zazen

When nuclear powers are involved, these noble principles about sovereignty and agency become secondary to the primary imperative which is: don’t blow up the planet. It’s better to be 80% sovereign and alive, than 100% sovereign and dead. International laws written in ink don’t somehow erase survival and power dynamics that can end up being settled in blood. Laws and rights are our noble attempt to buffer against might and the laws of the jungle - but they don’t erase or deny that the jungle exists. Likewise, marriage contracts don’t eliminate sexual desire for others. Paper doesn’t negate the primal instincts it seeks to contain. We nurture (through principle) nature (power dynamics) to the best of our ability. Russia didn’t invade Ukraine because they suddenly forgot international law exists. They did it because they calculated that NATO expansion posed a greater existential threat than laws telling them their in wrong for breaking those laws. Jungle logic overrides legal logic when survival is at stake - so best avoid putting it at stake. You don’t bring about security by making another power insecure in crossing their red lines - but by acknowledging them. What should the US do if Russia or China were to build military infrastructure in Mexico? Or UK if Russia or China were to do the same in Scotland? The Cuban missile crisis happened did it not?

Context matters. Powers have red lines, some red lines are more critical than others. Geographic borders aren’‘t just some pretty lines on a map. There are life and death calculations that determine whether one border is strategically more vulnerable than another. Finland is heavily forested terrain. The Baltics are also not ideal terrain to march through in an offensive, only have a population of 6 million, and narrow borders. Ukraine is a massive country with vast flat terrain to create the infrastructure of a forward base from, to stage offensives from and move masses of troops and tanks through. It’s been a historic invasion corridor (Napoleon, Hitler), has a population of 40 million, and a lengthy border almost 7 times that of Estonia. Estonia being part of a NATO is a strategic mosquito bite, Ukraine doing so is strategic kneecapping.

You too papi. Looks like we gonna chop up some more though:

Hawkish much? We’ve evolved from neocons to Eurocons. The US and the West aren’t entitled to be everywhere and anywhere on this planet. Many places on the planet are still corrupt - by your moral crusader logic the West should go develop those regions in Africa, Latin America and Asia too. Sounds like colonialism, but maybe not if it’s consensual. Let’s go liberate Pakistan as it’s been notoriously called a failed state (multiplied IMF bailouts) full of corruption too. That isn’t what real geopolitics is - that’s the law of the jungle which you ironically advocate for whilst moralising as if you don’t. You’re basically making a case for imperialism without realising it. Putting countries back into the Stone Age is a Stone Age mindset unfit for the modern world - your developed and actualised though rite? You start by asking why should you care about buffer states? Then finish your comment asking what is a mature way to exist (in a multipolar world) lol. Your entire emotional temper tantrum is full of holes I could fill a book with. The West has been invested in Ukraine for decades and corruption still remains. This isn’t magically the cause of Russia being its neighbour. Zelensky just attempted undermining anti-corruption agencies, prompting large wartime protests. He only U-turned after public and Western backlash. Imagine Western funds from taxpayers being sent if he hadn’t - the already cratering credibility of Western politicians would be shotgunned. Your entire worldview assumes the West as the naturally benevolent unipolar hegemon that’s entitled to the entire global sphere as its sphere of influence and imperialism - whilst denying the legitimate security concerns or existence of any other sphere possibly existing. Western unipolar global dominance is an aberration in history - mere blip on the timeline. Go fix your historical amnesia and ignorance - because this aberration is now ending, and the Western arrogance, entitlement and supremacist attitude will be adjusted along with it.

I’ll be brief. Man it’s like a homework assignment haha 1. That’s not dealing with Russia diplomatically but throwing down with Russia instead. 1a. I know Europe and US have massively drawn down their trade with Russia. In another thread I simply pointed to the fact that India and EU trade in almost the same amount in dollar terms yet India is being punished for it. 2. It’s because they are choke points that are being weaponised - that bypasses are being built around them. BRICS are trading in their own currencies. 3. It’s managing an overheated situation economically which is true, but this is far from impending collapse. The reason they can even hike rates to 20% is because they aren’t as indebted as the Western financial system. The Ruble hasn’t crashed as expected from all this but has been the best performing currency this year. It’s a situational stress (during war time) not systemic. Expansion of the money supply to fund the war occurred with the US in WW2 (44% of GDP) and yet they remained resilient and came out on top after. Russia spending 6-7% GDP is a burden but yet Europe spending 5% isn’t? When they have way higher debt to GDP (countries with over 100%) and welfare obligations their populations are expecting - that Russians aren’t because they have a different baseline and social contract with their government that doesn’t safety net them cradle to grave? France erupts into protest when the retirement age increases by 2 years from 62 to 64. The point is Europe isn’t ready for a long war when it’s not even ready to delay retirement by two years. I’ve never said Russia is booming and ascending with BRICS to rule the world - I’ve said both are suffering but who in this war of attrition can suffer longer. 4. Tied to point 3 - expensive quality gear and arms costs more and take longer to procure. In a war of attrition this costs the country a heavy loss they may not be willing to prolong as we can now see. Russia is strained also - but they are willing and structurally equipped to strain longer - even just politically. As I said above - the political will for the West to continue this isn’t there except amongst the elites. Your worried about far right surging in the West yet pushing for warring with Russia and cutting welfare is the very thing that adds gasoline to that fire. 5. It won’t end until the root cause is fixed. Russia unfortunately has dug into the land it’s taken and won’t concede to that either. The weaker party can’t demand maximalist positions with minimal leverage - the the West doesn’t seem to have much leverage over Russia right now. Maybe with the 100th sanctions programme though. 6. Legality, laws and agency don’t erase survival and power dynamics. Nor do they erase the geography and where your country happens to be positioned in and next to who. The most famous example of the Helsink norms was Finland - who used neutrality and careful diplomacy to survive the Cold War next to the USSR without becoming a puppet or battleground. Which is where the term “Finlandization” comes from - maintaining de facto neutrality while preserving sovereignty and independence. Citing the Helsinki norms to justify NATO expansion ironically ignores the historical lesson of Helsinki - which is that peace is preserved not by pushing spheres into conflict, but managing them with balance. 7. Signalling - but it hasn’t manifested yet and it’s not coming in the timeline that matters for the current war in which Ukraine needs support for now. That’s why I’ve said it all good that Europe re-arms as a deterrent - but it won’t be to decisively beat Russia in this war - it will only be for a future war if it were to ever happen, but that should be avoided at all cost. 8. Like I said , it would only replace half. The rest will be LNG. The larger point is that this is enough to keep Russia afloat and resilient - pipelines and LNG terminals being built are solid infrastructure that cements Russias integration with Eurasia and India which has decades of growth ahead. Meaning it embeds itself into stable future profits that are also sanction proof. Meaning - what cards does the West hold over Russia if it has energy sovereignty, raw materials and industry, and sanction proof trade with much of the world now trading in their own currencies instead of the dollar. From last week: The US is in short supply yet Europe is supposedly going to step in with their much higher energy prices, beurecracy, and cutting of welfare safety nets and public funding that were already under strain before the war even began. Social services that are expected in a social contract which will have to be broken for empire war games (and 5% spending) with a geographical neighbour you can’t magically wish away and that people will politically revolt over. Far right isolationist, anti-establishment nationalism here we come baby.

