zazen

The term “sphere of influence” itself is tricky because it’s used for countries projecting any influence anywhere - but in the classical geopolitical sense it’s for large powerful states with enough mass to have those around it be pulled into their gravitational orbit - via scale of geography, culture, trade, population and military might. It structurally involves a core state or orbit. Iran having proxies, Turkey in Syria or Israel dominating its neighbours militarily make them influential but not gravitational giants with spheres of influence - that has the pre-requisite of an orbit (to have a sphere around) which is big and strong enough to pull others into. Like I said - they are contending for that position but none have the scale or power to be continental poles like the big four. They will only be regional partial hegemons that need to share space. Europe’s issue is there’s no clear center of gravity - no one knows who’s boss. People refer to “the EU” but who do they mean: Paris, Berlin, or Warsaw? Brussels claims to speak for all, but each nation still has its own crystallized identity and national interest. Those identities never melted into an EU identity, which is why there’s constant friction between Brussels and the capitals. The EU is a constellation of nations without a sun. India is just as diverse as Europe, but it crystallized into one nationalism - turning a civilizational pole into a nation-state pole. Europe crystallized into many nationalisms, so it remains a civilisational zone without a pole. It never produced a core state or identity strong enough to pull others into orbit. Overlapping religion, culture, and law fractured into rivalries instead of nesting into a larger single identity. Pakistan is a closer parallel to Europe’s path. Despite sharing a civilizational overlap (Indic identity) it split off by hardening into a Muslim South Asian identity - just as Europe split into Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and later exclusive national identities like German, French, and British. This is also why no blood was spilt over Brexit and it simply peeled away - because theirs no core orbit or state to peel away from. It didn’t feel existential to identity because under the EU scaffolding their are still distinct national identities - perhaps it’s a threat to the political project of the EU, but not a threat to national identity or security outright which causes people to spill blood for. EU is a political scaffolding sitting on top of intact nations, not yet a gravitationally cemented identity binding them together. The national identities it speaks on behalf of are too crystallised to dislodge and melt into a larger continental one. Maybe in a distant future it would become a United States of Europe, and then be able to exist as a sovereign pole, but I think that’s far off.

Many times I come across geopolitical videos that are so wide ranging - they don’t quite fit in any single thread. Here’s a thread to share such videos and discuss geopolitics in general. Don’t jump to conclude that sharing such videos means endorsing all the views in such videos, and ignore the clickbaity titles and thumbnails that are unfortunately common these days despite the content being worth listening to. Starting off with three all encompassing videos: - Jeffrey Sachs covering how the world got to where it is today (Uni-polar) - Scott Horton covering US foreign policy in detail (there’s a recent Lex Fridman podcast 10 hrs long but this is more condensed) - Matt Williams (Willy OAM) on global geopolitics and how all the players are positioning themselves. Quite a mind blowing listen. Doesn’t embed so here’s the URL: https://youtu.be/6OaP6Hi0OSk?si=tacdv0wa2gCzC3cc

From a uni-polar world order: To a multi-polar world order: Reminds me of that meme: him VS the guy she tells you not to worry about lol

@BlueOak just heard this discussion which was uploaded after I commented above. Coincidentally covers the same topic of gaining European sovereignty from the US. Well worth a listen, from a German politician:

@Basman

Wealth tax may have worked in the past when people were less mobile and had a shared sense of duty to each other - but in a globalized multi-cultural world most likely people just go to another jurisdiction. Being wealthy means you have the means to get up and leave. That second home in Dubai, Singapore or Cayman Islands? Cool, just make it the main home base. The reason politics sucks is because it’s complex - and complexity requires intelligence, nuance and hard work to work through. That’s not for most people, yet Democracies politicise their entire society. Now your neighbours vote is a threat to your survival if it means they vote for something your values don’t align with. In a multi-cultural society that is only compounded. Liberalism equates dignity of individuals with their ability to discern. Democracy assumes the masses have the discernment required to vote for competence rather than popularity - democracy is essentially a popularity contest: the one with the most votes wins. Yet when the candidate isn’t an establishment one their labelled a populist with a negative connotation, when it’s an establishment candidate it’s just good old democracy and will of the people at work. Ancient wisdom knew that discernment isn’t scalable to the masses, hence we had councils of elders type governance - that in its best iteration stewards the people, in its worst rules over them with a fist. I call it Democracy vs Discern-ocracy.

