zazen

Interesting post on the Uigurs in China: https://x.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1900811094081630658?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ We’ve seen how extremist elements can behave such as Islamists in Syria recently. There were reports of Uighurs as part of the rebellion there also. So how should a country deal with extremism within its borders? It’s a very tricky problem to solve. The West thought it could bomb it’s way to peace, but it just bombed people into pieces. On the point of freedom, perhaps our definitions require distinctions to clarify that not all freedoms are equal - freedoms exist in relation to one another and some require constraint in order for more essential and fundamental freedoms to exists. What good are human rights if a human can’t exist to enjoy them? Because we didn’t care enough about stability or national security ie survival. The essential human right is to exist in the first place to experience further freedoms. - Existential freedoms = essential (ones required for survival, stability, security) - Fundamental freedoms = fairness (a just society with equality in front of the law) - Important freedoms = valuable but secondary (enhances life but isn’t crucial, like consumer choices or artful expression) Existential freedom enables life to exist, fundamental freedoms creates fairness in life, important freedoms enhance life. Enabling life to exist, is the pre-condition to having other freedoms that enhance the conditions of life. The problem in the West is that we mistake important freedoms for existential ones. When other groups or nations act to secure their existential freedom, we take it as an assault on our existential freedom even when it isn’t. It simply threatens convenience, influence, or our ideology and identity of exceptionalism and universalism. As we’re talking about China here’s the example: When China fortifies its own waters, securing its survival against a hostile US, it’s China that is labelled a existential threat..all the way in their waters in the South China Sea. Even though China is the one protecting their existential freedom (national security) while the US is just defending an important freedom (global navigation and influence). The abstraction of rules and laws (fundamental freedoms providing justice) doesn’t negate the reality of survival and security (existential freedoms) which causes one to break those abstractions in the first place.

Europe seems to be drawing up a plan to strengthen itself: Could be just what Europe needed to revive itself. Issue is how it will be financed, which hopefully isn’t anything close to what’s suggested:

Comments indicate a public sentiment that will only cause a further move to the political right. Welfare being spent on warfare / defence will only fuel this.

Just a shenanigan https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/democrats-are-demented-genocidal-war-sluts-4b1a44fd824d

Depending on what your friends definition of unfriendly is, he is right and wrong. Attacking another nation isn't justified just because they are unfriendly diplomatically or don't want to trade with you - it really becomes a problem when that nation becomes hostile to the point it threatens your security and survival - which the Western geopolitical encirclement of Russia was leading to. The abstractness of rules and laws don't negate the reality of survival and security, which causes one to break those rules (abstractions) in the first place. Neo-liberalism’s contradiction is that it denies the reality of survival and power dynamics while simultaneously weaponizing them under a moral veneer. Security and survival pressures will always override legal abstractions when a nation or group is pushed into a corner, just like Hamas doing what it did on October 7th. Imperial expansionism is a threat, whether it was the Soviets in the past or the West today. The issue is that many Westerners can't see it's actions against Russia as being imperialistic, or even China. They mistake the reactions to imperial expansionism for imperialism itself. The piercing question to ask is: who's approaching who's borders and waters? And is this entity (imperial power) coming with cookies and good faith? Or is there a clear track record of this entity globe trotting around the world aggressively intervening in other nations and regions - via coups, wars and economic strangulation in the form of sanctions. If this entity has been very clearly behaving as the latter, why would any one with a single brain cell trust this entity to be at its doorstep? Ukraine aligning with the West doesn't even have to be an issue. Would Ukraine aligning with China be one? The problem with the West is they demand exclusive alignment within a uni-polar framework. They force countries into a binary choice of ally or adversary, with us or against us. Neutrality is treated as hostility - which is why Russia's core demand for it is rejected. Countries are punished simply for pursuing independent policies that aren't exclusively aligned to the West. For example, Pakistan's neighbor Iran has one of the largest gas reserves in the world that could be a lifeline for its energy scarcity and development. Iran could be to Pakistan, what Russia was to Germany. But due to US sanctions and political pressure that Pakistan can't afford to bear, it’s been shelved and not pursued as it should have been for over a decade. A country with 250 million people in much need, can't even fulfill its needs linked to survival and security because that survival and security economically threatened from their luke warm alignment to the West. If Ukraine or Georgia had been allowed to exist as neutral buffer states, Russia wouldn’t have perceived them as a security risk. But the West insists on pulling them into its sphere - turning them into frontline states against Russia.