About your premise: The point is Russia wants a buffer and the West doesn’t - it denies this as you said. Balancing is acknowledging each others limits and red lines - not erasing them because of an imperially entitled mindset to the globe as your sphere of influence and dominion. Russia wants multipolarity and strategic depth. Europe/US wants a unipolar Western vision based upon primacy and supremacy, not balance. Spheres explain behaviour but also impose structural constraints upon nations within that sphere. Like I said, sovereignty exists on a spectrum - small states don’t get to behave like global actors just because a liberal framework tells them they’re sovereign and equal. Should all states now get veto power because they’re equal? This is a romanticised view of sovereignty and agency that divorces itself from real world power dynamics and the consequences of denying those dynamics. Can Scotland or Wales simply start allying with China or Russia and integrate their military systems because their sovereign - will UK allow this simply because it’s lawful for them to do so? Legality doesn’t override survival and power dynamics - laws exist to buffer against power dynamics and mediate power itself, not deny power all together and confer absolute sovereignty to everyone - which has no basis in reality. Every country can’t identify as or be a pole when it lacks the gravitational pull of one. Countries don’t exist in a vaccum with absolute sovereignty and freedom from consequence when the context they exist within is denied. This is the tension you keep running into - between power (law of the jungle) vs principle (law itself). The world exists with both - and denying the other gives a distorted view of reality: either too idealistic / utopian or too inhumane and barbaric. Principles (rights) needs to be balanced with the reality of power (might) - we can’t wish away survival or power dynamics only manage them - which is what multipolar frameworks should do. It’s not about “favoring” Russia’s position or “deferring” to its sphere. We need to recognize the structural reality that power and geography impose limits - not to justify them morally, but to avoid war. Buffer states don’t exist because great powers are entitled, but because peace demands space. A buffer isn’t a moral concession but a strategic compromise. Ironically, a buffer state keeps more of its sovereignty through neutrality than it ever would as a pawn locked between two rival tearing it apart. Sovereignty doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want, wherever you want, and call it peace because it was “consensual.” Consenting to certain things, bring consequences that laws can't always protect you from. As I said - survival and power dynamics can’t be overridden by legal abstractions. About what you think Europe should do: You reason, like many others here do - with a liberal Utopianism that overlooks survival and power dynamics. So much for Leo constantly mentioning survival survival survival - the lessons of which haven’t been learnt. The West isn’t developed enough to respect a larger states red lines that ensure their security, as well as the worlds through a buffer zone between rival powers. Your solution literally calls for Europe pushing their sphere towards Russia - how is that a mature way to exist in a multi-polar world? Where one pole insists to be the only one that can infringe upon and eventually gobble up all others because it’s entitled to the entire globe as their sphere? That’s the whole problem to begin with. Multi-polarity isn’t like an Audi logo where one sphere can just push into the other and they co-exist without friction. It’s more like tectonic plates with cushioning (buffer states) between them.

