zazen

@Socrates The political cost is super high for them to do it, but their desperation is also higher today. Couldn’t imagine them trying this 10 years, even 2 years ago - but the shift in narrative not only globally but in the US who they materially rely on changes the calculus. Them being capable also doesn’t mean them being willing - but then capability also means being capable of doing such things and getting away with it - as they have been getting away with all they have recently. So surely they can be more brazen about what their willing to do also. They just struck a gulf capital who the US is an ally of and has the largest base. That totally fucks up the US’s image of being a reliable security partner and ally. It goes completely against their interest to be setting up mediation talks then having those mediators be bombed - in a location such as Doha on top of that. The fact that Israel can’t afford to lose MAGA cuts both ways - they can’t afford for MAGA to start questioning Israel, as much as they can’t afford to lose MAGA as a response to them taking out one of their biggest influencers.

The US is the last supportive pillar of Israel after the world has turned on them. And specifically the Christian Zionist demographic - Charlie Kirk was the biggest face of the right wing demographic and young - meaning he had a long road ahead of him in politics. He just started questioning Mossad, Epstein and the ability to question Israel. The left are already accounted for in their criticism of Israel. But to have the other side start to become increasingly so is something they can’t just allow to happen so easily. He even questioned the narrative of October 7th on PBD - saying it’s the most surveilled militarised place and that it’s fishy it took them that long to respond ie must have been ordered to stand down. Mossad are also more than capable. Israel bombs and de-capitates people in multiple countries - including a US ally with the largest US base in the Middle East just days ago (Qatar). But we’re supposed to believe they will be restrained when it comes to US soil - for sure the political cost is much higher doing anything on US soil - but at the same time they have become increasingly brazen and desperate. They also have the operatives and networks to cover such tracks on US soil. The timing is also fishy - why would an extreme leftist cell do it now when political tensions aren’t as high as for example before an election. The timing of Israel’s recent actions and the Charlie’s narrative shifting line up more with incentives to carry this out. There’s a lot of heat atm - from Epstein to Gaza etc this could put a chilling effect on others speaking up including neutralizing one of the largest voices of the right that they simply can’t afford to lose. Then again, I just can’t imagine Mossad to gamble and risk such a thing.

The US is the last supportive pillar of Israel after the world has turned on them. And specifically the Christian Zionist demographic - Charlie Kirk was the biggest face of the right wing demographic and young - meaning he had a long road ahead of him in politics. He just started questioning Mossad, Epstein and the ability to question Israel. The left are already accounted for in their criticism of Israel. But to have the other side start to become increasingly so is something they can’t just allow to happen so easily. He even questioned the narrative of October 7th on PBD - saying it’s the most survived militarised place and that it’s fishy it took them that long to respond ie must have been ordered to stand down. Mossad are also more than capable.

Disgusting what happened - even more disgusting to see the heartlessness of people’s reaction. It was clearly a profession assassination with the shooter now gone. Question is who? This came up: Was he free speeching wrongly? 4min mark, just a month ago. Could be a cohencidence though. That or a lone extremist leftist - what’s more plausible?

Have done so before. Have a good day too.