Musk weaponizing Starlink is the same as the West freezing Russian assets - it creates a precedent that destroys trust and accelerates the search for alternatives. This is what non-Western nations have been dealing with - a Western hegemony that has abused their position Trump, Musk and company seem to understand the importance of the dollar being a reserve currency (as Trump threatened BRICS) as it subsidizes US primacy. But they seem to have forgotten their payment for this privilege was providing security - the very security they’re using as a bargaining chip and not willing to provide. The only reason Musk is able to dictate terms so arrogantly comes from the very security infrastructure the US provides in exchange for dollar dominance - but that he and his boys are undermining.

A good hypothetical me and @Breakingthewall co-created lol. May help lubricate and fire up Westerners empathy neurons to help put yourselves in Russia's shoes, in order to at least understand, not condone Russia's action.

Threats don’t just come from military invasion - they can come from long term geopolitical encirclement, economic strangulation, and regime change efforts. Russia has watched for decades as the US and its allies toppled governments, launched wars, and used economic and military pressure to weaken adversaries - and this same machine is coming to its backyard, that's not paranoia but looking at history and the present situation with that history in mind. Should someone get a mortgage with bad credit? Should the US get to play encirclement and empire? This same machine / establishment blob has think tanks like RAND openly strategize about overextending Russia, pushing it into economic and military exhaustion. NATO expansion, which multiple US officials warned would provoke Russia, kept marching forward anyway. Every diplomatic off-ramp was ignored or rejected. Of course Biden and the West should support Ukraine in defense, the problem is why didn't Bidden or the West at least try go the diplomatic route and speak to Putin in the whole 3 years? Why not try to de-escalate. Escalation isn't just about what you do but refuse to do. Refusing diplomacy and continuing anti-Russia rhetoric is just as bad as escalating when the stakes are supposedly this high ie dealing with a nuclear power the size of Russia at Europe's doorstep. The West is shocked at Russia’s actions, but if you have a rabid dog in the neighborhood destroying gardens, and see it start to get closer to your own - are you expected to do nothing? It’s like poking a bear for years and acting surprised when it mauls you. That doesn’t justify the mauling - but it makes it predictable. The same logic applies to Hamas on October 7th. You can categorically condemn the attack while also recognizing that it didn’t happen in a vacuum. When people are pushed into desperate, impossible situations - a nation facing encirclement or a population under decades of military occupation - eventually, they lash out. That doesn’t make the response right, but it makes it understandable. The problem with the Western narrative is that it only looks at the reaction, never the provocation. And international law doesn't outlaw provocation, only the final reaction to it. Powerful nations can provoke indefinitely, but the moment their target finally reacts, they get to play the victim and rally the world against “aggression.” Provocation isn’t easily quantifiable. It’s not like a single violation you can point to; it’s cumulative, a gradual escalation of pressures, threats, and red lines being crossed over time. It’s death by a thousand cuts, and when the final reaction happens, it looks like the aggressor just snapped without cause. If international law actually wanted to prevent war, it wouldn’t just criminalize the reaction - it would criminalize the path that leads to war. Order can't just be about punishing those who break the rules, but stopping those who engineer the conditions that make rule breaking inevitable. The irony of saying ''Putin is just paranoid of his own corrupt system collapsing'' is that its the West that can't stand any other system existing and challenging its own. They can't stand power sharing and multi-polarity - they feel entitled to being the head of the table, not just merely having a seat at it. Why do we think Donald is threatening the BRICS countries to not create a rival currency? If a country dares to challenge the US dollar, it gets bombed into the stone age - meanwhile the people of that country are painted as barbarics who need civilizing, while the West is the one approaching them with the stone age mentality of might makes right. If a country tries socialism, it gets sanctioned, destabilized, or outright invaded. If a country nationalizes its resources, it gets overthrown. The largest vulture fund BlackRock literally calls ''resource nationalism'' a threat. Even the UK government website does - ''Resource nationalism is defined as anti-competitive behavior designed to restrict the international supply of a natural resource.'' https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/resource-nationalism - imagine that, people wanting their own resources beneath their feet. If a country wants to remain neutral, it gets pressured, bullied, and coerced into picking a side - like Ukraine for example. The idea is that anyone's freedom anywhere, is a threat to the Wests supremacy everywhere. This is the characteristic attitude of Western imperialism, that gets a cosmetic change when Trump walks in after Biden, but no fundamental change. In this superior system, democracy is supported by forceful un-democratic practices abroad and domestic quality of life is subsidized by disqualifying others from using any other currency. Maintaining the privilege of the dollar as the world reserve currency allows them to print money, export inflation, run endless deficits and sanction ''adversaries''. Maybe Russia should try adopt this system too..creating and sustaining a global war economy, using think tanks and policy manipulation to ensure constant war, and systematically destabilizing entire regions for strategic control. This system isn’t self-sustaining or universally superior. It works for the US because it makes sure it doesn’t work for others. It's success is built on its ability to impose itself on others - often at their expense. This is a system that very much doesn't work for many nations because they are on the receiving end of it, not the benefactors of it - which is why they seek alternatives like BRICS. The thing with Western imperialism is that it's not a series of isolated mistakes, or a occasional lapse into brutality - it's a continuous, characteristic, and catastrophic system of domination that no other nation or civilization has ever matched or could even hope to replicate. Other countries commit wrongs, but their wrongs are events that happen in response to crises, conflicts, or shifts in power. Western wrongs are not events - they're just the backdrop against which the modern world operates. The wrongs of China, Russia, or other powers are events bound to specific historical contexts. The wrongs of the West are structural in that this is the civilizational modus operandi.