Claude: - The Geological Constraint Both Europe and China face the same fundamental geographic limitation: high population density relative to domestic energy and agricultural (mainly lacking in China) resources. This creates an inherent vulnerability - both regions must secure external supplies to maintain their civilizations at current scales. This isn’t a temporary policy choice but a permanent structural reality that shapes their strategic imperatives. - Historical Responses to Resource Constraints Europe’s solution was expansionist - colonialism, mercantilism, and later financial imperialism allowed it to extract resources globally while maintaining control over supply chains. This worked for centuries but required military dominance to sustain. China’s response was the opposite - retreat into autarky, accepting lower material living standards in exchange for strategic autonomy. The Middle Kingdom model prioritized self-sufficiency over expansion, but at the cost of technological and economic development. - The Modern Convergence Today’s situation presents both powers with the same optimal strategy: peaceful trade relationships that secure resource flows without the costs of military enforcement. Both would benefit enormously from stable, long-term commercial partnerships with resource-rich nations like Russia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. Europe’s Strategic Confusion Europe is acting like a would-be hegemon while lacking hegemonic capabilities. It’s adopted American-style rhetoric about “rules-based order” and primacy, but lacks the military, energy, and financial independence to back up such posturing. This creates several problems: • Resource Security: Antagonizing suppliers (Russia) while lacking alternatives creates vulnerability • Strategic Autonomy: Following US policies that may not serve European interests • Economic Efficiency: Sanctions and trade wars increase costs for resource-dependent Europe • Diplomatic Capital: Hectoring developing nations about “values” while lacking leverage China’s More Rational Approach China, having learned from its isolationist mistakes, now pursues what Europe should: commercial partnerships without ideological demands. Belt and Road Initiative, BRICS expansion, and resource deals with sanctioned countries all reflect recognition of China’s geological constraints and the need for diverse, stable supply relationships. - The Tragedy of European Policy Europe could be China’s natural partner in creating a multipolar world based on trade rather than domination. Both need resources, both have technology and capital to offer in exchange, both benefit from stable international commerce. Instead, Europe has chosen to play junior partner in American primacy games it lacks the power to win. This misalignment between Europe’s structural position (resource-dependent, militarily weak) and its policy stance (primacy-seeking, sanctions-heavy) creates the very instability that threatens European interests. A resource-constrained region picking fights with suppliers while lacking energy independence is strategic suicide. The irony is that Europe’s colonial history should have taught it that resource extraction through coercion requires overwhelming force - something it no longer possesses in a multipolar world.

@PurpleTree Should Russia or China station nukes in Mexico and call it a day? lol assuming that’s sarcasm - I commented on your EU thread regarding how they could play the situation. Like I wrote above - be part of a diplomatic effort to end the war and establish a security architecture that acknowledges red lines. They need to stop being maximalist in their demand - total defeat and fracturing of Russia (as Kaja said). Cut losses now which means conceding some territory - they will resist that because they think that territory can either be taken back or Putin may give it up with pressure (more sanctions). They don’t realise who has the leverage here - they can’t assess the situation clearly due to ideological blinkers and inertia of their supposed place in the world. The rational is that because you used to be great powers (colonial) and are hinged to a present day superpower (US) you are invincible and can unilaterally dictate terms. Imagine if the Turkey deal was agreed in March 2022 - which US/UK elites torpedo’d thinking Russia could be bled dry. Since then Western stockpiles have gone down to worrying levels, 100’s of thousands more deaths, some more territory loss, more destabilisation of the Ukrainian economy to where it’s dependent on Western support - support that’s increasingly becoming conditional (EU forced to buy US weapons) or resented by native populations needing those resources for themselves. Humbling I think is needed - which I think the US is slowly receiving. Between the Red Sea debacle (Houthis) and Iran and Israel’s showdown - they have assessed they need to go to the drawing board and save their resources / find alternatives methods (trade/tech war) of containing larger threats (China) to their primacy. In just 12 days 25% of US THAAD interceptors were destroyed defending Israel against Irans missiles. What if that continued? Pakistan shooting down a western Rafael jet with a co-made Chinese Jet was also a wake up call as to how things may go down against China. Hegseth even said clearly that US loses to China in a war game scenario every time. It seems the EU didn’t get the memo and are still parroting US empire logic and talking points (due to inertia) - meanwhile that empire is de-prioritising Ukraine for larger game they know they aren’t ready for but need re-arming for.

You could call it Western encroachment or fuck around and find out. What utility to does NATO get from including Georgia and Azerbaijan except antagonising Russia? Maybe what those countries “want” isn’t worth WW3? This isn’t geopolitical tinder where a country can swipe right on whoever they wish because democracy voted for it - sure though, they get what they vote for, including the consequences and reality of power politics that the liberal minded like to image they float above. What about the Gallup poll showing most Ukrainians want an end to the conflict - but that a political elite class in Europe still want to push them to die for? Where’s democracy now? Euro elites are sounding a lot like neocon hawks - atleast US neocons lived far away from their wars and consequences. Eurocons seem to be retarded enough and ideaologically corrupted enough to push for more war on the same continent they live on.

The war was caused by conditions set by a unipolar hegemon not accepting a multi polar reality. Is the world supposed to remain orbiting around the US forever, even as others rise? The world is split because of sanctions - more so because of the unipolar primacy seeking mentality behind them. Sanctions are required? More like sanctions cause other countries to require alternatives like BRICS that won’t finger wag them if they don’t get into line. BRICS doesn’t exist to destroy the West. Competition doesn’t mean destroy - and the West are the ones who insist on not cooperating or competing by sanctioning those they see as a threat to them being on top of the competition. Asking why the West should work with BRICS if their trying to compete is the type of zero-sum hegemonic mindset of: if their not under us they must be against us. Schoolyard politics. Not working with them cements the very split and bipolar world of competing blocs you fear can lead to WW3. Blocs or multiple poles doesn’t mean war - unless one bloc or pole can’t accept the legitimacy or existence of another. Obviously multiple blocs or poles brings with it complexity - but that needs to be managed with new and updated institutions and a security architecture being created (like what Putin mentioned in Alaska) that includes security for Europe also. What else is the option here? Keep being hawkish with Russia and eventually have Europe go to war with them? Over what.. why not just make a security architecture that acknowledges red lines and benefit from peace and trade as Europe had done in the past with cheap Russian energy. Regarding Russian energy exports - others buy for less but can buy in higher volume as their growing markets as opposed to stagnant plateauing ones. India has absorbed approx 80% of Europes volume and has huge runway for growing energy demand as its young 1.5billion population urbanises and develops more. Even if it buys at discount - the volume will offset the loss within years. Chinas building another pipeline (Siberia 2) that would replace half of EU’s gas imports. The remaining gap will be filled through LNG and terminals being invested in and built for processing that LNG. @PurpleTree Yeah, he’s using narratives that resonate domestically to justify what is at core, a geopolitical red line over NATO expansion and Western encroachment. I don’t have to believe every Russian talking point that twists half truths into something they’re not. But I can still see the facts on the ground that are a geopolitical reality. Just gotta dismiss the nonsense exaggerated propaganda whilst seeing the principles of security logic that any state would be acting in accordance with regardless of the propaganda they feed their domestic population. Proud civilizations can’t keep bitching about feeling scared of other nations or civilizations (Western bloc) encroaching on their periphery as it comes across weak. They need some saviour crusader rhetoric overlayed on top of actual security concerns.

