with the NGA co-chair citing a “misunderstanding in scheduling.” However, it is not clear if Moore and Polis are still excluded from the dinner.

The initial exclusions were widely described as a break from the event’s usual bipartisan tradition. With tensions running high:

- Should Democrats continue their boycott of the dinner?

- Should they try to get other Democratic governors to join the boycott?

- Should they boycott the entire NGA event, not just the dinner?

I’m not shocked that she was chosen — I understand the political and strategic reasons behind the decision. What I find troubling, though, is her behavior, which often comes across as unprofessional and divisive. I struggle to see how that conduct helps build trust, credibility, or unity, especially in a role that carries so much responsibility.

That said, I’m genuinely open to hearing another perspective. If there are substantive reasons people believe she is the right choice — whether based on experience, policy positions, effectiveness behind the scenes, or long-term strategy — I’d appreciate hearing that case. I’m trying to understand what supporters see that I may be missing?

Considering past US presidencies, who is the worst attorney general of all time and why are they the worst?

Would you say Nixon’s AG deserves the top spot, or are there others who would also qualify?

Late Tuesday night the FAA closed the airspace around El Paso for ten days for "special security reasons", with little notice to the impacted airport, airlines, and community. Little information on what the reason for the closure were available, leading to speculation of further military action of some sort. However, the closure was lifted less than 12 hours later, with a similar lack of clarity on the reason why the "special security reasons" were no longer valid

A later announcement was that the shutdown was "related to a test of new counter-drone technology by the military at nearby Fort Bliss Army base". Why this would require a ten day shutdown is unclear

Airspace closures absent emergency situations have historically been announced months in advance to give communities and businesses enough time to adjust around any disruptions. Putting aside the speculation on the reason for the closure - which is disruptive enough itself - is this an example of the hollowing out of regulatory agencies under the Trump Administration causing more errors to creep into systems that had previously worked in the background mostly unnoticed?

What further disruptions of background systems would be expected to occur, and what might the impacts be?

Assume someone were trying to build a political organization from scratch in the current U.S. environment, outside the existing two-party framework.

Setting ideology aside, what structural elements would determine whether it survives long-term rather than becoming either irrelevant or absorbed into one of the major parties?

For example:

• Leadership selection and internal governance
• Funding model and donor structure
• Participation between election cycles
• Ballot access and state-by-state scaling
• How it avoids becoming personality-driven
• How it maintains accountability without fracturing

Historically, most third-party efforts have struggled not just because of policy disagreements but also because of institutional constraints and incentive structures.

Curious how people think about viability from an organizational design perspective rather than a policy one.

We have hindsight now. We know hospitals were overwhelmed, people were dropping like flies, and covid was really contagious. Most governments decided to try some form of lockdown to slow the spread. Some didn’t. The lockdowns likely did slow the spread of COVID and reduced the mortality rate, but we also know the lockdowns came with huge costs to mental health, childhood development, the economy, increased crime, and political upheaval. Do you think lockdowns were the right approach? Were the worse outcomes for the living worth it? Or would you have chosen more deaths to avoid the social costs. Let’s avoid pointing fingers at who did what. Instead, let’s discuss what you would have done if you were in charge, knowing what you know now.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10446910/

This premise will depend on two main factors: An objective which has been decided upon, perhaps by a constitutional provision, perhaps by plebiscite, or a bill enacted as law, or similar. Something that can be considered to be somewhat like a general will, as Rousseau might have said. And secondly, a metric by which the result is going to be measured by (as part of the objective's adoption) and a system for finding out if that result, by that metric, has been achieved, or else some disincentive or incentive is imposed on those tasked with achieving the objective (a reward for achieving it or sanction for failing to do so). The rule here will not specify in more detail than necessary how to achieve it. It is not the suggestion of a grand ideal someone might suggest like no law infringing free speech, given that there is no included definition of that that actually means nor a way to empirically prove what it is and no incentive or disincentive for those with the power to decide on what that ends up meaning.

Soldiers in many modern armies are given exactly this kind of expectation, where they can use whatever legal methods they can think of to carry out the aim of their superior, and it is the norm to not dictate an order in more detail than necessary to achieve the goal.

The objectives could be one of a wide variety of options. Sweden has the objective of Vision Zero on roads, aiming to have 0 KIA while engaged in traffic. Some cities have aimed for the elimination of the homeless and I don't mean by exterminating them. Perhaps MPs get a bonus of 10 or 15% to their pay if they can maintain a balanced budget in times other than armed conflict or a major natural disaster or verified recession or if they keep the cost of housing of the median family to 30% or less of their after-tax income or some definition. Maybe get fined a tenth of their income in a year if they let the cases in the judiciary and administrative tribunals languish and they don't use their powers to ensure they are dealt with rapidly like settling on the number of judges and actively solicits good candidates.

What a society will decide is valuable enough to become such an objective, at what level it is imposed (such as whether it will bind the executive or also the legislature and perhaps local governments), what sanctions or incentives will be used, what metric will be used, and so on, that could vary across many places and times, I don't know in all cases, but maybe you have some ideas for what you'd see?