https://x.com/mylordbebo/status/1897962821322682817?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ Not sure what to make of this - whether it’s happening under the main leadership or just some breakaway faction being brutal. During the month of Ramadan also - how unholy. Total mockery and some real sick people in this world.

I think whats going on is that there are different definitions of what winning looks like. In the mainstream narrative / establishment view, a win or defeat is total, not partial (little room for nuance). When they say Russia hasn't won it's because their perspective assumes "winning" is purely about territorial expansion (taking all of Ukraine in total) rather than strategic positioning, sustainability, and long-term advantage. To them they need Russia pacificed (Macrons words) and balkanized / fractured (Kaja Kallas words). From Chat GPT: ''The establishment definition of victory: Russia is weakened, contained, and ideally broken apart. This means Ukraine pushing Russia out of all occupied territories, Russia suffering internal collapse, and Putin’s government being overthrown. In short, Russia must lose decisively, ensuring it can never challenge Western primacy again. This vision is ideological, maximalist, and detached from reality. The realist definition of victory: Acknowledging that Russia cannot be defeated within its own sphere of influence and that continuing the war only leads to more Western losses. The realistic "win" is actually minimizing defeat—cutting losses, preventing further escalation, and stabilizing Europe rather than chasing an impossible goal.'' Russia has already won where it matters most which is in its own sphere and backyard, in the areas that are logistically and strategically vital - mainly the Russian speaking areas. The establishment view of defeating Russia is defeating Russia at its borders or near them, but this is no easy task. The closer a country is to its own industrial base and supply lines, the harder it is to defeat them in a war of attrition. Russia can supply their front lines way longer than the West can - because Russia has the logistics, the cheap energy to run industry, and the raw materials and competitive labor to produce war material. Europe has none of those ingredients which is why they still haven't re-industrialised to match Russian capacity and their shelves / stockpiles are running low. Even US has said this which is why they need out of this war to gather some time to re-base. How is Europe going to outproduce Russia in arms and send those in a efficient manner to the Ukrainian front line when: They now have some of the highest energy costs, non-competitive labor cost, the needed raw materials and inputs are largely imported and have a complex supply chain, their supply line and logistics runs through multiple countries in Europe, and they are indebted to their eye balls compared to Russia (20% debt to GDP vs Europe's average 80% - UK, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal are over 100%) assuming they will take out loans to finance this, which is what they’ve said - further squeezing their economies that will energise a domestic backlash and fracture the political will needed to sustain war. Analysts who say Russia has won are speaking in practical military terms - in this war of attrition, where it matters - in Russia's backyard. The problem is that the Western establishment refuses to accept this reality because it undermines their larger agenda. Their war isn’t just about Ukraine but about permanently neutralizing Russia. That’s why they escalate, frame it as a fight for all of Europe, and why they indulge in ridiculous Hitler analogies. They need the public to believe that if Russia isn’t stopped in Ukraine, it will roll tanks into Denmark next. They are also using this as a scapegoat to divert attention away from their own failures and to cool down populist rage. But warmongering against Russia and turning a welfare economy into a war economy by cutting social welfare will only anger the public more and shift things even more right. But this is the delusion of the detached establishment. Also, speaking of Kursk as a holdout - just from today: https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-attack-force-ukraine-consider-pull-out-kursk/ They won't defeat China for the same reason they can't defeat Russia - China has even more of the advantages that Russia does. It's delusional to think you can go up against a near peer country with not just equivalent but superior industrial capacity to you, in their own sphere of influence and backyard where they have the home advantage, and superior logistics to push their production to the front line and into the theatre of war. This is if they even get to land. They'd first have to win in the sea - but China has 200 times the ship building capacity of the US, and the world largest navy. Their only hope is economic, but even there they most likely will fail. Trump has announced tariffs to address the $300 billion trade deficit between US and China. For China to lose $300 billion worth of trade due to these tariffs is the equivalent of them losing the GDP of their 10th largest city in GDP - which is Wuhan ironically lol. It's a bruise on the arm, but not crippling at all. Like Trump said to Zelensky “You don’t have the cards”

