Your Stance Is Meaningless

Introduction: The Surface-Level Approach to Global Issues

We live in a world where people claim to care about sustainability, justice, and global stability. Yet, the foundations of the very systems they seek to preserve contradict these concerns. Whether it's the West’s selective engagement in war, the artificial sustainability of cities like Dubai, or the performative nature of climate activism, modern priorities are built on an infrastructure that is unstable and unsustainable.

This raises a fundamental question: Why do people care about preserving something that is already doomed to collapse? What’s the point of protecting a world order built on quicksand?

The Myth of Sustainability: Dubai as a Case Study

Dubai is a prime example of this contradiction. It presents itself as a futuristic metropolis, a hub of luxury, innovation, and global tourism. Yet, beneath its shiny exterior lies a complete dependence on external resources. The city has no natural water sources, imports the majority of its food, and even its waste management is unsustainable, with human waste being transported out of the city in trucks daily. Its entire existence is predicated on energy-intensive desalination plants, imported labor, and a global economy that allows the ultra-rich to use it as a playground.

Dubai doesn’t function because it is self-sufficient; it functions because the world allows it to. If the global economy were to collapse, Dubai would not survive. It is not an example of sustainability but of hyper-dependence.

And yet, people celebrate Dubai as a model for the future while simultaneously advocating for sustainability. This contradiction reveals the superficial nature of environmental activism—a fight to preserve a way of life that is fundamentally unsustainable.

The Ukraine War: The Difference Between Transparency and Hypocrisy

This same principle applies to global conflicts, particularly the ongoing war in Ukraine. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. played a major role, pouring billions into Ukraine’s defense. But since Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025, America has pulled back, signaling that it no longer wants to be involved.

Many criticize this stance, but in reality, it is more honest than the alternative.

The Trump administration’s position is simple: Ukraine, a small country, cannot realistically win against Russia without indefinite foreign intervention. Instead of pretending otherwise, the U.S. is stepping back, recognizing that sending soldiers or endless funds into a conflict with no clear resolution is not in its interest. Whether people agree with this stance or not, it is at least transparent.

In contrast, European leaders continue to push for intervention, arguing that Russia must be stopped at all costs. But where are the people making these arguments? They are not on the battlefield. They are not personally risking their lives. Instead, they call for military engagement while relying on others—Ukrainians, American soldiers, NATO forces—to do the fighting.

The Hypocrisy of Passive Support

This hypocrisy doesn’t stop at government leaders—it trickles down through the mainstream media and the general public. In countries like the UK, many citizens echo the media narrative that Trump is bad for stepping back from Ukraine. But what exactly are these people doing themselves?

They are not enlisting to fight. They are not making personal sacrifices. Their “support” is nothing more than a conversation topic, a regurgitated media take, a passive expression of solidarity. Their level of engagement is no different from posting a tweet after an earthquake, saying, “Thoughts and prayers.” It is symbolic, performative, and ultimately irrelevant.

They criticize Trump for disengaging, but they, too, are disengaged. After their discussion ends, they turn off the news, go back to their daily routines, and continue driving their combustion-engine cars, consuming plastic-packaged goods, and living lifestyles that directly contradict the sustainability ideals they claim to support.

The reality is that their actions and Trump’s actions are no different. He refuses to participate in the war. They also refuse to participate—except in empty rhetoric.

Survival of the Fittest: The Brutal Truth of Power

History has always been a game of survival. Nations rise and fall, wars happen, and power shifts. If Russia were to dismantle Ukraine—or even parts of Europe—that would simply be the world operating as it always has.

People can argue that this is "wrong," but what does "wrong" mean in a system where survival is the only true law? If a country cannot defend itself, it will be conquered. That is the brutal reality of history.

This is not to say that people should not resist war or aggression, but rather that if they truly believe in stopping it, they must actively participate. Otherwise, their stance is meaningless. You cannot claim to care about something while refusing to act on it. If you want a nation to survive, fight for it. If you do not fight for it, then, by definition, you do not care enough.

The Parallel to Climate Change: Another Argument Built on Quicksand

The same logic applies to climate change. Activists argue that we must do everything possible to preserve the planet. But what does that mean in a world where our very way of life is unsustainable?

People push for sustainability while living in societies that depend on mass consumption. They argue for a greener future while relying on economies that demand constant expansion, cities that cannot function without external resources, and infrastructures that depend on fossil fuels.

The entire climate movement is built on the assumption that we can preserve the Earth without changing the fundamental principles of human civilization. But if those principles—growth, expansion, consumption—are themselves unsustainable, then what exactly are we preserving?

This is the same contradiction that applies to war: people advocate for a cause while refusing to acknowledge that the foundation they are standing on is already collapsing. They want to fight for the preservation of something that is inherently doomed.

In essence, they want to maintain the quicksand.

Conclusion: The Illusion of Caring

The world we live in is not built to last. The infrastructure of modern civilization, the way we fight wars, the way we approach sustainability—it is all a house of cards. People advocate for things they do not truly believe in, they demand action without taking responsibility, and they seek to preserve systems that are inherently unstable.

At least the Trump administration is being honest about its stance on Ukraine. Unlike the European governments that posture about stopping Russia while contributing little, the U.S. under Trump is openly saying, “This is not our fight.” Whether one agrees with that stance or not, it is a more sustainable argument than the illusion of interventionism backed by nothing but empty rhetoric.

And yet, the very people who criticize this position are no different. Their so-called support is nothing more than a passive declaration, a conversation point, a talking head segment on TV. They will not fight. They will not sacrifice. They will simply consume the media narrative, echo it, and then return to their lives—driving their cars, enjoying their conveniences, perpetuating the very system they claim to want to preserve.

If the foundations are unstable, why fight to maintain them? Why advocate for sustainability when our way of life is fundamentally unsustainable? Why fight for a world order that is bound to collapse?

The reality is simple: people care only as long as they don’t have to act. And in the grand scheme of things, survival—whether of a nation, a system, or a belief—is determined not by words, but by those who are willing to fight for it.