- The goal has been to weaken any threat on its Western flank (tactics changing accordingly to the field). Ukraine is weaker now than it was before the war began - including material support from the West which is running low on stockpiles and fragmenting due to domestic politics, economics etc. They’ve gained strategic depth away from Russias core interests and capital (Moscow) whilst securing sea access if the West were to attempt containing Russia via sea. Ukraines industrial heartland being taken now makes them dependent on the West who will have to bleed their own resources (that domestic nationalists are fighting over keeping for themselves) to prop up what is now becoming a rump state. Loss of life on both sides has been brutal but from the Russian side this is seen as existential to them: a sacrifice against a bloc that is hawkish / hostile and looks to contain their country (spelled out in policy documents and think tanks). A recent Gallup poll shows 69% of Ukrainians wanting an end to the conflict - much higher than before. Fatigue has set in: https://news.gallup.com/poll/693203/ukrainian-support-war-effort-collapses.aspx - Russia has a cohesive population thats more easily mobilized against a threat they perceive as existential / within a national security logic. Compared to much of a continental Europe who don’t view Russia as threatening to the same degree (geographic distance to the West) and are divided in loyalty due to multi culturalism - many ethnicities don’t want to bleed for a host nation that colonised their ancestors. Even the nationalism that’s arriving is isolationists not expansionist - people are sick of wars that served elite interests while hollowing out the middle class due to financialization. People would rather protest war than confront Russia in a show of “force”. There’s also no unified command structure across multiple nations with their own foreign policy and military doctrines. NATO has it but that’s lead by US who don’t want to go kinetic against Russia and risk WW3 carnage - which is why buffer states like Ukraine and now the South Caucus are used for plausible deniability whilst continuously pursuing primacy. Even if the most keen to fight nations combined their fighting age men (Poland and Baltics due to proximity to Russia) Russia still outnumbers them. On the surface Europes manpower is more - but their important details to account for. - The demographic and economic woes cuts both ways (Russia’s median age is 42 vs EU’s is 45). Likewise with finances - Russia has one of the lowest debt to GDP’s ratios (20% vs a EU average of 80% with some countries over 100% like UK, Italy, Spain etc) This is why Spain has completely opted out of the new push for defence spending and the others have only just symbolically gestured that they will increase spending but not yet laid out any budget or plans on how to do so and where to cut from. Industry is kneecapped due to higher energy costs - yet they want and need more money to spend on defence and a aging population who’s used to and expecting a welfare system to take care of them: this is going to strain and push things politically to the right and against militarization and war even further. - Sovereignty exists on a spectrum. I think you overextend things to fit into definitions they don’t belong. Such as Russia being a vassal of China because it happens to do a lot of business with them. Russia hasn’t lost autonomy or sovereignty, and still runs policy independent of that relationship. No doubt trade brings leverage over another - and a globalized world includes trade dependencies: but the type of trade and context matters. Is it being weaponised? Is it critical? China hasn’t (yet) weaponised its trade and Russia still has resource riches and its own military industrial complex. Military, energy and industry create a strong foundation for sovereignty- which is why the EU lacks it. Just like you mentioned: Europe is a bureaucratic peace project - peace many people are used to and don’t want to disrupt by being hawkish against Russia (counter to their political elite). Peace that meant they could have a welfare state (already struggling) that will now be struggling further because of that hawkish posture with a 5% defence spending aspiration. They outsourced security to the US which made them largely subordinate to the US. It’s designed structurally to be pacifist due to its beuracracy which entails fragmented decision making, internal divisions and contradictions, and no unified military command as I’ve already mentioned. It’s energy dependent and militarily dependent and secured by a US led NATO umbrella. This is an issue of geology - it simply lacks enough resources to energise itself: which was overcome in the past through colonial expansion that is no longer a possibility. This puts Europe in a difficult position where it needs to fight for its sovereignty and hinge it on external actors. Even overcoming their lack of energy sovereignty through sustainable energy requires dependence on Chinese dominated green tech supplies (batteries, rare earths, solar panels). Clean energy still succumbs to dirty geopolitics - but that doesn’t mean the game needs to be played dirty (country X vassalising country Y because of its asymmetric dependence) ie if China were to abuse this dependence. - Just because Russia gets some components from China doesn’t make them a vassal, - by that metric the world is a vassal of Taiwan for supplying critical semi conductors or to China for supplying rare earths. China doesn’t go around telling countries who they can and can’t align with or work with - there’s no strings attached except pay for what is provided. Otherwise it would use its leverage over Pakistan to cut ties with the US and not deal with them. It’s this reason why many countries want to deal with China - because it doesn’t demand political and foreign policy loyalty in exchange for its trade. Meanwhile the Western financial system (SWIFT) is weaponized via sanctions which is a driver of countries wanting a parallel system (BRICS) that can’t unilaterally punish them. Mexico isn’t a vassal of the US for being the largest trade partner and neither is Japan a vassal of China for being its largest trading partner. Japan has military and political autonomy from China and is clearly an ally of the US in most people’s minds. Meanwhile much of Europes foreign policy and military is tied to US dictates including its only cohesive security umbrella (NATO) which they would be fragmented without. - Your conclusion says Russia controls Ukraine 100% by proxy - but that’s opposite to the case. It’s because Ukraine was increasingly behaving as a proxy of the West with NATO ascension promises that caused the war we now have. If Ukraine was 100% a proxy of Russia then Russia wouldn’t have sacrificed its million men for a measles 20% of Ukrainian land as you said. A question to ponder is: What would the UK do if Chinese or Russian military systems were parked up in Wales or Scotland? Even if Russia / China portrayed themselves to be simply defensive in nature - coming with dumplings and vodka in hand. Would and should the UK allow this simply because it’s those countries democratic right?