Saw a interesting tweet from Caitlin Johnstone related to this: ''People in politics and media who oppose the status quo often drift rightward, especially in the US; Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr are some clear recent examples. This is because the Trumpian political wing offers mainstream power and influence to those with an "anti-establishment" streak, while mainstream progressive politics doesn't offer anything close. If you're a right wing "populist" you can get elected president, while anyone to the left of Kamala Harris sees their campaigns sabotaged with smear campaigns and rigged primaries. We see a similar dynamic play out in independent media; you'll see many solidly leftist commentators drifting to the right as they find bigger numbers in attacking liberal institutions than attacking the Trumpian faction, because anti-establishment sentiment is much more mainstream on the right. A much larger audience pool has been allowed to amass there for hostility toward establishment institutions — because the right poses no threat to real power. And therein lies the key point. Anti-establishment figures in politics and punditry aren't drifting rightward because the right has better arguments or is more solidly grounded in truth and morality, they're drifting rightward because the so-called "populist right" has been allowed to flourish while its mirror on the left has not. Right wing "populism" has been allowed to flourish by the very power structures they purport to oppose, while the authentic left has been systematically dismantled by generations of aggressive imperial operations (look up COINTELPRO for example). That's why you see Trump backed by oligarchs, empire managers and DC swamp monsters and uplifted by the Murdoch press while anti-imperialist socialism can barely even be said to exist anywhere in the US-aligned world. So while the power and influence offered by right wing "populist" factions can be tempting, that power and influence only exists because those factions are supported and defended by the empire itself. Public discontent is being corralled toward establishment-friendly political structures so that it doesn't head anywhere that can threaten the mechanics of the empire, while authentic opposition to capitalism, militarism and empire building is viciously subverted by any means necessary. Bernie Sanders and AOC play the same role on the other side of the aisle, by the way, as do ostensibly leftist media like TYT who herd people back into support for the Democratic Party. Real opposition to real power is not permitted to ascend to the presidency of the world's most powerful government. It is marginalized, smeared and subverted, and kept as small as possible. That's why some who begin with sincere opposition to real power find themselves drawn to the right: it's larger and offers more opportunities, because it is more aligned with the ruling power structures of our day. It's fool's gold. It sells you power and influence so that you can fight the power, but after you've paid you find yourself on the same side as the power. You sold out for nothing. You might as well have skipped the middle part and gone directly to collecting the big bucks whoring yourself out to mainstream politics and media defending the empire without pretending to be something else. Staying true and authentic can be hard. It comes at a price. You don't get to see your favorite politicians win elections and take important positions in government. You don't get to amass tens of millions of loyal followers who hang on your every word. You lose friends and alienate family members with your positions