@BlueOak I’ll make some points tied to our previous discussion and continuing on from what you and Ajay were discussing about sovereignty and Europe. 1. You say you detest authoritarians, yet the default mode of a unipolar world led by the US and its allies is imperial and authoritarian by design: because it seeks to forcefully author the trajectory, destiny, do’s and don’ts of other nations - especially those rising in power such as BRICS. A unipolar mindset is an imperial one - it resists acknowledging or allowing space for other powers, which by extension means not acknowledging that other powers have spheres and red lines. To the unipolar worldview the entire world is their sphere and dominion - which is inherently imperial and authoritarian. 2. You say the EU protects the sovereignty of independent nations. It actually partially limits the sovereignty of nations within it, in exchange for stability. That’s the reason for it existing - because too many small-medium powers were competing to become the core state of Europe for others to orbit around. Britain, France, Germany and Italy each had their turn at trying to become the major pole of Europe. After the world wars they all gave up chasing absolute sovereignty and settled on being mostly sovereign, in exchange for a larger peace. It’s better to be 80% sovereign and alive than 100% sovereign and dead. The same logic applies to Ukraine - give up some sovereignty in exchange for peace with a larger more powerful neighbour whose orbit you naturally fall within. Zoom out a little and you’ll see that the EU subsumed some of its sovereignty to be under the security umbrella of the US. The most foundational pillars of sovereignty are energy, food and security (military) - the last one was outsourced to the US. 3. Sovereignty is multi-dimensional: economic, energy, fiscal, technological, agricultural, and most of all security. As I said above: European states gave up slices of sovereignty to Brussels (budget rules, migration quotas, fiscal limits) in order to preserve peace inside Europe. That’s a big reason for nationalist uprisings today - countries feel constrained from above. The hardest dimension of sovereignty is security - which was outsourced to Washington. That’s why the EU doesn’t act independently: its “sphere” if it has one isn’t its own but is Americas which it is under. NATO is essentially a US umbrella artificially placed on a separate continent - Europe, an entire ocean away. So when Ukraine tries to join NATO, it isn’t joining a “European sphere” - it’s being folded into America’s sphere, thousands of miles away. Spheres have natural geographic and cultural limits - beyond which point they become imperial empires. 4. A sphere exists for large powerful states that have an organic gravitational pull to them - geography, culture, history, and trade naturally orient smaller states toward them. Europe is a continent and EU is a political bloc - they don’t have a sphere because theres no core state to orbit around - and spheres have orbits. For example, Islamic civilization doesn’t have a sphere today because it lacks a core state - Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia compete, so no single state has the uncontested gravity. Saudi Arabia only has it religiously, but not geopolitically. Similarly, Western civilization doesn’t organically have a sphere either: Europe is fragmented without a core state, and its so called “sphere” is basically an imperial arrangement with the US. It’s a cultural zone or centre, just like Mecca is a religous centre - but it’s not a geopolitical sphere because it has no large, powerful core state to be the orbit of. Saudi Arabia is neither large nor powerful - oil money isn’t enough to be considered so. Thats why when people discuss the world changing (from uni to multi polar) and think of the poles and spheres involved, they naturally gravitate to key players such as America, China, India and Russia - with Brazil as a rising pole for South America. The first four are clear anchors with gravitational orbits meanwhile European and Islamic civilizations are more like civilizational / cultural zones without a core state to have a sphere around. 5. This is why critics call the EU a “political project” rather than an organic development. It’s not emerging from natural economic and cultural gravity - it’s been constructed from above by political elites who decided European nationalism was too dangerous after two world wars. The constant crises (Brexit, sovereign debt, migration, energy) come from trying to force integration that doesn’t flow naturally from the ground up. So we have this weird situation where Europe is neither independent (still under US hegemony) nor naturally integrated (too many competing national interests). It exists in an artificial middle space that requires constant political management to prevent it from fragmenting back into competing nationalisms. 6. That doesn’t mean Europe can’t be great - it just means it’s structurally difficult for it to be a gravitational centre of power in the same way the others are. Of those three foundational pillars of sovereignty I listed above - it has agricultural security (ability to feeds its own population) covered. But its energy and security sovereignty were outsourced (energy from the east in Russia, security from the West in America). Now Europes two pillars are dependent on the US (LNG exports) - vassalizing it even further. This is why we see what we see in today’s clown show of how Europe is treated by the US. I’d prefer a more stronger autonomous Europe that does what’s in its best interest. That’s where we differ - you think its interest is in containing Russia whose actions you view as imperial rather than reactions to (US) imperialism. No doubt BRICS nations are opportunistic, but that’s categorically different to being imperial. 7. Circling back to the start, the crux of the problem is a unipolar mindset and today’s imperial superpower operating as such, despite a multi-polar reality now existing. The US runs the world as its sphere, while Europe parrots the rhetoric out of inertia and Cold War paranoia, and the establishment narrative universalizes that fear onto Russia and China. Every move by them is lumped into the box of imperial behavior, influence and “business relations” are conflated with imperialism and warmongering. The sickest part is that the US itself will have backchannels with Moscow or Beijing when it suits US interests - while Europe keeps yapping empire rhetoric like an obedient pawn in a larger geopolitical game it has little strength, sovereignty or say in. Beside the picture of the century where European leaders sat around Trump like kids, here’s something to illustrate that Europe is clearly on the menu and not at the table: https://euobserver.com/eu-and-the-world/ar7956ddba Reuters article is paywalled but the above covers it. Russia and US potential talks of a gas deal, which the US will then repackage and sell to the Europeans at a profit because the Europeans want to save face and stick it to the Russians who they have sanctioned. A video on that (good channel to check out also): That’s what I mean by Europe not doing what’s in its own interest - making peace with its geographical neighbour who is the most resource rich on the planet, who they can be industrially competitive from, and use that wealth to invest in their own domestic security as to wean off US dependency and become more sovereign and autonomous. As well as in the meantime diversify their energy and go all in on sustainable renewables / nuclear so they neither have to depend on Russia. All this takes intelligence, nuance, foresight, strategy, tact and cunning - things our European leaders lack.