Europe needs bold leadership and tact to extricate itself from US vassalization and develop strategic autonomy + start acting in its own interest. It mainly needs strength and sovereignty in energy, military and industry (tech included). Those form the basis for political/diplomatic sovereignty - without the former the latter have no teeth as their structurally limited and constrained by hard power. Your softness (good hearted values) need the backing of hardness (grounded power in the material world). Every state or entity has to use its own advantages - for Europe that would be its geographic positioning (not such its geology). It’s connected to the largest landmass on earth connecting it to the rising (already risen) powers of Asia (China) and resource rich Russia and Middle East. It’s also north of Africa with plenty of resources and an ocean away from the US (largest consumer market). Europe actually benefits greatly from peace and connections it’s already positioned for - rather than a continent of confrontation against Russia. It needs to put itself first before US alignment - and embrace multi-polarity - recognizing and embracing itself as one of those poles rather than being in the shadow of the US. It should re-engage with Russia (regardless of US dictates) and benefit from cheap energy for its industry, whilst investing in energy connections to North Africa (to diversify), whilst investing in domestic sustainable energy for the long term (to not become so dependent). It should re-shore critical industries (for national security) and go all in on technology which is critical for the world we live in. On the political front it’s probably best it doesn’t act so brashly and defiantly (speaking openly against US reliance) - but just build quietly in the background to not invite any hostility or US resistance that will try to maintain the status quo (hence I started by saying it will require tactfullness).

@BlueOak - Yeah the elite units were sent but that’s the point. Theres an ebb and flow that causes the attrition to take place. Units being sent to plug one hole means they’re concentrated in one place to be attacked, in addition to thinning out defences in other parts along the line. The whole point is to grind down the other side. Russia is now also producing drones internally and at industrial scale. Even nastier ones with deeper range and payload. - As already mentioned, the main goal isn’t KM’s gained but is mainly neutralising a forward base and threat on Russia’s border. That has now been achieved in large part - though not in totality. Even if we are looking at KM’s taken - they’ve got 20% of Ukraine and 80% of Donbas which is the industrial heartland of Ukraine. Also a secure land bridge to Crimea further securing it and deep sea access. Theres not much else for them to gain going further into hostile regions difficult to hold and nearing a NATO border - so just dig in where they are and keep grinding down Ukrainian capability. - I don’t believe Ukraine is collapsing as much as I don’t believe Russias economy is collapsing. That doesn’t mean they aren’t suffering - both parties bleed in a war. The point is who can bleed longer. The main factors in a war of attrition are: manpower, arms (industry) and political will. Russia can outlast Ukraine and seems to be outlasting a Western bloc (NATO) that’s been supplying Ukraine, yet running low on supplies and the political will to keep things going. The EU has a war on its doorstep yet hasn’t ramped up industrial output - Russia is still outproducing the EU and US combined. No one’s sending troops from beyond Ukraine in any meaningful number as there’s no political buy in to die for this war. And the political will to keep funding Ukraine who’s reliant on that funding is drying up and fracturing. Even the US defence deal with EU - the Mediterranean countries are backing out and leaving the North and Germany to foot the bill - a Germany that’s economically weakened and slowly de-industrialising due to high energy costs thanks to yours truly blowing up the pipeline. - Russia and most states for that matter will always prioritise security concerns before worrying about who wants to be their friend- they don’t care to be invited to Eurovision. EU leaders saying their backing Ukraine is good and all but it needs some teeth. NATO is their military umbrella led by the US and has changed its tone accordingly - which just shows the level of vassalization of Europe. - I agree that Europe need their own industrial, military and energy sovereignty to not rely on the US or follow in their footsteps. Spain, France and others don’t want to buy F35’s because they want domestic strength which is a good start. The irony is that they still speak US empire talking points and still maintain a vassal mentality that wants to keep fighting a war not even in its own interest: a war now being de-prioritised by empire to retain dwindling resources needed for a pivot to China and perhaps Iran. Europe mostly don’t have the political will, capital, energy or industry to go at it alone against Russia - at least not right now. To get to that stage will take time and dedication, hopefully not sabotaged by a US that prefers a Europe tied to its interests rather than its own - that’s the hurdle the EU has to overcome: strengthening itself whilst under the vassal of the US who will resist that change in dynamic. And not just in a material sense but in a mental sense - which is still showing up in their rhetoric and behaviour. EU complains it’s not sitting at the table but denied any negotiations with Russia the past 3.5 years. Now that they’re not at the table they rightly intuit that they must be on the menu. Used as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game they don’t have the sovereignty or strength to dictate terms in - but that hopefully they pursue. And not to use “force” against Russia but as a deterrent. - I don’t usually pay attention to granular details of war due to fog of war and propaganda. But I looked into things recently and see even Ukraine sources talking worryingly - so I deduce my conclusions from that alongside looking at the macro situation which is that Russia simply has more depth of manpower, industry and political will to grind the other side down further. The above is what I meant in my first point - that plugging one hole leaves others areas along the line vulnerable. This is just from this morning and from a Pro-Ukr source. This is what I mean by fog of war and not knowing what to believe regarding casualties. Never seen Douglas McGregor get feisty like that in a interview: Even if we take a rough estimate of casualties- per capita and for its size, Ukraine is still suffering more losses compared to Russia. Tough to know exact figures so it’s a grey area I stay out. But I don’t see why McGregor would be lying and assume he’s got good sources.