on war and capitalism and imperialism and Zionism. You can't even watch a movie or a show without being frequently disgusted by the empire propaganda you'll see. It isn't pretty. But at least it's real. It's another one of those red pill vs blue pill deals. Do you want disconcerting truths or comforting lies? If you want to be true to what's true, you don't compromise your values to support political factions which support the very power structures you oppose. You stay focused on the enemy. You keep throwing sand in the gears of the machine, hoping that if enough people throw enough sand it will eventually come crashing down, but self-assured that you're going to keep throwing sand either way, win or lose. Sure it's hard. Sure it entails a lot of disappointments and losses. But at least it's real. At least it stands a chance at beating the bastards, however small. As weak and pathetic as you can feel throwing haymakers at a globe-spanning empire some days, it sure beats the hell out of collaborating with it. And that's exactly what you'd be doing by joining up with fraudulent political factions which claim to oppose the empire.''

Which side has been the one not seeking a genuine peace? Biden didn't engage directly with Russia for 3 years. Zelensky outright banned negotiations by decree. The Istanbul deal was torpedoed after US lapdog Boris Johnson met Zelesnky. No one even mentions the Nord Stream blow up. As for Trump, there seems to be a larger game being played that lends this to being disingenuous. It seems they’re trying to posture as anti-war (which domestically people are sick of) but are gearing up for one with China. They understand their position isn't currently strong and wouldn't be in confronting both Russia and China, so are off setting the costs and burden to their European counterparts. They also understand domestic sentiment around war being at an all time low, so need to repackage how its sold or have others (proxies) do it for them. Empires still gonna empire. Perhaps it’s just a cosmetic change rather than a characteristic change. There's still seems to be a continuity of agenda but a shift in strategy in executing that agenda - of which the goal is always primacy over peace. Part of the current strategy is seeming to be peace maker while the imperial machines gears shift to Asia. It's like the US is telling Europe ''keep this dagger at Russia's throat'' so we can look like the good guys (optics), whilst we sharpen our dagger (which we know is rusty) for China. https://news.sky.com/story/us-troops-will-not-be-used-to-secure-ukraine-peace-following-ceasefire-deal-with-putin-trumps-defence-secretary-tells-allies-13307774 ''Mr Hegseth said Washington must focus on the threat posed by China and securing its own borders. He added: "Stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe. "As the United States shifts its attention to these threats, European allies must lead from the front,"

@Nemra Under Biden Israel destroyed Gaza and plausibly genocided Palestinians. Biden did nothing to attempt to stop the Ukraine war or diplomatically speak to Putin. Nord stream pipeline was blown up whilst he was in office (most people assume it was the US). He gave Ukraine the green light to fire missiles into Russian territory escalating us towards WW3. Does that mean he didn’t do anything good? Of course not. Point is, your point about bad things Trump has done or is doing now doesn’t mean he’s incapable of doing something good here and there. Aligning on something like ending the war and de-escalating tensions with a nuclear heavyweight like Russia doesn’t mean wholesale backing Trump either.