1. On Russia invading Estonia If you keep saying Russia is suffering militarily and economically, why attack a NATO country to compound that suffering? What do they have to gain? You think that because you base their motivation on imperial expansion and territory rather than security. But admitting it’s mainly security driven goes against your entire framing of it. Russia already is supported by BRICS trade and still hasn’t taken all of Ukraine. Fearing them invading not only another nation but a NATO one is overblown imo. Your point about NATO’s divisions proves mine: it’s precisely why it’s reckless for the West to provoke Russia instead of negotiating a security framework that acknowledges red lines and buffer zones. But the imperial uni-polar mindset can’t acknowledge any other powers red lines. 2. On China, India, and security You say China and India don’t care about European security. Of course not - why should they? The US doesn’t care about their security either. Countries are supposed to prioritize their own. What they do largely care about is a fairer global order. That’s why they refuse Western sanctions, keep buying Russian energy, and are building an alternative: to not get caught by a Western block that unilaterally punishes countries for not toeing the line. That’s the action they are taking. Fair enough to try economically severe the rival country. But extending that to secondary sanctions is precisely why countries seek out of that system - similar to the non aligned movement of the past, they’d rather not get involved and avoid being punished for trade. That guy who said this is Modi’s war recently - lol. If business links equal warmongering, then by that logic every country in the world should be at war with eachother for supporting the US’s constant wars. Countries using the US dollar as the default currency, including holding reserves -is what allows the US the exorbitant privilege to imperially bully and destroy entire regions, making the whole world complicit and guilty by association. 3. On “Russia caused NATO expansion” For sure the USSR was a threat. But the West is still trapped in Cold War thinking, treating Russia like the same entity when it’s not. NATO wasn’t created to camp on Russia’s border - it was built to contain the Soviet Union and protect Atlantic states. Now it’s all the way in Russia’s backyard, arming and training Ukraine into de facto NATO interoperability. Russia isn’t entitled. Entitlement means assuming a right to dominate beyond necessity, geography or survival. That’s what the US sphere is: global web of bases, financial control, and military reach justified by a sense of universal entitlement. Russia isn’t projecting outward like that. Its sphere isn’t based on some cosmic right to reorder the world - it’s a buffer zone rooted in geography and historical invasions. Are you saying that if you have the strength to project and maintain a sphere you should? And that Russia isn’t entitled to this anymore because it’s weak? NATO is nothing but a US umbrella that lords its sphere over an entire continent (Europe) an ocean away, and now it’s trying to extend into Russia’s immediate border area. Whose in who’s backyard here? It’s the uni-polar mindset that is entitled to the entire world as its sphere and unable to acknowledge that it has to share space with other powers in the world. At the end of the day, this war is about spheres colliding - one more natural in its geographic place and another overextending itself. If Russia really is “too weak” to hold one, then that will show on the battlefield. But pretending they never had legitimate security concerns just blinds the West into miscalculating again and again - including many who misdiagnose the crux of this war. 4. On “destroying Russia’s economy” to win Sure, war is war and it gets dirty. Ukraine should be aware that Hungary provides most of its electricity then, and is a EU member that hurting will only further fracturing EU-NATO with internal divisions. Sanctions and economic warfare don’t exist in a vacuum. They’ve forced Russia deeper into BRICS trade, accelerated de-dollarization, and hardened parallel financial systems. The result isn’t Russia’s isolation - it’s the West isolating itself from a majority of the world that isn’t playing along. Unlike Germany in WW2, Russia isn’t blockaded entirely. Europe meanwhile is bleeding financially to keep Ukraine afloat while undercutting its own competitiveness with high energy costs. So destroying Russia’s economy risks destroying Europe’s leverage at the same time. Just see the recent news on UK and France’s economic crisis - not to mention Germany already in one to the point Merz got real with the public in mentioning they need to cut welfare. These are the 3 biggest economies and supposed funders of this grand plan to defeat Russia. Like I’ve said before - with what arms, funds and manpower will this plan be executed. If Western establishment news is a trusted source then on all fronts it isn’t looking too good. 5. On “my logic not making sense” I think your emotionally framing the war as: a weak, irrelevant but still imperial minded Russia lashing out for its place in the world, that must be punished into its rightful place. I’m framing it structurally as: a US led Western world order, Trojan horsing itself through NATO expansion and colliding with Russia’s security logic - producing a shitty war of attrition for both sides. The West insists on dividing the world into a “with us or against us” bloc just like the Cold War. Its behaviour and thinking is outdated for a multipolar world. The Western empire is just running on inertia and false assumptions about its place in the world - that it can unilaterally dictate to the world and they will follow suit. The West can either chase Russia’s destruction (risking endless escalation), or accept a settlement that acknowledges the fact that other powers exist and have red lines. Part of that settlement will involve settling into the idea that they no can longer lord it over the world. What’s on the menu is either a humble pie, or Europe - whose political elites seem willing to serve up their own societies as the sacrifice rather than admit the unipolar order is over.

Liberalism was good in that it expanded the world towards a more universal and unlimited identity that paved the way for global frameworks - international law and institutions. Those laws and institutions are mechanisms of coordination and arbitration between the limited identities within them (nations, tribes) - the intended aim being to limit power dynamics between those limited identities and bring order to the world. But the abstraction of laws and the aspirations of a universal identity doesn't erase the fact that limited identities or power dynamics exist. What may have started to bring co-existence between different identities and their interests, became a mechanism of eliminating those identities and sidelining their interests for the interests of empire. Liberalism ironically became the perfect trojan horse to justify uni-polar imperialism, that is disguised as moral leadership - a liberal crusade led by a US-Western hegemony that see's the world as their dominion. And those within that dominion need saving - including the natives within their own nations who need saving from their own limited identities and backward conservatism. That epistemic supremacy leads to bad domestic and foreign policy - which obviously results in the backlash we are seeing today at home (domestic populism) and abroad (wars of empire). Western liberal elites act as though universal frameworks (in a uni-polar world they lead) supersede civilizational, religious, and national identities. Liberals dismiss limited identities (national, religous, civilizational) as mere constructs (outdated and backwards) while simultaneously elevating and weaponising their own constructs (international law, rights, institutions) against those limited identities. Foundational identities are treated as merely decorative - unlike the identity of a universalist oneness that everyone should transcend to. It is so righteous and self-absorbed to the point it doesn’t recognize other identities (limited identities) as legitimate. It sees anyone's freedom anywhere, as a threat to its noble supremacy everywhere. This brings a level of entitlement that disregards local natives in their own countries, as well as disregards others nations sovereignty to exist as a separate pole to their uni-polar order / everyone should dance and orbit solely on their pole. It views only its own power and use of it as righteous. Other powers don't or shouldn't exist, which would include those powers own spheres and red lines. Instead, they think the whole world is their dominion and sphere. That’s the mindset which has set the conditions in motion for what’s occurring now in Ukraine for example - another power like Russia, was disregarded as such, along with its own sphere and red lines. Because liberalism sees no legitimate alternative to itself, it can't coexist - only assimilate and sublimate all other identities for a vague super identity. It tries to dissolve all difference into a singular moral (liberal) order, that ends up provoking the very backlash it claims to be protecting the world from. That backlash is then pathologized and straw manned - which means it never learns from its mistakes at home or abroad.