First 10 min of this video in insightful as to what kind of a war is taking place (attritional) and how territory gain is only secondary to the aim of attrition. The recent break throw helps strengthen Putins hand in tomorrow negotiation.

@Ajay0 I believe the EU is doing as much trade with Russia as is India (approx €70 billion worth).US has drastically cut back but is obtaining what it needs. But to them - looking out for an impoverished population in a country of 1.5billion people deserves punishment. India, a country with 3-4 times the population with a economy 5-7 times smaller than is required to punish itself. “Survival needs for me but not for thee”

Like I said months ago - the US don’t hold the cards when it comes to China. Why do we think the US is enacting tariffs more harshly on India and Brazil but not China who keeps getting a extension? A great video going into it from Balaji:

But the cause is important to understand how to stop the suffering ? Collapsing all distinctions means we never get to the root cause. And the solution isn’t dissolution of all distinctions into a abstract multi planetary consciousness when we haven’t hacked multipolarity on the one planet we haven’t left yet. Pretty much all of us are morally consistent I think in being against the suffering all these conflicts cause. But it’s about how to practically resolve or minimise them. Saying all suffering is bad doesn’t help solve it except state the obvious. What looks like double standards is often the same standards applied to different situations. Liberalism collapses context and distinction to maintain a moral halo of universalism but never solve anything - except trip up over itself in contradictions and shield itself from reality that pierces through their utopian ideaology. Green is going for a moral play and erases causality - which means no solution. Yellow is most pragmatic (rather than idealistic) as it acknowledges the others views and concerns (security). Then it mentions integrating perspectives to break the cycle. Integration would mean integrating the fact that certain constraints on freedom are required for larger freedoms - and that not all constraint is some assault on sovereignty and liberty. The liberal minded have constraint phobia and want to sovereignty max as if every nation simply floats like a lone cloud and can do everything it wishes as long as it’s democratically voted. Then they ironically speak of interdependence and connected (“oneness”) meanwhile not acknowledging how smaller nations existence depends on not crossing their larger neighbours red lines. If we took sovereignty and liberal maxing to its extreme it would mean every group and tribe voting to secede from territory until we have a 1’000 different nations fighting. Turquoise wants to leapfrog to a multi-planetary level where all distinctions dissolve - when we haven’t even evolved to exist with multi-polarity on one we haven’t left. It’s premature. It then talks of shifting conciousness but what we need now is the current hegemon shifting its conciousness from a unipolar imperial mindset to a multi-polar sharing space mindset. This is peak mystic escapism and geopolitical bypassing because we are “all one”. Non-duality doesn’t mean no duality - maturing is learning to live within duality because as long as we live in form we can’t escape into some formless blob.

@PurpleTree Palestinians are trying to succeed at the self-determination of a state, not seceding from an already existing one. So it’s not about territorial integrity of an already existing state but denying a group the sovereignty of having one their already entitled to. Balochistan is similar to Chechyna - already part of an existing state (Pakistan) but with a separatist movement. They’re dealt with aggressively which is authoritarian but not imperial. Different states deal with separatists differently, some more aggressive than others - but generally no state just willingly gives up territory as it can set off a domino affect for others to separate. We were talking on another thread about Uyghurs and I responded regarding their treatment and how states act to preserve themselves. Spain for example cracked down on Catalonian officials leading the separatist referendum. That can’t be classified as imperialism just because it’s aggressive or authoritarian - there are distinct differences. A country can be authoritarian without being imperial - North Korea for example. Many people misdiagnose security logic and motive for imperialism and domination - which implies there’s no legitimate concerns to be solved diplomatically, thus the only solution is to deal with the “evil Hitler” militarily. A unipolar hegemon like the US is blind to other nations security concerns because they believe they are the exception (American exceptionalism). They’re also the exception from international law and war crime persecution from the ICJ (Hague invasion act). They believe the entire globe is their sphere of influence but another powerful nation having one is imperialism. Its the same underlying mentality Israel has towards Palestinians - arrogance and exceptionalism fuelling domination. It’s this same mentality that flips other countries reactions to imperialism and calls it imperialism itself. That’s how we get US officials calling the South China Sea a national security threat .. all the way in Chyna 😂 Ok boomer.