I agree - where have I praised their internal governance and development? Again you conflate critique with shitting on - and conclude I'm praising the authoritarian world. I would praise the downfall of Western imperialism - but that's not the same as praising the systems or leaders who have done so. The Western led order is the largest imperial offender on the planet so that's naturally where my focus goes. I don't have time to spend writing back and forth all day long on ''flaws of internal political systems''. That's also why I'm barely on other sides of the forum like dating etc because I like the big picture - geo-politics and the shifting world order, of which Israel and Ukraine relate to also. The downsides of tyranny, dictators and communism are pretty evident so don't have to be commented on. Most of us on the forum are Western and liberal minded already so what perhaps is overlooked are the flaws within liberalism - including the Western order we are part of. What should be and is discussed is stopping the conditions that give rise to populism, fascism etc. Part of what's given rise are the blindspots within liberalism. Me bringing those blindspots into light is conflated with me loving authoritarianism though. I'd like Europe as a whole not be vassal to the US and be a pawn in a larger game of empire - including Ukraine itself. To increase European sovereignty or as they say ''strategic autonomy'' requires intelligence, foresight, courage and not having ideological blinkers on. It also unfortunately means cutting losses now and building up your strength and sovereignty as to not get caught up in that mess. This is what Merz said just a few days ago: "We are currently unable to exert sufficient pressure on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to end this war," he said. "We are dependent on American help." https://www.dw.com/en/germany-updates-merz-urges-stronger-european-role-in-global-affairs/live-73889023 Is it patriotic to encourage a Chihuahua to fight a pitbull? Are you gonna spill blood and money for Ukraine? If not then respectfully don't push others to die for your Russiphobia or wet dream of containing Russia. You want Europe to kick Russia's ass and take that Ukrainian land back right? Okay, with what arms, manpower and funding? Western establishment outlets themselves highlight the stockpile shortages, being out produced by Russia in arms, and the struggling manpower issue in Ukraine. France and UK are on the precipice of a debt crises as we speak and Germany's de-industrializing. If you aren't gonna go die on the front line or give up money to the cause then stop raging war with Russia thinking its some easy feat to defeat them that you or I won't suffer consequences for. Actual Ukrainians are dying on the front line for a larger geopolitical game between two powers and you know that. I'm saying get real about the situation. Address security concerns and establish peace. Get real about Europe's geopolitical standing and it strength and weaknesses - and make decisions based on that, not on some liberal moralistic delusions not based in reality. You want to prevent far right populism rising in Europe? Okay, well how do we stop economic inequality getting worse, on top of excessive migration and lack of assimilation of current migration that will cause native people to revolt and elect a new Hitler? You think Europe freezing its relations with Russia including its cheap energy access that supported it all these decades - to in turn get much more expensive energy from the US - will help Europes economic competitiveness on the world stage which requires it to now compete with China? That's economic seppuku that will only ripen the conditions for populism and fascism. I assume your friend is more liberal like yourself, or Western? It makes sense that someone coming from a different culture would view China’s centralization as a big downside - as I said in my previous comment: the cultural conditioning is there to view it as such. It's worth asking if the things he praises are also made possible by that same structure. Every system has trade offs. In China, centralization brings real limits on freedoms, but it also channels collective effort in a way that produces stability and progress. Perhaps the Chinese people value sacrificing lower freedoms for higher freedoms of stability, harmony and saftey. It's like libertarians who view every constraint on freedom as tyranny, but underappreciated that those restraints (laws) are allowing them to exist in a more stable society that allows them other freedoms and luxuries - the kind your friend may be praising. Agree - centralization isn't the only piece or model that can produce good outcomes. China's system isn't the only cause of its success - its a enabler of the peoples efforts. It's ultimately down to quality decisions made over a long enough time period - that ultimately boils down to quality people making such decisions - and a strong culture that values hard work, discipline, pragmatism etc. Japan and South Korea are allies with the US. They aren't viewed as threats the same way Russia or China are - and they aren't large or sovereign enough to be considered geopolitical rivals. So China exists in a different geopolitical reality than most countries. If China were to open up and become democratic - that would mean opening up to foreign interference, regime change and color revolutions that the West, particularly the US have perfected. The US has every incentive to destabilize it if given the chance - and liberalizing politically would give them more tools and access points to do that. If you look into the recent protests in Thailand, Indonesia and now the very violent uprising in Nepal - you'll find US funded NGO's tracing to the movements that have kicked such things off. Imagine if you were the leader of a great civilization with over a 1 billion people such as China - you have to provide stability and progress to these people - and you see a imperial actor like the US who has a open track record of regime changes across the world, who openly wishes to contain your rise and your peoples - would you simply sit there and liberally open up your country in a such a way as to allow those same actors to fuck up you and your peoples trajectory? Or would centralizing and controlling the information / political space be seen as a lesser evil for the greater freedom of even being able to exist as a rival super power?

