Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Foreign Affairs America Can’t Afford to Protect Europe from Russia President Donald Trump should act now to end European defense dependence. Credit: Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock Kaja Kallas, who is what passes as the European Union’s foreign minister, has chutzpah. Unfortunately, her other qualities, such as hypocrisy, are less endearing.  Kallas has long criticized President Donald Trump’s direct approach to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. After their phone conversation on Monday, days after direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, she complained, “We really haven’t seen, you know, the pressure on Russia from these talks.” Back in February, she accused Trump of “appeasement” for calling Putin. She explained: “It is clear that any deal behind our backs will not work. You need the Europeans, you need the Ukrainians.” That is rich coming from Kallas, who until last year was prime minister of Estonia. Stuck between Germany and Russia/Soviet Union, the Baltic state has suffered greatly throughout history. Unfortunately, as a member of NATO Tallinn offers liabilities rather than assets for America, which Kallas, and most of her countrymen, expect to defend their nation. After all, Estonia spent only $1.4 billion on the military last year, a rounding error for the Pentagon. That was 3.4 percent of GDP, impressive compared to other NATO members, but still shockingly low for a country that claims to fear a Russian invasion. Estonia’s army deploys 3,750 people. The government possesses ten ships, four airplanes, and three helicopters.  A country completely dependent on the largesse of others shouldn’t cast stones at those it expects to defend it from the nuclear-armed state next door. Especially since its immediate neighbors won’t save it if war comes. Nor will the wealthier, more distant European states. Tallinn would desperately await the American cavalry.  Kallas is not the only European personage who expects the U.S. to save his or her country. In March, Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni proposed handing out NATO security guarantees like some hotels distribute bedtime chocolates. When several European leaders discussed sending European troops to monitor a Ukrainian ceasefire, Meloni said no, arguing that “we need to think about more durable solutions,” meaning providing the alliance’s famed Article 5 guarantee to nonmembers: “Extending to Ukraine the same protection that NATO countries have would certainly be much more effective, although it would be something different from NATO membership.” She claimed that “this would be a stable, lasting, and effective security guarantee, much better than some of the proposals I have seen.” It is a stupid, even dishonest idea. The alliance has a membership process because threatening war against a nuclear power is serious business and should be offered only to countries whose defense is vital, or at least incidental to protecting other member states. Ukraine fails both standards, which is why the U.S. and Europeans have spent the last 17 years evading their commitment to bring Kiev into NATO. If countries such as Ukraine don’t meet membership requirements, they shouldn’t be gifted the essential attributes of membership. Proposing a security guarantee for non-members wasn’t the first attempt in March to make the U.S. foot the bill. A campaign to create a multi-national European peacekeeping force for Ukraine collapsed when Washington refused to provide Article 5 protection for the troops that Europeans proposed to deploy into danger. However, Meloni’s proposal isn’t just bad policy. Her suggested end run around the alliance’s membership standards is also a dishonest national copout. After rejecting the deployment of Italians to Ukraine, she hopes to appear tough without doing anything. Italy has one of the continent’s largest economies but competes with Spain as the worst major European laggard in military effort. With outlays at 1.49 percent of GDP, Italy is number 27 of 32 members. Among those doing better: Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, Portugal, Bulgaria, and Denmark. In fairness, of course, even the best performers aren’t that impressive, at least if they really believe what they are saying about the likelihood of Putin launching a Blitzkrieg against them. Observed The Economist: The realization is sinking in. Europe needs to become able to defend itself without America’s help. … The problem is that, so far, neither politician has offered much in the way of ideas on where the money for it is supposed to come from. Currently, the EU’s member states spend some €325bn ($340bn) a year on defense, which comes to about 1.8% of the bloc’s GDP. That is still, three years into war in Ukraine, less than the 2% target that NATO set its members in 2014 after Russia had illegally annexed Crimea and occupied the eastern Donbas region… Europe’s spending to support Ukraine is equally underwhelming. Since January 2022 the EU and its member states have spent €113bn in financial, military and humanitarian help, the equivalent of just above 0.2% of their GDP during each of those three years. Some European officials have requested “a roadmap” to any American withdrawal to enable them to adjust their defense plans. However, most member governments evidence little urgency in building up their forces, while analysts warn that the allies will need years to prepare for Washington’s exit or even drawdown. Reported Politico Europe: “A report from Germany’s Economic Institute (IW Cologne) warned this week that it could take 10 to 12 years for Europe to replace key U.S. military capabilities.” This has become an argument against the Trump administration forcing Europe to grow up militarily. Even American military officers don’t want any reduction. And Europeans don’t hide their strategy. Politico Europe explained that some “European governments still hope that the U.S. midterm elections in two years, and the next U.S. presidential election in 2028, will hobble Trump’s power and restore the old alliance with the U.S. They also fear that starting to prepare for the worst could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy and only accelerate a movement they’re still hoping to avoid, the three European officials said.” This even though Russia, supposedly hobbled by sanctions, has been outspending the Western bloc since it invaded Ukraine. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies: “Over the last year, European defense spending jumped by 11.7% in real terms to reach USD 457 billion, with 2024 marking the tenth consecutive year of growth … Nonetheless, European growth remained outpaced by uplifts in Russia’s total military expenditure, which grew by 41.9% in real terms to reach an estimated RUB 13.1trn (USD 145.9 bn). In light of lower domestic input costs and the dominance of domestic production in Russia, it is useful to examine military spending in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. In purchasing power parity (PPP), Russian total military expenditure reached $462 bn in 2024, exceeding the total for Europe in USD at market exchange rates (MER).” Of course, Moscow is using up much of its manpower and materiel to fight a brutal war against Ukraine. However, the Putin government has demonstrated that even a weaker economy under sanction can act quickly to produce significant quantities of weapons. Surely the Europeans could do more—if they believed that doing so was important. Instead, they continue to go easy both on aid to Ukraine and their own defense. While expecting the U.S. to continue to protect them during what promises to be, if they have their way, a very, very long transition to a truly European defense of Europe. Although it is difficult to imagine an American case against a European defense of Europe, U.S. policymakers, in contrast to Americans more generally, have long benefited from a helplessly dependent Europe that typically lined up behind American initiatives while wielding American-made weapons. Edward Lucas of the Center for European Policy Analysis warned that, in the future, on issues of mutual interest there “will be far more a partnership of equals. On other issues—such as global financial management, conflict in the Middle East, and international law—Europeans will have their own ideas and their own priorities.” Indeed, Kishore Mahbubani, celebrated author with Singapore’s Asia Research Institute, has called on Europe to formally set a new course, indicating its willingness “to quit NATO,” reach a deal with Russia, “with each side accommodating the other’s core interests,” and “work out a new strategic compact with China.” No doubt, such an approach would horrify Washington policymakers, including many around Trump. For instance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejected suggestions that the U.S. might leave the transatlantic alliance: “The United States is as active in NATO as it has ever been.” However, Americans should imagine a better future, one in which Europe, with more than ten times Russia’s GDP and three times Russia’s population, not the U.S., stood up to Moscow while trying to engineer better relations with it. And in which Europe deployed its own forces to protect more distant interests, such as European commerce targeted by Yemen’s Houthis. Most Americans would applaud such a result. Burden shedding, not sharing, should be Washington’s strategy for the future. This is especially the case since its traditional determination to dominate allies and adversaries alike is bankrupt. The U.S. is running unsustainable deficits, more than $2 trillion annually, nearing the post-World War II record of 106 percent debt to GDP, and drowning in rising interest payments, more than $1 trillion a year. All these at a time without a hot war, pandemic, or financial crisis. Passage of the GOP tax bill will fuel the debt rise, which could become a tsunami if the economy falls into a recession. Over the long term, spending, deficits, interest payments, and debt are headed ever upward, with no limit in sight. With draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid unlikely, the Pentagon will eventually become the prime budget target. Taxes will almost certainly be raised along the way, but which U.S. politician will propose making Americans pay even more so Europeans can pay even less?  Kallas, Meloni, and many other Europeans still hope to play Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker. However, the American people elected Donald Trump to say no more. It is time for Washington to treat Europeans as friends, adults, and allies, rather than suffer them as clients, dependents, and deadbeats. The post America Can’t Afford to Protect Europe from Russia appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Horrified Democrats Discover the Imperial Presidency The meltdown over the Alien Enemies Act is undercut by the long history of presidential encroachments on Congressional war powers. Credit: lazyllama/Shutterstock President Donald Trump sharply increased claims of presidential power in the arena of national security on March 15, 2025, when he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify new measures targeting the Venezuelan drug-trafficking gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), allegedly an ally of Nicolas Maduro’s government.  