@BlueOak The difference is that Russia see’s a superpowers imperial reach coming through a neighbour as a threat, while Israel sees the neighbour themselves (who is stateless and powerless) as a threat. A proper threat assessment has to be made to distinguish between an existential threat, a national security threat, or a threat to empire and imperial domination. Otherwise situations are misdiagnosed and what is defensive is framed as domination or vice versa. You can have a legitimate security concern, gone about in an illegitimate (yet understandable) way. Or an illegitimate or inflated security concern, gone about in an illegitimate way ie Israel or a unipolar hegemon maintaining its primacy in a multipolar reality. Israel frames what is a national security concern (October 7th - non state actors) as an existential concern. In fact the far right frame Palestinian existence itself as an existential threat - recoiling at even the mention of the word Palestine. The US frames a threat to their uni-polar hegemony as a national security threat. A illegitimate concern (maintaining global primacy in a multi-polar world ) + inflated concern (treating developments in far off continents as existential), handled in illegitimate ways (wars of choice, regime change, sanctions etc). Understanding why a state feels threatened isn’t excusing what they do about it or how they go about it - in bad ways. But the main reason to distinguish it is because security concerns can usually be dealt with diplomatically whereas a power looking to dominate can’t be reasoned with. Every territorial expansion or war isn’t imperial driven and based on domination - they can be security driven. The gains in territory are incidental and secondary not primary. It’s like saying all water is wet - on the surface it’s true but it oversimplifies and misses important distinctions. Most of the cases you listed start with a proximity based security logic ie their not acting for dominations sake - that doesn’t justify their methods or make them clean. A unipolar hegemon skips proximity logic and treats developments in places thousands of miles away as existential threats. Even their abuses of power are above law. The US literally has a law that allows it to be lawless - The Hague Act legalises them storming The Hague if one of their own are in the hot seat. But legal doesn’t always mean legitimate. Just now they’ve put a $50mill bounty on another head of states - Maduro of Venezuela. This is empire logic not security. I put my those examples into Chat GPT with those distinctions:

@BlueOak Both frameworks can be good or bad - a unipolar hegemon can police the world while also bullying it. I’m not defending either or as much as I’m saying the reality has now changed from uni to multi-polar. It doesn’t look like we’re going back to a unipolar world so the question is how to live in a multipolar one. We basically need to update post WW2 institutions to account for that change and enforce punishment properly. A powerful country may think it can bully its neighbour, simply because it knows that another powerful country stepping in risks mutually assured destruction and they won’t. Like I said - spheres of influence shouldn’t become spheres of imperialism. Multiple powers does mean that multiple injustices can happen if each of them bully their own sphere - so we need new rules and enforcement mechanisms that can punish that. Ukraine is an example of multi-polarity failing as the transition is being sabotaged by unipolar inertia. Acting with a unipolar mindset in a multi-polar reality is why the collision exists. Geography and proximity still matter in a world of ICBMs because shrinking the distance and time to respond elevates the risk for the country on the receiving end. Also, missiles can destroy a territory but not take it - which requires proximity of troops and supply lines. That’s why an adversary being next door or platforming themselves via a neighbouring country is still problematic. For example Iran hit Israel but can never take territory due to geography. The risk of mutually assured destruction might cause one power to risk conventional ground war against another - betting on the fact that they won’t risk going nuclear. The thinking is: let’s put aside the big guns and have a fist fight. That’s a dangerous bet - one a country will avoid wanting to be entangled in on its border against another power being ballsy. No power is going to accept a hostile adversary on their border - England wouldn’t accept Russian/Chinese systems in Scotland nor US in Mexico. This new interview from Sachs goes covers a lot of what we’re discussing:

Appreciate the transparency mate. I’ve just numbered the points as away from laptop and can’t multi quote / don’t wanna spam with multiple comments. 1.) Those are definitely provocative and aggressive in rhetoric and escalatory in action for sure. It’s just that they don’t exist in a vacuum - many of those examples are during the Ukraine war where rhetoric is spicy on both sides. Western examples are the recent comments by General Donahue who said they can take Kalliningrad (Russian territory) within days or much earlier, Kaja Kallas mentioning breaking up Russia into pieces. The prelude to all this was the many years of attempted diplomacy which Mearsheimer covers succinctly in 10 min here: He actually covers Ukrainian agency and the will to want to join NATO from 6:50 which I’ll get to on to in point 2. The INF was ditched by the US first. And the dead hand is an automatic defensive deterrent against a first strike - not about being offensive and striking first. 2.) Sovereignty and agency definitely matter and it’s expected countries would seek some sort of security architecture after that history. It’s just that sovereignty isn’t an absolute that exists in a vaccum - if we live in an interconnected web then surely if your neighbouring a greater power - then you need to account for their security concerns. It’s not utopian but just realistic. That’s part of being in a world with multiple centres of power. No power will allow another power or power bloc to cozy up to it. Just like the US reacted to the Cuban missile crisis or the US wouldn’t accept Chinese missiles in Canada or Mexico - rightly so. Spheres of influence need to be considered to avoid big wars - which brings up a wider point of multi-polarity vs uni-polarity. It’s better to be 80% sovereign and alive then 100% sovereign and your decisions risk the balance of the world being upset because two powers are breathing down each others necks. 3.) The default of the world has been multi-polarity, which was obviously messy at times whilst at other times spheres of influence were understood to not be infringed - especially when no set borders existed. True uni-polarity only came with the global scale of the British empire and now the US empire. We can argue this set up is stable because there’s a clear hegemon and no two powers fighting - but empires don’t last forever and they eventually have challengers who rise. Also, the unipolar power mostly seeks to maintain its position by kneecapping others rising - so it’s an unfair system. That uni-polar mindset of universalism still persists due to inertia - but now we are entering or already in a multi-polar world which is where the friction now is. Past friction in a multi-polar world was messy but didn’t destroy the world as the power to do so didn’t exist - but now we are in a multi-polar reality with apocalyptic weapons - and a uni-polar mindset which isn’t adjusting or will reluctantly be left no choice but to because of the stakes. In a multi-polar world it’s understood that powers have natural spheres of influence over those within their immediate orbit - like a gravitational pull. Similar to how the US has over Mexico and Canada for example. It shouldn’t become a sphere of imperialism - that’s bad. But a sphere of influence is only natural and expected. A great power shouldn’t try to then bring that smaller country in another powers orbit - into their own. Whether that small country wants it or not - it’s best to avoid this or else expect a reaction from the power which is then put at threatened (national security - existential risk). Alliances are fine - but not if a small country is used by a larger power as a forward base and platform to push their agenda through - in order to contain the other great power rival. The US had the Monroe doctrine where they not only believed in having a sphere of influence but the entire Western hemisphere of South America as theirs, to not be interfered in by Europe. This is clearly over kill as Europeans being in Argentina pose no existential risk to the US. But for the US to resist interference along its periphery and sphere of influence in Mexico, Canada or the Carribean is understandable as that proximity does pose a risk. The US thinks its sphere of influence is the global sphere - and that influence is not only influence but imperial. For the imperial mindset - anyone’s freedom anywhere, is a threat to their dominance everywhere. A uni-polar mindset in a multi-polar reality - that’s the main tension today. The multi-polar world needs balancing and a respect for spheres rather than a universalism that uni-polar hegemon feels entitled to.