Bro the reason you think everything I write is AI is perhaps because you don't think its possible to come up with those takes yourself - so maybe your just projecting here. Maybe that's why you don't want to rebuttal or discuss the points further - but I'm saying why not use AI yourself to do so and maybe you'll learn more through using it too. I actually often edit a lot of my comments because I see unclear writing or bad grammar - if I was straight copy pasting from AI I it wouldn't have those mistakes. Anyway on to your point: The fear of authoritarianism is valid - I also don't want it. The issue is what is authoritarianism and what is simply greater authority or centralized governance that gets conflated with it. Me criticizing democracy or liberalism isn't me subtly advocating for authoritarianism either. I'm all for more a honest, competent authority that serves the people - we actually need more bolder leadership in the West. I think theirs a place for strategic centralization that isn't disrupted by election cycles and which prevents long term planning - because in order to compete with China and others, long term plans are needed. That's why deep states exist to such a degree in Western democracies - because the surface level state will keep getting in the way. But that then creates special interests doing whats good for themselves rather than the national interest. It becomes a false or weak democracy with real technocracy and oligarchy. Western democracies often hide or obscure centralized power behind democratic optics - because Western culture and liberalism have placed such primacy on individualism and democracy that the people are culturally conditioned to go against anything that is beyond their own democratic reach. Imposing top down control, policies or values on societies conditioned to believe they have total democratic control only creates mistrust and backlash. That forces power to hide behind and beyond the ballot box. That power can then easily become corrupted by elites that remain invisible or unaccountable. On the other hand China's centralized system seems to be working better perhaps because it's more honest about what it is, more culturally accepted by its people, more aligned with its national interest (rather than private or international interests), and is transparent about who is running the show - still not without its flaws. Centralization seems to only work when when it’s honest, aligned, and built for the nation. It fails when it’s hidden or opaque, hijacked by private interests, or pretending to be something it’s not which causes trust issues. Also, China and Russia aren't pushing authoritarianism onto the West - it's been the West that has been pushing its political system and ideals on to the world. Authoritarianism doesn't need to be pushed onto a country - it can just as well be democratically voted in, or arise from internal conditions in a country. The issue in the West is much of the domestic and foreign policy of the liberally detached elite have fanned the flames and set the conditions of the far right rising in their own countries. We've discussed this before on another thread you started where we talked about EU policies being good or bad: You then said you don't like the conservatism of Eastern Europe. But the issue is you can't impose liberalism from the top down (as I mentioned earlier) - it needs to come organically. Otherwise that's the very issue causing the backlash and rise of the right - bad policy that is blind to the ground reality. When the political and economic elite gut out your industry for globalized profits (special interests vs national interest) and then flood in migration to help boos domestic demand, property prices and labor shortages that rapidly change the culture of the country - of course people will backlash. The same conditions that gave rise to Hitler - cultural humiliation and economic hardship. Look back at our conversation in that thread and see everything that has transpired since - the tension is between national interest vs private / transnational interests. Even look at whats happening now with France (vote of no confidence and mass protests right now) and the UK with migrant protests and a new all time low approval rating for Keir Starmer of 22% (this is only within months of him being ''democratically voted'' in). How is that democracy working well - and the real question is why isn’t it working well? Which my above points partially cover.

Your conflating critique with hate - does you critiquing me mean you hate me now? I critique Western leadership and their failures, including the hegemonic Western imperial structure led by the US that seeks to maintain its position. That doesn’t mean I hate the West or that I now love Eastern tyrants. There’s literally two threads on the forum questioning Democracy and about being fed up with America - does that mean those posters now “hate” the West or democracy? Many people in the West are disillusioned with Western leadership and imperialism around the world - I'm not the only one, and that doesn't make us Western haters. You see me discussing geopolitics (state to state relations) and automatically conclude and conflate that as me arguing for authoritarianism or praising authoritarian leaders themselves. I actually think Russia is very corrupt and poorly managed internally, I also think China has done a 100x bettter job than them at developing their own nation - that doesn't mean China doesn't have its flaws. I also think Kim from North Korea is a tyrannical clown running a dystopia. Geopolitics and state to state behavior is separate to the internal politics of those states - great power competition exists regardless of the political system of states - and I discuss those dynamics including the larger dynamic of the world order which is where a uni-polar order is resisting a multi-polar one that is already pretty much a reality. All the countries in the world being liberal democracies wouldn't erase the geopolitics of power dynamics, including those powers having red lines and security concerns that need managing - the very thing that has been mismanaged regarding Russia / Ukraine. What is your position (as you haven't laid one out): 1. That a uni-polar world order led by the West should be maintained - including the containment of multiple poles and powers within that order rising and wanting not to be sub-ordinate to that order? 2. Or is it that because other countries are flawed and demand obedience from their citizens (authoritarians), that they should be intervened in and contained? Like the interventionist wars of the past decades that ''spread democracy''? Hard times creates hard liners - perhaps a better method is to simply trade and allow them to get wealthier to loosen their authoritarian tendencies. 3. If you view Russia and China as authoritarian because they demand obedience from their own people, then wouldn't you also view the West as authoritarian when it demands obedience from other countries in its own uni-polar order? Perhaps the West itself enforces authoritarianism globally by refusing multi-polarity. The so called “authoritarian” states are the ones calling for multipolarity - which is closer to actual democracy on a world scale. The issue is liberals moralize and universalize their system as the only valid one - its unfathomable that other cultures may have a different approach or political system. Most humans have the same universal values and aspirations to a good life - liberals universalize their application of those values and aspirations. Everybody wants to be liberated (free) and seeks democracy - which is to have their will (to the good life) manifest. The difference is in how that happens and what the best system is for achieving that. Good governance depends on quality decisions made over a long enough time period. Western democracy basically outsources those decisions to the masses, assuming they have the discernment to choose the right candidate. A centralized system done well basically filters for that quality and doesn't buy the notion that quality and wisdom are as scalable. Neither system is superior - what makes any system work is ultimately the people themselves, because those quality decisions require a quality mind and people to make. The West dickrides their version of democracy as the only plausible version and reflexively opposes any system that's different - even if it may be better suited to that particular culture / civilization, and produce better outcomes. They measure democracy (will of the people) in ritual and procedure, rather than outcome. If a so called “authoritarian'' centralized system actually delivers stability, rising living standards, and a sense of security, while “liberal democracies” deliver endless crises, inequality, and political paralysis, then who is actually closer to realizing democracy (the will of the people to a good life)? Whilst all people share the same values, some people may approach those values differently and rank them differently. Not everyone has the same conception of freedom as the West - the world doesn't revolve around the West who make up 15% of the global population. Perhaps some cultures find liberation of the individual through the community (harmony, stability), perhaps centralized governance is better suited in fulfilling the will of the people. It's possible that centralized authority doesn't always automatically mean tyranny. Liberals obsess over internal political systems because it moralizes the West’s dominance as good and righteous - that because other countries aren't liberal democracies they should be intervened in, contained or de-legitimized. This is where bloc politics comes from - and empire uses it as a pretext for its own cause. It that kind of ''with us or against us'' thinking that creates bloc and raises tensions. No where in your long ass rant have you provided any substance or arguments - just that I must be Dugin, a Russian/Chinese bot, and use AI lol. I'd rather you actually use AI to rebuttal me so we can have a interesting conversation. Blueoak doesn't ad hominen and actually argues his points and pokes holes in mine very well in comparison.