According to Trump’s proclamation, TdA “is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.” The organization “has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.” Collusion between the Maduro regime and TdA, Trump charged, has produced a “hybrid criminal state” that is “perpetuating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States,” posing a substantial danger to the country. The president specifically emphasized the alleged “invasion” as the reason for invoking the Alien Enemies Act.  He then stated that all alien enemies described in section 1 of his proclamation “are subject to immediate apprehension, detention and removal” from the United States. Opponents of the Trump administration immediately denounced the president’s move as unconstitutional and challenged it in court.  The rulings so far have been mixed, but the U.S. Supreme Court has at least slowed the administration’s use of AEA’s deportation proceedings on due process grounds, much to the anger of the White House. Trump’s critics accuse him of trying to implement his hardline views on immigration policy under the false guise of a national security imperative.  If Trump’s strategy were allowed to stand, critics contend, undocumented immigrants from Venezuela and other countries could be deported with little or no due process.  They would be treated as members of an invading terrorist army.  Advocates of a liberal immigration policy consider the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act as a mortal threat to their agenda.  One of their most prominent arguments was that the AEA can be implemented only when the United States is at war.  Since no congressional declaration of war was in effect against either TdA or Venezuela, their rationale was that the president could not lawfully invoke and implement the Alien Enemies Act.   Two factors weaken their argument.  First, Trump specifically cited an “invasion” as the justification for his action.  It has been long settled law that the president can respond to an invasion without waiting for a declaration of war from Congress.  At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison had the original phrase “to make War” changed, to afford the president the ability to respond to sudden attacks.  Even the constitutional scholars at the liberal Brennan Center implicitly concede that the administration’s insistence that the U.S. is responding to an invasion might complicate criticism of Trump’s actions:  The president may invoke the Alien Enemies Act in times of “declared war” or when a foreign government threatens or undertakes an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” against U.S. territory. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war, so the president must wait for democratic debate and a congressional vote to invoke the Alien Enemies Act based on a declared war. But the president need not wait for Congress to invoke the law based on a threatened or ongoing invasion or predatory incursion. The president has inherent authority to repel these kinds of sudden attacks — an authority that necessarily implies the discretion to decide when an invasion or predatory incursion is underway.  The position adopted by Trump’s opponents is weakened further because Congress has allowed previous presidents to run amok for decades waging undeclared wars in multiple countries.  Congress issued the last official declaration of war in June 1942, against Nazi Germany’s allies Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.  Yet Washington has attacked numerous countries and political movements since then, resulting in extensive deaths and destruction.  Indeed, U.S. administrations have waged lengthy, full-scale wars in such places as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.   Although Congress made a feeble attempt to reclaim some of its constitutional powers regarding war and peace with the passage of the War Powers Resolution in 1973, that change had a meager effect.  The authority of Congress to declare war has become little more than an archaic historical curiosity.  It is mighty late for Trump’s opponents to take a stand regarding the limits of the president’s war powers.  Their choice of the Alien Enemies Act as the proper vehicle for a constitutional challenge is also questionable, since the current administration can make at least a plausible case that it is responding to an invasion of U.S. territory. Trump’s position that the United States is effectively at war with TdA, thereby warranting the use of the Alien Enemies Act, virtually begs for a landmark decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.  His rationale that the United States is being “invaded” by an organized hostile force seems a stretch, but it is decidedly more credible than the arguments that Trump’s predecessors have used to justify their wars and other “emergency actions.”   One could certainly assert that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 qualified, and a reasonable case could be made that the Libyan government’s role in the bombing of Pan American flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 constituted an attack on the United States.  But any notion that Washington’s warfare against Muslim forces in Lebanon in 1983, bombing the Bosnian Serbs in 1995, bombing Serbia itself in 1999, or invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 (among Washington’s other undeclared wars) were exercises in national self-defense is preposterous on its face.  All of those episodes were wars of choice—indeed, gratuitous wars of aggression.  The Trump administration’s current case, while probably insufficient, is at least more plausible than the justifications for most of the earlier presidential actions.  Yet, many of the most vocal critics of Trump’s behavior regarding his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act were silent about those earlier manifestations of the imperial presidency—and remain so. This episode provides an ideal opportunity for the judicial branch to weigh in about the nature and extent of the war powers of both Congress and the presidency.  Such a clarification is badly needed.  The post Horrified Democrats Discover the Imperial Presidency appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Why Negotiations With Iran Are So Difficult The U.S. has gotten a reputation for breaking agreements and brutalizing other nations. American and other Western elites complain ad nauseam, decrying the Iranians’ intransigent, devious, aggressive, and unreliable behavior. They claim Iran will not make or keep an agreement. Never forget, however, that Iran is more than five millennia old with a long history of diplomacy. The Iranians may be difficult, but one of the barriers to an agreement could be the Iranians’ wariness of the United States’ long pattern of broken agreements. In 1945 the U.S. signed the United Nations charter declaring the importance of protecting the sovereignty of states. Iran was also a signatory of that charter. But eight years later, in 1953, the CIA and British Intelligence organized Operation Ajax, which overthrew the constitutionally elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and empowered Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the son of the first Pahlavi shah who was deposed in 1941 by the British and Soviets. The CIA’s actions were in complete violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter. U.S. agencies also armed and trained the Iranian secret police, the Savak, to suppress any opposition, often using the tired old excuse that dissenters were Soviet-inspired or -supported. In 1979 the Iranian people, fed up with the oppression, overthrew the shah in favor of a theocracy. The aftermath was terrible, but it is hard to understand what happened because most of what we know about Iran is filtered through the anti-Iranian American press. Many of the horror stories reported were probably exaggerated or not true. In 1980, a year after the Shah was ousted, Iraq started the Iran–Iraq War with the support of U.S. intelligence and other agencies. Millions were killed or wounded in a brutal conflict that lasted until 1988. American support for the Iraqis was not even diminished by their deployment of chemical weapons against the Iranians, despite later ostensibly righteous anger over chemical weapon use by Saddam and Assad. An important note: The U.S. signed the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibiting use of poisonous gas, the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of poison weapons. The U.S. again signed the 1972 and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Conventions, which prohibited the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. U.S. elites unashamedly ignored those inconvenient treaties in their support of the Iran–Iraq War. Nor did Article 2 of the UN Charter matter. After the overthrow of the Israel-friendly shah in 1979, the U.S. confiscated the foreign assets of the Iranian government, sanctioned their oil exports, sanctioned Western business investment in the country, and engaged in a long string of aggressive and destructive covert actions designed to topple the Iranian government. Again, all in flagrant disregard of the UN Charter. Neoconservatives and other Washington elites believed that for a good cause, such technicalities didn’t matter. In 2003, the top cleric and supreme leader of Iran declared a fatwa against the building and possession of nuclear weapons. This fatwa is still in effect, but the Iran hawks claim that the regime might in the future renege on the fatwa, so it should be disregarded. This sounds like projection coming from a group that regularly ignores its own treaty and constitutional obligations. That same year, after the U.S. military invaded Iraq and wrecked that country, the Bush administration made a deal with Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, to abandon many of his weapons with the promise of friendship. Nevertheless, after an appropriate pause, the neocons turned up a slander and defamation campaign against Gaddafi. At the same time, U.S. agencies were involved in the “revolution” that led to the 2011 bombing campaign against the Gaddafi military. This allegedly humanitarian “kinetic military action” led to the collapse of Gaddafi’s government and Gaddafi’s brutal murder in the street. So much for making a friendship deal with the U.S. The lesson to Iran and others is, Never make a deal with the U.S. leadership to disarm. If you do, you will become vulnerable to “kinetic military actions” in the name of peace. The former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bragged and laughed about Gaddafi’s murder: “We came, we saw, he died.” No wonder so many people around the world don’t like us. In 2015, the Obama administration entered into a treaty to prohibit Iran from building nuclear weapons called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran agreed to open their nuclear sites to intrusive inspections and strict controls, and the U.S. and other Western countries agreed to lift sanctions and return illegally confiscated Iranian assets. The U.S. did not fully live up to the returning of the confiscated assets and reneged on other aspects of the agreement until 2018, when the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the agreement because it was insufficiently strict. The sanctions were reimposed on Iran. (As they say in New York, “Such a deal!”) By contrast, Israel has been developing a nuclear arsenal since the late 1950s, and has refused to join or comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty that took effect in 1970. The U.S. and Iran, along with 41 other countries, were signatories of the first round of that treaty. The U.S. and Israel have complained for years about suspected Iranian violations, but U.S. intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE), which participated in extensive inspections as enforcement of the JCPOA, have consistently reported that Iran is not making nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the U.S. has for decades enabled the Israeli nuclear arsenal, which both the U.S. and Israel have consistently refused to acknowledge. From an Iranian point of view, how is this honest or consistent? (It also demonstrates American unwillingness to comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty—yet another example of the U.S. disregarding a treaty.) There is another, more sinister aspect to U.S. policy. The Bush II administration tore up his predecessor’s Agreed Framework deal and put other pressure on the North Koreans to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty so the U.S. could use that withdrawal as a casus belli to attack North Korea. But at the time, the U.S. was bogged down by the Iraq War, and the North Koreans took advantage of the distraction. Flipping the script, they built nukes and rendered the attack scenario unappealing. The interventionists have desperately looked for “violations” to justify an attack on Iran. If they keep up their aggression and threats long enough to avoid brokering an honest agreement, the Iranians might, out of fear, end their long-standing policy against nuclear weapons and flip the script, too.  The cavalier attitude the U.S. takes toward treaties is of a piece with a broader pattern of blatant disregard for human rights and the rule of law, as illustrated by the American use of “Black Sites” to imprison and torture suspected terrorists outside of the U.S. The most notable were operated in Afghanistan, Poland, and Thailand. American leaders reasoned that torturing and jailing suspects without any due process was not illegal if the acts were performed overseas and by foreigners hired by the U.S. government rather than American citizens. The reasoning was no different than paying a hit man to torture or kill someone and claiming innocence; it doesn’t wash in the U.S. legal system. The rest of the world is aware of this hypocrisy by the chief proponent of the “rules-based order.” The Iranians are personally familiar with American support for torture from decades under the shah’s U.S.- and Israeli-trained and -supported Savak. The disruptive behavior extends to the treatment of American clients. The U.S. provides apparently unlimited aid to Israel, which has for decades regularly threatened and pursued illegal military and intelligence missions to destabilize and topple governments in the region, Iran especially. Many high-level government officials have been assassinated in more acts that violate the UN Charter. The Iranians and much of the world no doubt see these illegal and hostile actions of the Israeli government as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. Many leading U.S. officials regularly threaten to destroy Iran while claiming solidarity with Israel, also in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter. It is important to note that, in the Iranian view, the campaign painting Iran as a cruel and repressive society is being perpetrated by a nation that has wrecked many of Iran’s neighbors and slaughtered their citizens in the Global War on Terror against Sunni terrorists who were supported and financed by the U.S. and their friends. (For an overview of the years of U.S. complicity in supporting jihadis, see Scott Horton’s book Enough Already.) The world watches with horror as the American-backed Israelis, with blatant disregard for international laws, have for decades brutalized the Palestinians by stealing their land, bulldozing their houses and farms, starving, killing, jailing, torturing, and chasing them into concentration camps. Supporting this behavior is strictly forbidden by the Leahy Law, so U.S. government leadership has to go through quite a dance to subvert that law in order to send the Israelis weapons and money. The Iranian regime may be repressive, undemocratic, and cruel to some of their people; one can nevertheless understand why it might be hesitant about making an agreement to disarm to please American elites with a long history of ignoring their own laws, treaties, and agreements, and of abusing various nations and peoples around the world. American citizens have been desensitized and propagandized into complacency, and most have no concept of the magnitude of terrible acts done in their name. Much of the rest of the world, especially the Iranians, see it clearly. The post Why Negotiations With Iran Are So Difficult appeared first on The American Conservative.

PROOF the CHOSEN-ONE was Chosen to Bring in the 7 NOAHIDE LAWS. SonofEnos 5-21-2025 - TRUMP TALKS SHIT ABOUT CONGRESSMAN MASSIE, THE ONLY ONE LEFT WITH ANY INTEGRITY - WHY? BECAUSE MASSIE IS CALLING OUT ISRAEL - AND EXPOSING THE REASON WHY WE HAVE SUCH SEVERE RUN AWAY INFLATION IS BECAUSE THE GOV. PRINTED 5 TRILLION DOLLARS THAT MURDERED THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR - WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT TRUMP??? *** May 21st, 2025 SonOfEnos - The more we are betrayed, lied to, persecuted, censored, and replaced, the more they quicken the revolution. There is a storm coming, it's practically at the door, be ready. You are what makes this channel possible, so help me to keep fighting, here's the link https://givesendgo.com/sonofenos - FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES Mirrored From: https://old.bitchute.com/channel/sonofenos/

The idea of no-strings-attached casual sex is nothing new, although not everyone is a fan. The concept traces all the way back to the 1700s, when men would refer to a casual fling as "combing their wigs." (I made that up, but maybe?) It wasn't really until the early 90s when the term "booty call" became popular–and whether you were in your 20s or 70s, it was pretty self-explanatory. A part of you was being beckoned–and it wasn't your mind.In 2011, not one but two relatively terrible romantic comedies with the same plot were released. One was No Strings Attached starring Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman, wherein the two lead characters decide to have a casual affair as friends, with no expectations. See on Instagram Friends with Benefits, which was released within a six-month time period, ironically starred Ashton's future wife Mila Kunis, alongside Justin Timberlake. Shocker, they are ALSO "just friends" who think they can have sex and not have it get awkward.Spoiler–EVERYONE FALLS IN LOVE after learning some dumb, obvious lessons. Much like in the much more charming When Harry Met Sally, the best friend was the love of their life ALL ALONG. But in real life, unfortunately, that's not often the case, at least, not for both parties. A scene on the couch from Portlandia Giphy These days, though the preferred term "Netflix and Chill" has taken the place of a Call of Booty, it seems there are more "situationships" than ever. The idea is that nothing is defined, there are no rules and no presumptions. You're not "a couple" but you'll do "for now."On @Alloromono's TikTok page, a clip is posted of a man and a woman having a very candid (scripted) conversation about their "hook-up" status. It's a masterclass in attachment styles, with one seemingly avoidant and the other anxious. It begins with the woman (we'll call her Katie) saying to the guy (we'll call him Momo, because that's seemingly his name), "I like you." He reciprocates, although when they show with their hands how much, his hands are much further apart. He notes, "There's an imbalance." @alloramomo Situationships #situationship #relationship #love #dating #comedy #fyp Katie then asks, "What do you see when you see me?" Momo answers, pensively: "A relationship?" Katie then awkwardly replies that she's only in it for "fun dates." He immediately says he's cool with it, but–you know how this goes–IS he? She asks that question straight away and he says, heartbreakingly, "Not really, but I'll pretend."This is where things get super real. She straight-up tells him, "You're gonna develop feelings that aren't substantiated by anything tangible." To which he says, with such honesty, "I'll just keep hoping that you'll change your mind."After Katie tells him he's delusional, she says bluntly, "You're gonna get hurt. Why would you put yourself through that?" And (get ready to have your soul shattered), he answers, "Well I'd rather have some of you than none." See on Instagram She tries to get logical. "I feel like I should end this before it gets to that point. The longer we see each other, the harder the blow will be for you." And here's where it all comes down. He calls her bluff, saying, "So end it." "Hmm," she thinks. "I won't." He asks why and she shares, brutally, "Because I'm getting everything I want at your expense. YOU end it." And what he says next is so very raw: "I won't. Because I lack the self-respect to walk away."It's, as mentioned in the comments, quite reminiscent of the film 500 Days of Summer–a beautiful reflection on falling in love, limerence, and everything in between. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind also comes to mind, as the idea that no matter how much we try, we so often repeat patterns and wind up in the same place, fully knowing how it ends.It also inspires many of the commenters to look at their own situationships, with one declaring, "I'm breaking up with my situationship TODAY." - YouTube 500 Days of Summer movie, Joseph Gordon-Leviit, Zooey Deschanel www.youtube.com Momo makes a lot of these videos, which seem to be tools for modern-day dating. As the idea has become normalized (or at least more common), the Internet is teeming with articles in terms of defining the indefinable and/or how to end something that's not working for you. VeryWellMind chimes in with health writer Sanjana Gupta's 2024 piece, "Situationship: How to Cope When Commitment is Unclear." Gupta defines "situationship" and lists pros and cons of the setup. A pro, she writes, is "there is less responsibility. Relationships can consume a significant amount of emotional energy. Situationships, on the other hand, don't require a huge emotional investment. People who tend to gravitate towards situationships are those who want emotional connection and intimacy with a partner in a compartmentalized way. This type of relationship allows them to have an emotional presence and connection in person, but when apart, they can have their freedom." A scene from Sex and the City Giphy The disadvantages come when expectations shift. "Even though both partners might agree on the dynamics when they enter the situationship, one person might grow to want more than the other is willing to give. It can also be stressful to be in a relationship without stability or consistency. This is particularly true if you start to develop expectations of your partner, but they have not committed to meeting those expectations."She gives helpful suggestions on how to navigate the whole thing. Not only should you be honest with your partner, but be honest with yourself. What do you really want? And the moment that doesn't align with what you say you want, you need to ask for it. "Avoid the passive approach," she encourages.So, the next time it's time to Netflix and Chill, make sure your head and your heart are on the same page (or at the very LEAST, make sure the movie is good).

Unexpected words of wisdom.

"Heathcliff, it's me".

Not on this island.