Nice share. This was also good - covering a lot of ground with a Birds Eye view : And the following (minus the clickbait vibe)

At least you didn’t ad hominem and call me phony like your first comment. The security council don’t have the power to initiate wars in the first place - in that sense it’s true when you say it’s Putins war, as the president is the final decision maker. But that doesn’t mean theirs no institutional buy in or elite consensus. That’s still required to execute big moves - it’s not a one man show that can simply execute a war that requires intelligence, military, media and economic advisory. The whole state machinery has to move to execute such a decision. The security councils also dominated by siloviki (security service and military veterans) - their worldview is built around buffer zones and strategic depth - including NATO being no bueno. Them differing on the approach (invasion) and timing on acting upon red lines doesn’t erase the fact they have consensus on what that red line is. Also, Medvedev invaded Georgia in 2008 (with security council support). Russian elites consistently back the president when they think their core interests are threatened. Disagreement on tactics doesn’t mean disagreement on objectives - national security and no NATO especially in Ukraine (historic invasion corridor and a civilizational insult). They were definitely hoping on a quick “operation” as they call it, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a Plan B,C or even D to fall back on. Putin wouldn’t just bet everything on one move without any contingency - he’s not that stupid or impulsive. We are yet to see if it’s a net negative, Russia plays on a longer timeline than you think. Western democracies have a shorter politic time horizon because of election cycles - which is why they have a deep state that tries to maintain continuity of agenda through. Russia and China just have a state - thats continuous and stable (even if aggressively stabilised). The West has a deep state precisely because its surface state is exposed to constant changes via the ballot box. The surface state (democracy) can disrupt or slow down the deep states long terms plans and be in friction with it VS a centralized continuous state that can have a cleaner longer time horizon. Security dilemmas aren’t for the masses to solve. Most people don’t spend their lives studying military doctrine, geography, or strategic depth. Those calculations are made by generals and strategists who’ve been saying for decades that NATO in Ukraine is a red line - including Western strategists. Which is why the emotional layer is sold to the Russian public rather than cold boring PowerPoints on security. As I said above in the previous comment - theirs a security logic to all this at the highest level - then the identity / civilisational logic of humiliation at the mass level also at play that only amplifies the security logic and justifies the states actions easily to a mass public, who don’t always have the time or intelligence to understand such things. If Russians are so depoliticised as you say and don’t care for what Putin or the state does - then what exactly does Putin need to secure himself against? In your own words, he seems to have regime security already.

And yet they’ve been crazy enough to flirt with NATO lite in Ukraine despite repeated warnings from their own intelligence and strategists. It deters total war not limited war. Nuclear deterrence doesn’t guarantee that conventional or limited war won’t take place - just see India Pakistan recently. It leaves too little gap for error and creates a constant state of tension existing that any power would resist having if they could. They are essentially living by tripwire Armageddon - hoping false flags won’t take place. One nation can be crazy enough to call the bluff of the other not using nuclear which would result in mutually assured destruction. So conventional security logic and strategic depth still apply.

@Leo Gura I agree in heart, but my head knows that laws, rights and principles are aspirations rooted in the soul, articulated in the mind, but constrained by a physical material reality. I can aspire to the stars like Elon musk but that doesn’t suspend the reality and fact of gravity or physics. The fundamental flaw in the logic of liberal internationalism is that whilst rights and principles are better to live by, they don’t erase power dynamics or override security / survival imperatives. Legality can’t and will never override survivability, principles will never override power, rights will never override might - they can only regulate them. Just like you‘ve been pointing out how progressives / liberals under-appreciate survival dynamics which hasn’t helped them politically. Same applies here? Countries and people have rights, but countries and people also have instincts - and instincts precede intellect the same way power precedes principle, or the physical precedes the mental abstractions (constructs) of law. Sovereignty doesn’t exist in a vacuum and neither should it be romanticised as an absolute that overlooks the relative world in which it lives - ignoring reality until the consequences of doing so assert themselves. US led Western hegemony is self-absorbed to the point it doesn’t recognise other powers exist with their own sphere and red lines - they think the whole world is their dominion and sphere. That’s the mindset which has set the conditions in motion for what’s occurring now.

Here ya go:

Just learnt this today:

@Basman Agree with Karmadhi here. No one’s said it’s a good thing - you guys conflate understanding with justification. It’s similar to understanding the context behind October 7th and the same way Zionists would conflate that with condoning the brutal act. The point is to understand the conditions that eventually lead to such blatant acts of aggression or violence / terrorism - in order to prevent them. I’ve literally said there are legitimate causes (security concerns) gone about in illegitimate ways (invasion, October 7th). About the cause - you’re saying it’s regime security and ideology, rather than security logic. Putin can definitely benefit domestically by framing NATO expansion as a threat, but that’s not a primary cause - perhaps not even secondary, but can be opportunistically used sure. What you name as ideology is really identity - which acts as a really powerful accelerant to the core cause I agree. All Russia leaders have said NATO in Ukraine would be a red line. It’s not unique to Putin. Putins approval tanked after Crimea in fact - so why would he do another invasion knowing it put his popularity at risk before, thus the regimes security at risk. Former Director of the CIA Bill Burns in his 2008 memos (Nyet means nyet) said: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” Ideology doesn’t erase geography and security concerns. US didn’t blockade Cuba primarily because of ideology or to secure its Democracy from a commie utopian island next door that may have been. It was primarily a security concern of having missiles from a rival power stationed that close to you. If all parties involved (Russia-Ukraine-US) shared the same ideology (liberalism) and political system (democracy) - would Russia still react to security concerns on its periphery in a historical invasion corridor? Or would Russia say no it’s cool they’re a liberal Democracy just like us? Security concerns exist regardless of ideology or political systems - and are acted upon. On the identity point: you bring up the cultural similarity between Ukraine and Russia which is where I think theres an added element of bitterness and betrayal. But it isn’t ideology like of the Soviet times being pushed out. Ukraine/Kiev is the cultural/civilisational heart of Russia - that being turned against you is literally vodka on the wound. What would just ordinarily be a cold (logical) security concern becomes a hot (emotional) burning concern. It’s like if a hostile rival to Saudi Arabia - such as Iran - were to turn Mecca against Saudi Arabia. The entire Sunni Muslim world would be fuming because it’s a civilization spit in the face - beside also being an existential threat to Saudi. The root cause that is structurally driving a response is security, with the cultural/civilizational aspect being a powerful accelerant. That intensifies the security concern and makes it a easy sell to domestic Russians to rally around. It’s not only that the West is parking missiles on their doorstep, but that it’s in their childhood home - the cradle of their civilisation. The core logic of security would exist even if Ukraine were as foreign as Mexico. Power plus proximity equals panic for any power - and is responded to every time. I recommend the latest Lex Fridman and Scott Horton podcast - the last segment on Ukraine. That covers the core cause very well in a way that doesn’t glaze authoritarianism or Putin.