Zelensky got cold feet after seeing how shaky his European counterparts convictions were when it came time to bite the bullet and send their own to fight in Ukraine. Now he’s trying to patch things up with the US.. Italy and Poland have among the most troops in the bloc and are against fighting alongside the Brits and French who are foaming at the mouth to take on Russia. Europe is like a centipede with each nation being a leg. It only takes a few to move in a different direction to cause the centipede to halt or creep too slow due to friction. Political will is a key element in sustaining a war, let alone starting one. Here we have a house divided against one mostly unified in Russia.

@Nemra I'm saying in regards to Ukraine what he’s doing seems way better than escalation - not that he’s good domestically or should be in power. @Breakingthewall Indian stream 2 lol that’s a good additional context. We could even use the current situation with Canada to hypothetically draw the parallel. Imagine now since Trump is imposing tariffs Canadians start getting nationalistic and prosecuting Americans and suppressing American culture in Canada. Chat GPT: Imagine This Hypothetical Scenario For decades, China and the U.S. were locked in a Cold War—a global, ideological, and military rivalry that nearly ended in nuclear annihilation multiple times. China ultimately won, the U.S. collapsed, and for a time, China reigned supreme. But now, years later, the U.S. is rebuilding itself, challenging China’s global dominance again, and China wants to keep it down permanently. Now, right on the U.S. border, Canada starts shifting. It undergoes a political revolution, installs a fiercely anti-American government, and begins cracking down on pro-U.S. Canadians—banning the American flag, erasing American history from schools, shutting down pro-American media, and even militarily suppressing Canadian provinces that still feel tied to the U.S. And who is backing this new Canada? China - their old rival who they nearly blew the world up over. This same nation, China, pours billions into arming Canada, embeds its military forces, and begins installing missile systems along the U.S.-Canada border—pointed directly at Washington, New York, and Chicago. And this isn’t a conspiracy—China’s own think tanks openly discuss their strategy to weaken and encircle the U.S., stating that American resurgence must be stopped at all costs. But here’s the real kicker: China has a long track record of invading countries, toppling governments, and breaking promises about its military intentions. It has: Launched wars under false pretenses , bombed nations into collapse, overthrown leaders who didn’t submit to its interests, crossed security red lines in the past, lying about its true motives. And now this same proven war machine is offering “security guarantees” to Canada—just like NATO has done with Ukraine. Would the U.S. just sit back and watch? Would it do nothing while: 1. A hostile, foreign-backed military buildup emerges on its doorstep? 2. Pro-U.S. populations in Canada are discriminated against, silenced or even attacked? Of course not. The U.S. would take action—diplomatically first, militarily if necessary—because no serious power would allow this threat to materialize.'' We don't have to condone the most blatant act of aggression (invasion) but we can understand it. The same way people can condemn Hamas on October 7th, yet understand the context in which it happened and who the aggressor is that pushed a certain group (Palestinians/Hamas or Russians) into such a corner that they were left with no choice but to act out in such a way.

@Nemra Even the silliest most corrupt people may once in a while do something good, even if it isn’t for pure intentions. If we frame everything someone does as bad regardless of the action that’s just being ideological and dogmatic.

@Breakingthewall Yeah, check this out - like a Time Machine. “Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century. “But Nato's military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger A good parallel scenario from Chat GPT: “Imagine India is rising on the world stage, but the U.S. or China starts arming Pakistan to the teeth, turning it into a military outpost right on India’s border. At the same time, Pakistan starts persecuting Punjabis, banning their language, cracking down on their identity—people with deep historical ties to India. Does India just sit back and say, “Oh well, that’s Pakistan’s business”? Hell no. India sees the writing on the wall. This isn’t just a border dispute—it’s a geopolitical squeeze, an attempt to box India in and weaken it. So India pushes back, whether through diplomacy or force, because no serious power allows a global rival to build a military foothold in a historically connected neighbor without responding. That’s exactly how Russia saw Ukraine. NATO wasn’t just expanding—it was turning Ukraine into a U.S.-backed battering ram against Russia. Ukraine wasn’t just independent—it was actively cracking down on its Russian-speaking population. And Russia wasn’t just paranoid—it was reacting the way any major power would if a hostile alliance tried to install a military outpost on its doorstep. The only difference? When the U.S. or its allies do the same thing, it’s called “defending democracy.” When Russia does it, it’s called “imperialism.” Funny how that works.” India and Pakistan both share historical and ethnic ties with Punjabis - who were divided along the border. Works well as a example. The irony is that people call Russias move as some imperial expansionist play when it’s literally a response to Western imperialism itself!

@Breakingthewall People will conflate and inflate things without nuance. As a example - if Russians in Kazakhstan were being violently attacked or systematically discriminated against in a way that threatened their security, of course Russia would intervene, not because it wants to build the USSR, but because no nation willingly allows its people to be persecuted without taking action. Thats basic state responsibility. But the real irony is how the West justifies its own interventions. The US and NATO launch wars, sanctions, and regime change operations in countries halfway across the world in countries that have no historical, ethnic, or strategic connection to them - on the flimsiest moral pretexts. They claim they must protect democracy and defend human rights in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan.

If Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union, why hasn’t he invaded weaker, non-NATO former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan, Armenia, or Azerbaijan? If Putins goal has always been restoring the USSR, why would he bother trying to negotiate a security deal first? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2021_Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO He offered a proposal to NATO in December 2021, which the core demands of were rejected in January 2022, which then precipitated the invasion in February 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/03/israel-prepares-gaza-hell-plan-to-pile-pressure-on-hamas-reports During the fasting month of Ramadan: “The Israeli government is reportedly planning to ratchet up its blockade on Gaza as part of what it has called a “hell plan” to pressure Hamas into further hostage releases without a troop withdrawal from the Palestinian territory.“ Disgusting and sick state.

I’m guessing you took Zelensky’s words to heart when he said to Trump “But you have a nice ocean and don’t feel now, but you will feel in future”. You’re not on the same continent, I am, and have a sober mind about what’s going on. This kind of rhetoric is catastrophizing a localized territorial conflict in Eastern Europe into some grand ideological battle for civilization itself. Just like Netanyahu does with Hamas and the battle between children of light and darkness slogans. Zelenskys playing the same playbook to get the West to fight his countries war. If Russia really had ambitions of marching through Europe, it would have to first win in Ukraine. After 3 years, despite Western weapons, intelligence, and funding flooding the battlefield, they’ve just about gotten Donbas and nothing beyond it. There’s very little evidence that Russia has the capability or intent to even try such a thing as to attempt taking and then holding onto all of Ukraine. A lot of people are taking Cold War paranoia and turning it into a boogeyman that justifies endless escalation towards WW3.

Perhaps the real information warfare is coming from the Western establishment, waged against its own people. For decades the mainstream narrative was unchallenged because the gatekeepers controlled the flow of information. But with the rise of independent media and social platforms, people started encountering perspectives that clashed with the carefully curated story they had been fed their entire lives. Sometimes it’s not about misinformation but about the same information framed differently. The same facts can be arranged differently to tell a completely different story. The problem isn’t that people are being lied to by Russia, but that they’re being exposed to realities that the Western establishment would rather keep buried. About Russian misinformation fueling the rise of right wing population..the real driver of nationalist movements isn’t some Kremlin psyop - its the policies of globalist elites who have neglected their own people in favour of foreign wars, corporate interests, and ideological crusades. The establishments refusal to prioritize its own citizens is exactly whats making people turn to politicians who at least pretend to care about their needs. The irony is that the more the elites push for endless confrontation with Russia, the more they accelerate this backlash. Just because certain leaders align doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy. Leaders may be influenced but that doesn’t mean controlled. The claim that Russian propaganda is manipulating people into opposing war or questioning the establishment is just a convenient excuse - even it were true, is that a bad thing? lol. Being fed information to make peace with a nuclear superpower.. sounds terrible. People don't need Putin to tell them they're being screwed over by their ruling class. In fact in UK where I’m at, Keir Starmer has come out and said he's ready to put troops on the ground and planes in the skies, and has signed us up for a 100 year partnership Ukraine - with £3 billion of support till 2030 to be continued if necessary. This is in the context of this same government slashing a winter fuel allowance for the elderly, who have to choose between staying warming or staying full. This is on top of a slew of other austerity measures on social services which are already crumbling. People care for Ukraine, but not to the extent where we go cold in the winter, or have to spill the blood of our own people to fight a useless war with no outcome, except to escalate the world towards World 3. The elites are framing this as a Churchill vs Hitler moment, when it's just not the case. And that's the problem, when you misread reality, you can have very severe consequences that could have been avoided altogether. We have access to different information now, which counters the peddling of establishment misinformation at its worst and mischaracterization at its best, which can lead to these disastrous consequences. This is why people are fighting this and voting for politicians who care more for their national interest. If you think the West can deal with Russia with 'force' then why do you think Russia is such a threat to the point of being able to not only take Ukraine but then continue to penetrate into Europe and face the might of the West? Which is it.. is Putin/Russia the threat we are told, or are they weakened and able to be defeated in Ukraine ie forced into a peace? Nice warning Jesus. Just because you are awakened in consciousness doesn't mean you understand geopolitics or the reality and technicalities of warfare. Your spiritual ego is blinding you to the reality on the ground. Your framing of this whole thing as a battle of “democracy vs. dictatorship”, but there’s nothing democratic about how these decisions are being made in our name. NATO countries never got to vote on whether they wanted to be dragged into an open ended security commitment with Ukraine.

Thats true, though they still have a sizeable amount of troops to deploy from. When I say the West don't have the strength to enforce a peace on Russia and ''win'' I mean it in the conventional sense of winning offensively: by taking the war to Russia itself and fighting it in their own sphere of influence. Thats the context I'm talking about. But in a war of defence the West is formidable. This is why I think the Putin as Hitler rhetoric is overblown. Theres no major idealogical driver, incentive, capability or appetite to expand and take Ukraine, let alone Europe. Beyond simply troop numbers the other 5 factors in war are: materials (to build weaponry), labour (to do the building), energy (to fuel the previous two), logistics / geography (to get troops and weapons to the front lines) and the political will (to sustain war). The issue expansionist imperial powers usually run into after satisfying some key elements (troops + weaponry) are geographic and logistical. Russia very well may get through Ukraine with mechanized warfare on flat lands, but the further away the front line gets from home the harder it gets to sustain a solid supply line / logistics. This only gets even tougher once you hit geographic hurdles such as forests, urban centres, hills / mountains and rivers. Hitler ran into the same issues. If we look at a map of what Russia currently holds its not even gotten into middle Ukraine let alone the West. And thats after sizeable losses. The idea that Russia will not just take but hold onto Ukraine in its entirety, and then keep steam rolling further into Europe where there will be major rivers, hills, urban areas, mountains and the military might of the collective West including the resistance of millions - is frankly absurd. What would Russia have to even gain from it? It already has the most resources in the world and has only incidentally got some more now in eastern Ukraine, though that wasn't the primary driver of this war. It's got its Russian speaking regions, access to the sea fortified, and a buffer zone to fortify the Russian heartland if there were to be any Western presence at the border. With an already ageing and now dying (in war) population, there is no appetite to go into a endless, expansionist war with nothing much to gain. Neither Putin nor Russia have the appetite, desire or capability to steam roll their way to Germany for some bratwurst, stopover in France for some baguettes, and hop over to the UK for fish and chips under grey skies and rain. This is just a Cold War hangover the boomer class are still clinging onto individually, that has entrenched itself institutionally in the West. Just saw this: From 1:30 - 3:30 Dugin says that even within Russia there’s a consensus that they don’t have the capability to take large parts of Ukraine or even Eastern Europe. Despite a minority of nutters desiring that. The main thing is a neutral Ukraine and no threat from Western presence close to Russias core.