Technically true, not totally true - that's why it was called a world war not a European war: because it was a collective effort of the allies (China included) to defeat fascism. Germany, Italy and Japan formally signed the Tripartite Pact in 1940 becoming Axis Powers against the Allied bloc of China, USSR and the West. It was a shared front but in different geographical theaters. By tying down Japan, China prevented massive Allied resources being diverted away from Europe - aiding in the defeat of Hitler. It was a collective victory against the facist axis. The issue isn't what Kallas said in that isolated moment but that the West try to monopolize the narrative of victory and underplay Russia or China's efforts. In Kallas's own words they are viewed as threats to be contained / balkanized and de-legitimized - part of that de-legitimizing is underplaying their efforts in that global struggle which was called a World War for that very reason. For example in 2019 the EU had a parliament resolution claiming that Nazi Germany and the USSR were co-instigators in starting WW2 - because of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 that emboldened Hitler. But Britain and France signed the Munich Agreement in 1938 just a year earlier where Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia. That also “paved the way” for war, but it’s remembered as appeasement, not co-instigation. This is trying to brand the USSR as co-instigator when the same actions occurred by the Western allies themselves - which is obviously not showing any respect for the millions of lives the USSR lost in that fight, and who made it a decisive victory. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/european-identity-and-paradox-anti-communism/

@Nivsch I'm not denying that today their are Israeli's who want a two state solution or a peaceful solution / manifestation of Zionism. I was pointing out that historically from the beginning the structural contradiction of Zionism is what caused it to default to domination. The contradiction is that the land they wanted to secure was already inhabited - and force was required to secure that land from those natives, including till today as those natives resist giving up more of their land. The idea of a two state solution or sharing of land came later but was never the premise of Zionism from the start. That's why its called solution - because the problem was that the original aspirations required domination, that would have resistance to that domination baked in. And a solution to that resistance and violence is a two state: that's meant to solve the problem caused by the original manifestation of Zionism that is unfortunately still playing out in its own way today. The geopolitical reality of the situation forced Zionism to evolve a more ethical and sustainable solution. As I said, there's different versions of Zionism. One side thinks it needs to dominate Palestinians in order to secure the self-determination they already achieved or even perhaps take that away from them in order to expand Israel to absorb their land. The other side (you and moderate Israeli's) thinks both should live with self-determination in a two state solution.

Kaja Kallas two days ago said: "I was at the ASEAN summit, and something seemed interesting to me. Russia turned to China and said: "We, Russia and China, fought together in The Second World War, we won the Second World War, we defeated Nazism together.“ And I thought, "Okay, this is something new." If you know a little history, then a lot of questions immediately arise in your head. But you know, today people read and remember history less and less, so, unfortunately, many people believe in such narratives," It's this same ideologically corrupted brain rot rooted in liberal universalism and exceptionalism that is un-tethered from reality - that leads to terrible domestic and foreign policy. Speaking of detached establishment - watch it on display in the first 3 min: From yesterday: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/05/pentagon-national-defense-strategy-china-homeland-western-hemisphere-00546310 ''Pentagon officials are proposing the department prioritize protecting the homeland and Western Hemisphere, a striking reversal from the military’s years long mandate to focus on the threat from China.'' ''The three documents will be intertwined in many ways. Each will emphasize telling allies to take more responsibility for their own security, the people said, while the U.S. consolidates efforts closer to home.'' More like consolidate imperialism close to home whilst it still can (in Latin America and within their borders via the imperial boomerang effect). Perhaps the China parade sharpened minds a little in Washington. The strategic value of Taiwan is in semi-conductors which they will hopefully domesticate within years - beyond which there is no reason to go war over - that they have a major dis-advantage in fighting far from home against not only a peer rival but perhaps a superior rival. The gap will only widen in the coming years between their capabilities. I told ya'll so.

Zionism is essentially self-determination and securing a safe homeland for the Jews. The issue is because there are other natives on the land they want to secure - they need to resort to violence, force, dispossession and domination to do so. And Zionists who carry this out do so in the name of Zionism - which gives Zionism itself a bad name. There's a dark distorted version of Zionism that's blurred with its more understandable aspirations of self-determination. The problem is that Zionists already have self-determination and a state of Israel that is recognized by the world and UN - but they deny this same right of determination to the Palestinians who are natives to the same land. When those Palestinians resist Zionists getting in the way of that determination - they are deemed a security threat for doing so. This then justifies dominating them beyond the borders of Israel in the form of occupation which involves resistance to that occupation - which then gives Zionists further ''evidence'' that they are acting for security reasons - a form of circular logic. But the root cause is obvious to anyone who see's the issue clearly. You can't claim to want self-determination whilst denying the same to those sharing the same land as you. You can't find security in keeping another people insecure indefinitely - unless a final solution is inflicted upon them ie ethnic cleansing or genocide. You can't dominate another people in the name of security, in the name of Zionism, and then expect the world to be okay with that sleight of hand which is obvious to the world.

I look at things structurally. Drones in Lithuania and Poland are reckless, yes, but that’s not an expansionist campaign into Europe. Most of them drift from Ukraine strikes or probe air defenses. Spies, migrant influence, far-right meddling? Sure, asymmetric means are used just as the West use them on powers that are too risky to confront directly. Russia may exploit and poke at those issues - but they exist regardless of Russia. Structural conditions have caused the rise of the right. Western leaders have themselves opened the doors to migration including being lax on border control - Elon alone has done more to fan the flame of the right than Russia. Russia also told the West where its red lines were - and that NATO expansion would end badly. They said and acted on that did they not? The West was too imperially minded and arrogant to listen. You rightly connect many dots - but we differ in how they connect. Those are largely symptoms of a deeper issue: a uni-polar order run by the US that refuses to accept limits, red lines, or peers. You’ve accepted the US as a bad actor but won’t extend that logic to include others reacting to that bad actor. This same actor has evidently been globally violent its entire existence including in the present, openly talks of containing its rivals, and wants to park up right next to them either by land (Russia) or sea (China). Are these rival countries supposed to simply not act because they may be breaking laws? Laws take a back seat to security and survival imperatives as we’ve discussed before. China pouring sand into the ocean and fortifying islands isn’t being ''imperially expansionist'' - it’s securing trade routes for food and energy lifelines that it’s not self sufficient in - that a hawkish US could exploit. Geography dictates vulnerabilities, and great powers act on them. “Russia always invades” is like me going back in time and saying Europeans have always been fighting. After 1991, Russia lost massive territory and accepted NATO expansion deep into Eastern Europe. The red line wasn’t Poland or the Baltics but Ukraine. That’s not a modern day pattern of always invading but a declining power finally snapping when its survival buffer was crossed. Historical patterns rhyme but aren’t destiny - they are conditional and based on circumstances, meaning that if those circumstances change then repeating history isn’t inevitable. Patterns rhyme but aren't identical or inevitable, whilst principles of power dynamics and geography remain a constant. One of those principles is that great powers react when cornered or encircled. Another is that great powers will endure hardship and struggle before facing humiliation at the hands of another power. Neither has geography changed. Ukraine has always been the invasion corridor into Russia, from Napoleon to Hitler. That’s a permanent vulnerability, and so is a permanent principle of Russian strategy. They’re not acting from imperial nostalgia but from geography - and it wouldn’t have come to open war if their red line had been acknowledged and built into a shared security architecture. That was denied any lasting solution because the US and its allies would rather have other powers be sub-ordinate than at the table as equals. Speaking of patterns, here’s one now: China’s containment from a Western hegemon. In the past it was Britain trying to balance its trade deficit via opium wars - today it’s the US containing China, first through banning semi-conductors and now through a trade war. Cutting off semi-conductors is a declaration of economic war - as its a critical input being the oxygen of the modern age. It’s as bad as an oil embargo - and yet China didn’t lash out aggressively. Only now when Trump is trying to tariff them and the world have they hit back with a rare earth export ban ie upon further provocation - just like Russia. By your logic (which is uni-polar unintentionally or not) both rivals need to be contained - as you commented above, China is the main threat. The real thing to contain are the conditions (set by a uni-polar mindset in a multi-polar reality) that perpetuate zero-sum thinking and make confrontation continuous, and war inevitable. Back to the principle of great powers avoiding humiliation. There’s a parallel in how the US is dealing with both Russia and China - the US is taking a civilizational kin state of a rival and is weaponizing it against that rival. So not only is it escalating a security threat, it’s insulting both at a cultural / civilizational level. It’s like turning family on family. Imagine your cousins make semi-conductors that are important to the modern age, but an outsider barred them from sharing it with you? What would have remained a cold logical security concern becomes a hot emotional concern - it amplifies something geo-political into something personal. It radicalizes the perception of the threat for both parties. Any great power will react to this security threat, that is only amplified by its humiliation and insulting nature. This is where the past repeating itself isn’t inevitable. Today the circumstances and reality are different, and the history of China’s century of humiliation doesn’t look to be repeating. Clearly: The reporters comments are as insightful as the ones in the comment section lol In fact quite the opposite: The order that insisted on ordering others around is now dead, and they cry at this loss. Someone give the guy some kleenex, probably made in Chyna. If we treated every compromise as “appeasement” the Cold War would have gone nuclear in the 1950s. Security driven wars differ fundamentally from ideological-imperial wars. Security can be negotiated, expansion for the sake of domination can’t. That’s why the Western narrative needs to keep making the lazy Hitler comparison - because it shuts down a proper solution that’s been denied all this time for the purpose of leaving a avenue for subjugation to empire. Perhaps that interdependence with Russia would help in keeping some leverage over them, the same way European economies became intertwined to avoid constant and global world wars. Now that Russia has just signed Siberia 2 with China - what leverage does EU have over them? What if a even more hard line figure comes in after Putin, such as Medvedev who you love to share as being hawkish and threatening - by comparison Putin who has been quite pro-Western and tolerant up to now. Perhaps Europe needs to see the US make a deal with Russia and buy Russian energy packed and re-sold to them from the US with a label slapped on - to really get the hint why its important to actually have some foresight, tactfullness and balls to do whats in their best interest. Europe's competitiveness has just been locked into being meagerly low for the foreseeable future now. It's not looking very good unfortunately.

Reality anchors all that propaganda - propaganda that’s used to get Russians rallying around the flag to support the war. It shouldn’t be taken at face value similar to Western propaganda - there are structural realities that limit that bluster. State policy and military doctrine are different to what hotheads on TV or some ground units are doing. Same way we don’t look at Bandera Nazi salutes and Azov insignia then conclude the West is funding a neo-Nazi regime. It can be dangerous if the structural conditions change to where that propoganda can be acted upon at a future point. I just don’t think those conditions will come - say for example a totally weakened West, entirety of Ukraine not only taken but held against a resistant Ukrainian population continuously uprising - from which point a demographically aging power like Russia is supposed to march into NATO countries and face fresh troops and F35s. It wasn’t just Trump that turned the US bad, it’s the unipolar hegemonic structure that’s bad by default - because it seeks to limit and contain the rise and autonomy of other powers. If you realise this as bad, then surely you can realise that perhaps Russia and China’s actions may be in response to that structural pressure? That not every action is merely imperial but in fact a defensive response to imperialism itself. It may be aggressive and opportunistic, but not necessarily imperial in its motive or intent.

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.

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.