Slimy is also having no backbone or foresight to do what’s in your national or continental interest. Slimy is not getting to the bottom of Nordstream or despite doing so not releasing the relevant information because your scared of the consequences. Slimy is doing fuck all about the self inflicted wounds their lack of foresight or leadership cause, then licking them in some moral highground while your peoples quality of life deteriorate for a larger geopolitical game you have little say in. Slimy is sitting like schools kids around Trump praising him for establishing a diplomatic channel with Putin when they could have simply picked up the phone and done so themselves. I mean, the war is literally on their continent not Americas - so it’s in their interest to deal with it and bring it to an end. If Tucker Carlson could get a sit down with Putin, no excuse for Euro studs to get a call. Instead, they bitch cry about how they aren’t part of talks that will decide the fate of their continent, after they’ve stonewalled any such talks for 3.5 years like some cult bought into the idea of Putin the new Hitler who’s country needs to be balkanized - as Kaja Kalllas said. Guess we’re going to enjoy the 5% GDP on defence spending, cuts to welfare and further political polarization to the right which nationalists foaming at the mouth will resist and revolt over. Enjoy lol I see many videos of talks of a civil war in UK racking up 10s to 100s of thousands of views. Just see the comments to get the sentiment. I know a client who works in special forces / counter terrorism and he said they’re also predicting/prepping for this worst case scenario. But we’re to believe all these men will go to war to fight an external country like Russia when they see the enemy is within.

10 hours long, but last part (1.5hr) is on Ukraine which is very good. Scott Hortons a encyclopaedia: The last half hour is especially good. From 9hr 51min.

Chat GPT you quoted said their war economy isn't sustainable - long term definitely not. If Russia is suffering so bad economically and militarily I don't see why they would escalate to that level by attacking a NATO country. I got to 2mill by including 800k emigration (which I quickly googled) and 1.2m loss to the war. True on the quality of those that have left, it's a disproportionately negative effect, I just think the scale can't be compared to the same degree. Even if I'm really generous and estimate a 3 million reduction in the Russian population that's still 2% compared to over 20% in Ukraine according to the figures. Half lost to battle and half who've left, most of who probably won't return as they settle for a better more stable life elsewhere in Europe. The irony is that the West demands India and China respect Europe’s security, while Europe refuses to respect Russia’s. India and China, all the way on the other side of the planet, should worry about Europe's security concern - who are only concerned now after refusing to recognize Russia's which prompted Russia to act upon that very concern. Again - Russia didn't place itself in NATO expansions way, it was the other way round. Just like how Palestinians didn't place themselves in the way of Zionist expansion. But both will have you believe its the Russian and Palestinians fault for existing in the way of both of their ambitions for dominance and primacy. Such a shame that China and Iran have placed themselves around US bases too. The EU should recognize its own security interests by dealing with a non-EU member like Ukraine hitting the Druzhba pipeline which provides energy to two EU member states. If Brussels isn’t sanctioning Kyiv for undermining its own energy security, why would India or China take seriously a Russian strike on a US factory making coffee machines which is less critical than striking the energy of a country. Euro News: "Given that in the past years, the EU and its Member States have provided hundreds of billions of Euros' worth of support to Ukraine, we find Ukraine's actions, which severely threaten the energy security of Hungary and Slovakia, completely irresponsible," read the letter, signed by Hungary's Péter Szijjártó, and Slovakia's Juraj Blanár. Speaking of pipelines, economic terrorism upon Nordstream is back in the news:

I think your misreading surface level events or overstating the effects. Refined exports make up 12% of their total exports and 22% of their total energy exports ( the rest is mainly crude and gas ) - so it's not hitting their dominant export. The hits are disrupting but not totally destroying the refineries which get back online within weeks. China and India both have massive refining capacity to absorb more crude and refine it themselves which can cushion the shock if refined exports took a further hit. The West would need simultaneous, large scale sanctions + refinery strikes + secondary sanctions on India/China if it waned to really cripple Russia - which doesn't look to be happening. China isn’t lending to Russia in a debt trap - it’s trading in energy for yuan deals. Russia isn't suffering hyperinflation which is where currency de-values to staggering degrees like in Zimbabwe. In fact their currency has been top performing. It does have high war time inflation of around 10% but that's far from hyperinflation territory. In a sense Ukraine is a proxy right now between the West and BRICS though un-intentionally, except on Russia's part who did choose to invade. But BRICS isn't going to re-orient their trade for higher energy and burnt relations with Russia which they have a history with - for a larger geopolitical game. Biden already tried targeting China with tech (CHIPS) and now Trump is attempting to with trade - yet both aren't holding out so well. The reason Trump hasn't fully steam rolled China with tariffs is due to China's leverage over trade, specifically with rare earths that are critical. So the West just don't seem to have that much leverage in all this. Trade, tech, resources, dollars - all are being worked around or re-oriented towards alternatives. The biggest thing the West had was financial power in a financialized economy - but BRICS have hard power of tangible manufacturing, resources, trade routes and chokepoints and demographics (consumer or future consumer markets). I agree the election point is bogus on the Russian side. As if a country can or should hold one when a quarter of the population are unavailable to vote. That brings me to another point on demographics - Ukraine's lost a quarter of its population ( from approx 40 to now 30 mill ) - displaced or gone. Russia's population has gone from approx 147.2 to 146 mill. The difference as a percentage is around 1-1.5% vs 20-25%. Even if we account for tech workers and youngsters leaving Russia being high quality contributors that have fled - the depth and pool of population is still large and the loss no where near as traumatic compared to Ukraine. Yet a narrative for this war to continue (mainly European elites pushing it) with less arms, money and manpower is suicide for Ukraine. There was that recent hack that apparently found the death and casualties to be 1.7 million for Ukraine but it's not verified as its from a Russian source (hackers). But regardless, even Western establishment acknowledges Ukraine's manpower issue and dire demographics. Kaja Kallas literally said it would be a good idea to fracture and Balkanize Russia, then in another Hudson Institute sit down she said if we can't defeat Russia how will we defeat China - my point being, why the hawkish warmonger posture not only with Russia but now with China lol. There's such a lack of strategic foresight or groundedness in the establishment thinking and posture towards this entire situation. As if it’s a great idea to try and de-stabilize and contain a nuclear armed, resource rich Russia who is your geographic neighbor no amount of wishful thinking can wish away. This is why I say it's the fault of Western hegemony underpinned by Western arrogance and supremacy that has caused the conditions for the shit show we are now in and that aren't helping in getting us out of. The Hitlerization of Putin doesn't help - in fact he's seen as more of a moderate compared to the others like Medvedev - yet depicted as a Hitler wanting to conquer Europe. Russia's either weak enough to continue war with, with their defeat just around the corner, or strong enough to be threatening to Europe in which case we need to psy-op our population to bleed for this pointless war. The reason for nothing moving forward on the deal front is because only Europe/Ukraine's security concerns are considered valid and not Russia's. If theirs no proper framework or agenda to be discussed without adequate pre-conditions what is there to negotiate further. Just as Leo said above, the Western perspective doesn't account for Russia's at all which is why there hasn't been peace and from the looks of it won't be. The only reflex is double down and say peace is not an option now as you have said. The only proposal from the Europeans is to anchor Ukraines security to one bloc (Western) which locks Europe into a permanent frontline state against Russia and basically resembles NATO-lite - the whole issue to begin with. Rather than having a multilateral guarantee (which reflects a multi-polar reality) such as what was floated in Istanbul 2022 (which included Turkey, China) - that was subsequently torpedoed by the West that bet on them weakening and destroying Russia instead. What a change of tone from 2022. Zelensky became too deeply committed off the back of Western backing and promises. It became increasingly difficult for him to backtrack due to various reasons: sunk cost, domestic politics (hardliners), further dependence on the West which means Zelensky isn’t leading Ukrainian strategy but implementing Western strategy with Ukrainian blood. That’s the cost of playing the proxy game when your an ant among elephants fighting. How sovereign and autonomous is Ukraine today? Ukraine’s attempt to achieve 100% sovereignty has resulted in near total loss of actual sovereignty, while the rejected neutrality option would have preserved most of it. Ukraine chose the path that promised 100% sovereignty but delivered perhaps 15% actual sovereignty across all domains - energy, economy, military. Liberals have convinced themselves that the 1648 Peace of Westphalia created some kind of magical force field around every country where they get to do whatever they want without consequences. As if “sovereignty” means freedom from the basic realities of great power politics that have governed international relations for millennia. It’s the flat earth theory of geopolitics and how the world works.

Interesting comments from Leo in 2022:

To produce requires the consumption of energy - which both don’t have enough of for their size and speed of development. China and India are the largest energy consumers in the world alongside EU and US. Both require more consumption and have room for growth - especially India as it’s still developing. Both have locked in with Russia which means for the foreseeable future Russia will be able to sustain itself economically. Both have also brushed off the secondary sanction threat. Arnaud: ''Imagine if Europe had done this with Russia (India resetting ties with China) when Trump started, like he just did with India, to go hostile on trade. Not only would they not be in the absurd situation where they need to negotiate peace with Russia via the intermediary of a hostile Trump, but they also could be rebuilding ties with Russia as leverage against American extortion. And I'm not even speaking about avoiding the pathetic spectacle of being lined up like schoolchildren before Trump's desk, or having to pay several points worth of European GDP in tribute. Now they get the worst of all worlds: public humiliation as American vassals, systematic wealth extraction by the US, a ruinous proxy war they need to pay for, and continuous hostility with their next door neighbor even when, ironically, the US is now restoring relations. In some way it's even politically harder for India to do this than it would have been for Europe vis a vis Russia: the level of animosity towards China of the Indian population is probably greater than that against Russia in Europe. Heck, European leaders would undoubtedly have been cheered by a large proportion of Europeans if they'd taken the diplomatic initiative in Ukraine instead of Trump, all the more if it was as a strategic move to resist Trump. But no, they'd rather sit in the Oval Office like obedient pupils, write $100 billion checks to American defense contractors, and continue playing vassals to a hegemon that openly despises them. Europe doesn't lack the capability for strategic autonomy - it lacks the will, the courage, and apparently, any sense of shame.''

Speaking of the Turkey-Istanbul deal and comparing it to today’s supposed deal in the making. The reason this situation is referred to as a security dilemma is because a security guarantee requires a strong enough guarantor. But then that means two strong rivals who today have nukes could come head to head which is very high risk. It’s essentially tripwire Armageddon. Having the guarantees be exclusively under a Western alliance is functionally NATO-lite. Your chained to whoever underwrites your security - so it being a bloc of Western powers means it can still be used as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game. If the guarantees are multi-lateral or multi-polar - they dilute unilateral dominance and bloc logic. That way it also avoids Ukraine becoming anyone’s vassal and everyone has a stake in peace. Post-WWII Austria followed that model. Austria was guaranteed by the US, USSR, Britain, and France. No one could absorb it without triggering the others, and it’s been neutral and stable till today. A older but good Substack article from Glenn Dieseen going over this and the end game as the title of the thread says. Post-WWII Austria proves this model works. Austria was guaranteed by the U.S., USSR, Britain, and France. No one could absorb it without triggering the others, and it’s been neutral and stable A older but good Substack article from Glenn Diesen going over the Istanbul deal and the endgame of all this. https://glenndiesen.substack.com/p/sabotage-of-the-istanbul-peace-agreement Sabotage of the Istanbul Peace Agreement The Making of a Proxy War & the Unavoidable Istanbul+ Endgame “In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine to impose a settlement after some NATO countries had undermined the Minsk-2 peace agreement for 7 years. On the first day after the invasion, Zelensky confirmed that Moscow contacted him to discuss negotiations based on restoring Ukraine’s neutrality.[1] On the third day after the invasion, Russia and Ukraine agreed to start negotiations on a peace based on Russian military withdrawal in return for Ukrainian neutrality.[2] Zelensky responded favourably to this condition, and he even called for a “collective security agreement” to include Russia to mitigate the security competition that had sparked the war.[3] The negotiations that followed are referred to as the Istanbul negotiations, in which Russia and Ukraine were close to an agreement before the US and the UK sabotaged it. Washington Rejects Negotiations Without Preconditions In Washington, there were great incentives to use the large proxy army it had built in Ukraine to weaken Russia as a strategic rival, rather than accepting a neutral Ukraine. On the first day after the Russian invasion, when Zelensky responded favourably to start negotiations without preconditions, the US spokesperson rejected peace talks without preconditions as Russia would first have to withdraw all its forces from Ukraine: “Now we see Moscow suggesting that diplomacy take place at the barrel of a gun or as Moscow’s rockets, mortars, artillery target the Ukrainian people. This is not real diplomacy… If President Putin is serious about diplomacy, he knows what he can do. He should immediately stop the bombing campaign against civilians, order the withdrawal of his forces from Ukraine, and indicate very clearly, unambiguously to the world, that Moscow is prepared to de-escalate”.[4] This was a demand for capitulation as the Russian military presence in Ukraine was Russia’s bargaining chip to achieve the objective of restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. Less than a month later, the same US spokesperson was asked if Washington would support Zelensky’s negotiations with Moscow, in which he replied negatively as the conflict was part of a larger struggle: “This is a war that is in many ways bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine…. The key point is that there are principles that are at stake here that have universal applicability everywhere, whether in Europe, whether in the Indo-Pacific, anywhere in between”.[5] The US and UK Demand a Long War: Fighting Russia with Ukrainians In late March 2022, Zelensky revealed in an interview with the Economist that “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[6] The Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that Ukraine and Russia were both eager to make a compromise to end the war before the US and the UK intervened to prevent peace from breaking out. Zelensky had contacted former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to mediate the peace negotiations with Moscow. Bennett noted that Putin was willing to make “huge concessions” if Ukraine would restore its neutrality to end NATO expansion. Zelensky accepted this condition and “both sides very much wanted a ceasefire”. However, Bennett argued that the US and UK then intervened and “blocked” the peace agreement as they favoured a long war. With a powerful Ukrainian military at its disposal, the West rejected the Istanbul peace agreement and there was a “decision by the West to keep striking Putin” instead of pursuing peace.[7] The Turkish negotiators reached the same conclusion: Russia and Ukraine agreed to resolve the conflict by restoring Ukraine’s neutrality, but NATO decided to fight Russia with Ukrainians as a proxy. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu argued some NATO states wanted to extend the war to bleed Russia: “After the talks in Istanbul, we did not think that the war would take this long.… But following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, I had the impression that there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue—let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine”.[8] Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy chairman of Erdogan’s political party, confirmed that Zelensky was ready to sign the peace agreement before the US intervened: “This war is not between Russia and Ukraine, it is a war between Russia and the West. By supporting Ukraine, the United States and some countries in Europe are beginning a process of prolonging this war. What we want is an end to this war. Someone is trying not to end the war. The U.S. sees the prolongation of the war as its interest”.[9] Ukrainian Ambassador Oleksandr Chalyi, who participated in peace talks with Russia, confirms Putin “tried everything” to reach a peace agreement and they were able “to find a very real compromise”.[10] Davyd Arakhamia, a Ukrainian parliamentary representative and head of Zelensky’s political party, argued Russia’s key demand was Ukrainian neutrality: “They were ready to end the war if we, like Finland once did, would accept neutrality and pledge not to join NATO. In fact, that was the main point. All the rest are cosmetic and political ‘additions’”.[11] Oleksiy Arestovych, the former advisor of Zelensky, also confirmed that Russia was mainly preoccupied with restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. The main obstacle to peace was thus overcome as Zelensky offered neutrality in the negotiations.[12] The tentative peace agreement was confirmed by Fiona Hill, a former official at the US National Security Council, and Angela Stent, a former National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia. Hill and Stent penned an article in Foreign Affairsin which they outlined the main terms of the agreement: “Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries”.[13] Boris Johnson Goes to Kiev What happened to the Istanbul peace agreement? On 9 April 2022, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson went to Kiev in a rush to sabotage the agreement and cited the killings in Bucha as the excuse. Ukrainian media reported that Johnson came to Kiev with two messages: “The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the UK and US] are not”.[14] In June 2022, Johnson told the G7 and NATO that the solution to the war was “strategic endurance” and “now is not the time to settle and encourage the Ukrainians to settle for a bad peace”.[15] Johnson also published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing against any negotiations: “The war in Ukraine can end only with Vladimir Putin’s defeat”.[16] Before Boris Johnson’s trip to Kiev, Niall Ferguson had interviewed several American and British leaders, who confirmed that a decision had been made for “the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin” as “the only end game now is the end of Putin regime”.[17] Retired German General Harald Kujat, the former head of the German Bundeswehr and former chairman of the NATO Military Committee, confirmed that Johnson had sabotaged the peace negotiations. Kujat argued: “Ukraine had pledged to renounce NATO membership and not to allow any foreign troops or military installations to be stationed’, while “Russia had apparently agreed to withdraw its forces to the level of February 23”. However, “British Prime Minister Boris Johnson intervened in Kiev on the 9th of April and prevented a signing. His reasoning was that the West was not ready for an end to the war”.[18] According to Kujat, the West demanded a Russian capitulation: “Now the complete withdrawal is repeatedly demanded as a prerequisite for negotiations”.[19] General Kujat explained that this position was due to the US war plans against Russia: “Perhaps one day the question will be asked who did not want to prevent this war… Their declared goal is to weaken Russia politically, economically and militarily to such a degree that they can then turn to their geopolitical rival, the only one capable of endangering their supremacy as a world power: China… No, this war is not about our freedom… Russia wants to prevent its geopolitical rival USA from gaining a strategic superiority that threatens Russia’s security”.[20] What was Ukraine told by the US and the UK? Why did Zelensky make a deal given that he was aware some Western states wanted to use Ukraine to exhaust Russia in a long war - even if it would destroy Ukraine? Zelensky likely received an offer he could not refuse: If Zelensky would pursue peace with Russia, then he would not receive any support from the West and he would predictably face an uprising by the far-right / fascist groups that the US had armed and trained. In contrast, if Zelensky would choose war, then NATO would send all the weapons needed to defeat Russia, NATO would impose crippling sanctions on Russia, and NATO would pressure the international community to isolate Russia. Zelensky could thus achieve what both Napoleon and Hitler had failed to achieve – to defeat Russia. The advisor to Zelensky, Oleksiy Arestovych, explained in 2019 that a major war with Russia was the price for joining NATO. Arestovych predicted that the threat of Ukraine’s accession to NATO would “provoke Russia to launch a large-scale military operation against Ukraine”, and Ukraine could join NATO after defeating Russia. Victory over Russia was assumed to be a certainty as Ukraine would merely be the spearhead of a wider NATO proxy war: “In this conflict, we will be very actively supported by the West—with weapons, equipment, assistance, new sanctions against Russia and the quite possible introduction of a NATO contingent, a no-fly zone etc. We won’t lose, and that’s good”.[21] NATO turned on the propaganda machine to convince its public that a war against Russia was the only path to peace: The Russian invasion was “unprovoked”; Moscow’s objective was to conquer all of Ukraine to restore the Soviet Union; Russia’s withdrawal from Kiev was not a sign of good-will to be reciprocated but a sign of weakness; it was impossible to negotiate with Putin; and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg subsequently asserted that “weapons are the way to peace”. The Western public, indoctrinated with anti-Russian propaganda over decades, believed that NATO was merely a passive third-party seeking to protect Ukraine from the most recent reincarnation of Hitler. Zelensky was assigned the role as new Churchill – bravely fighting to the last Ukrainian rather than accepting a bad peace. The Inevitable Istanbul+ Agreement to End the War The war did not go as expected. Russia built a powerful army and defeated the NATO-built Ukrainian army; sanctions were overcome by reorienting the economy to the East; and instead of being isolated – Russia took a leading role in constructing a multipolar world order. How can the war be brought to an end? The suggestions of a land-for-NATO membership agreement ignores that Russia’s leading objective is not territory but ending NATO expansion as it is deemed to be an existential threat. NATO expansion is the source of the conflict and territorial dispute is the consequence, thus Ukrainian territorial concessions in return for NATO membership is a non-starter. The foundation for any peace agreement must be the Istanbul+ formula: An agreement to restore Ukraine’s neutrality, plus territorial concessions as a consequence of almost 3 years of war. Threatening to expand NATO after the end of the war will merely incentivise Russia to annex the strategic territory from Kharkov to Odessa, and to ensure that only a dysfunctional Ukrainian rump state will remain that is not capable of being used against Russia. This is a cruel fate for the Ukrainian nation and the millions of Ukrainians who have suffered so greatly. It was also a predictable outcome, as Zelensky cautioned in March 2022: “There are those in the West who don't mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives”.[22] From that time:

Like I said to Purpletree in the other thread - Imperial logic is primarily for gain whilst security logic is primarily for preservation. The calculus here wasn’t gain but preservation in a zero sum security environment created by the Wests refusal to develop a security architecture that acknowledged red lines and didn't expand NATO towards Russia - up to the last vital country which for them is Ukraine specifically. You say Russia could have bridged East and West - but that assumes the West ever intended to let Russia be a co-equal. Putin did try alignment in the early 2000s like talk of joining NATO. Turkey works as a bridge because it isn't as threatening, whilst Russia’s scale is threatening. Its too big to be ignored yet too big to be allowed fully into the club - unless it sub-ordinates its sovereignty. Russia is big enough to be it's own orbit and not be totally compliant. Didn't Russia try diplomatically reaching out to the West regarding developing a security architecture? Many Western heads themselves warned of NATO expansion, Putin himself made it clear especially in his 2007 Munich speech. Before the invasion even began Russia proposed draft treaty that was ignored. The initial push to Kiev was to force a concession and bring them to the table - but because Kiev resisted upon the backing of the West - Russia went to the next option: if they don’t take your concerns seriously you make them not much of a concern through a war of attrition. Bidens term was radio silent on diplomacy, same with Europe despite the war being on their conflict and them feeling the brunt of the consequence in high energy prices. The Istanbul talks were the closest to a deal that was torped'ed by UK's Boris and the US. A deal they'd probably accept in a heartbeat compared to any today (which I doubt they'll even get to). The EU leaders are praising Trump for opening diplomatic channels to Putin as if they couldn't just do so had they had the spine and not been mired in group think like some ''Putin is Hitler'' cult. Ironically Putin isn't even as hardline as Medveded or others. The issue is liberal universalism can't accept different poles and buffer zones. How has China become more politically aligned to the West? They've economically aligned and developed just like Russia had. Russia has been supplying almost half of EU's energy, it was integrated economically just like China - they traded what they had ( Russia energy, China manufactured goods ). I agree that China has done a way better job than Russia in using that wealth to develop itself - Russia's own corruption has fueled oligarchic profits at the expense of the nation for sure. But that's different to the geopolitics of whats occurring. Whether it's a democracy, communist, socialist or whatever - a rival power is encircling another power, approaching a country with a historically vulnerable corridor - any powerful country will react to this. Just like America is a liberal democracy yet it forced a neutralization of the Cuban missile crisis. The internal shortcomings or political systems of a country is a separate issue to the geopolitics between states and powers. Every country and culture has its own way of doing things - the issue with the West is they morally finger wag a country for not being a copy cat of themselves - despite dealing with countries completely opposite to them (Saudi for example). This is why BRICS is appealing - there's no BRICSm like liberalism that is being shoved down countries throats - just pragmatic partnering on all kinds of projects that retains a level of sovereignty that being part of the Western club doesn't allow for.