Great post @Breakingthewall Spiritualists elevate the essence of the formless (consciousness) and deny the emergence of form (constructs) which come from that formless essence. Non-duality doesn't mean no duality or that form isn't as real, it's just not all that's real. Could be semantics but I'd say organised religion typically denies human nature (instincts, original sin) while spiritual bypassing denies human nurture (conditioning, constructs) which try to buffer human nature. Hence the hippie, relativist, all is love orientation that indulges human nature and emotion at the expense of its consequences for society and structure. The parallel of this in religion is the puritanical, all is divine law and order orientation that suppresses human nature and suffocates the soul in order to structure and stabilize society. Both are de-humanizing in their own way and incomplete. Man is man but more than just man . Done wrong: religions tend to deny what you are (animal nature, the creature), spiritualism denies what you are becoming (through conditioning, ego, constructs and culture). False religion denies the creature (biology, hardware, nature), false spirituality denies the character (ego, construct / software, nurture). Man is a creature by birth, becomes a character by conditioning, and is a consciousness in essence that is under, over and in all the above.

The negative response to Russia is mostly Western - which makes up at most 15-20% of the world. Most of the world is either neutral or friendly with Russia - much of Africa, Latin America, Middle East and Asia. Much of the world is reacting to the Western led uni-polar order as it exists -which is a imperial order that needs extricating from via a parallel order that doesn't insist on ordering others around or being sanctioned because it doesn't pick sides which is childish school yard politics. The problem is that the West doesn't take Russia seriously, or any countries legitimate interests for that matter. Because in a uni-polar order the hegemonic empires interests supersede everyone else. That doesn't mean caving in to other countries injustices or aggression, but when a country articulates again and again its own legitimate security concerns and asks for neutrality on its periphery to prevent feeling cornered - that should be respected. Post WW2 Japan and Germany were re-built and integrated into the system despite being imperially expansionist - they got some level of respect, but Russia was denied this post collapse of the USSR. This is largely because Germany and Japan subordinated themselves to the US empire via conceding to a US security architecture. Their sovereignty is strategically limited and they don't have red lines in the real sense because they are client states of the US empire - patrons rather than partners. Russia doesn’t want to concede this level of autonomy. They floated becoming part of NATO and worked with the US in counter terrorism post 9/11 - but working alongside the US isn't enough because they empire demand others working under them. The imperial mindset is the key issue here - and its most of the world that is reacting to imperialism, some aggressively (Russia) that is then gaslit and flipped on its head to be portrayed as imperialism itself. Russia isn't a superpower, but that doesn't mean it has no power or isn't a middle to great one - although definitely stagnating and in relative decline. All the more reason not to give it a reason to lash out whilst it still has enough power to fortify its Western flank. I agree with you mentioning Russia doesn’t care for occupying Ukraine for its own sake - but merely as a means to a end which is neutrality and preservation of a security buffer against the Western block that’s hawkish. Powers despite being big, small or super still need space and should be given it. France and the UK being past empires doesn't mean we shouldn't respect them, their red lines, or take away their veto power. A resource rich, nuclear armed country like Russia, with the worlds largest landmass connected multiple continents isn't a midget to just dismiss and mock. A 5ft 9 country being demonized and talked down to will eventually assert itself when cornered. The issue isn’t that Russia see’s itself as 7ft but that the West doesn’t even see it for what it is as 5ft 9 - that if a country is under 6ft it means it’s easy pickings to be bodied 6 ft deep in a confrontation - your comment that Russia can be shattered eludes to that and you mention nukes but then don’t factor it in to the equation. Their continuing ties and trade with Russia from the looks of it. Puling out of oil deals isn't neutral - it’s picking a side. The non-aligned movement in the Cold War emerged precisely because countries were tired of being forced to pick sides and didn't want to get caught in a larger geo-political power play for empire. The same is happening today. Multi-polarity allows for the freedom of neutrality, uni-polarity forbids neutrality and demands obedience and compliance, or else.. Why should India not look out for its own interests - it has over a billion people it needs to feed and lift out of poverty that cheaper Russian energy can help with. They also have historic ties. But the imperial mindset doesn't care for another countries interests or history, only its own - which is the core of the issue here. Imperial mindset and behaviour.

Great channel and Hudson is the best at covering the economic angle of empire. Just see the latest video on Brazil where a clip of Lula is played in the first minute - he lays out how the US is after maintaining primacy and demands the world be subservient to it. I'd add that there is a symbiotic relationship between finance and empire. The empires muscle (military industrial complex) threatens and enforces a game board that is favorable for itself and its own capital interests. Resistant markets or geo-strategic regions are threatened by the use of force (muscle) or are cracked open by force so that capital (money) can flow in (like blood) circulating and extracting from them. The muscle fires the shots so that money can call the shots. Because the empire was largely financialized, this has eroded their hard power. I wrote some time back on this using the analogy of rock paper scissors which ties in well with your great research and comments above: