BlueOak

No he's not as desperate as Putin, but then his country isn't as radicalized and far right either. He works with many authoritarian governments, and they have adequate relations. I would say China is considerably more balanced and stable. This changes nothing about what i've said. You tend to look at absolutes, I don't. I think if Russia fights their wars, weakens themselves, and radicalises Europe that presents opportunities and dangers for China, I think if Russia has peace, NATO grows bolder, and China more subtly competes with trade and industry that creates opportunities and danger for Chinese influence. Either way they are still influencing directly and indirectly, both by their existance and intent the course of the world.

Aligned with China's interests? No. China would be very happy if Europe started giving them everything they wanted, including arms, money, military allies and political support. I have however mentioned, and will do so again, that creating authoritarians, and right-wing ones especially (as Russia is attempting), can backfire quite spectacularly.

I doubt they want the entire world. They certainly want BRICS dominance of it, and they are the majority partner in BRICS yes. For their own ends, as in China itself, they want continued expansion both in terms of territory, trade, influence and military power yes.

@Elliott Right of where they were? Are you really asking why a country wants another to align with it ideologically, economically, and militarily? - Is this something that needs an answer? China specifically wants them authoritarian and (in my view of a global context) slight right of center, buying, trading, and allowing China to expand what it wants where it wants.They want policies in Europe that benefit them, they want to remake Europe and America in a way that suits Chinas continued interests. I mean that's just common sense. Or this is again about my personal view of the political spectrum? Why is that so important to you? Again you've failed to mention why the vietnam war has anything to do with China and European relations? Do I have to guess? I can hazard a guess but I doubt it'll be whatever you are hinting at. Are we saying that because France was involved in a conflict in 1955 (don't quote me on dates its before my time), that in 2025 China is what, angry at France? Is this map an attempt to tell me that China's aggression and expansion is justified due to European colonies from hundreds of years ago? Are we hinting that a militarized Europe is going to, what, invade vietnam? I am not sure what you are getting at.

30% less of it. Global oil prices apparently just jumped 3% overnight. The line downwards for the Russian economy continues to accelerate. 2nd video for a more nuanced take. *Also Turkey, and India etc, those countries buying to sell have stopped.

New low for Russia. Tricking foreign migrants into their army and sending them to die. I am quite impressed that Russia continues to surprise me with their depravity. Four years on watching it all.

Okay. And what does America's war in vietnam decades ago have to do with Chinese European relations? One last try. No I said Europe was resisting Eastern influence (both direct and indirect). Primarially the authoritarian drift, but there has been some shift. I have said before in other conversations that a possible result of Russian meddling primarily is that it does not create countries friendly with Moscow but rightwing governments likely to fight harder. I never said China wanted to demilitarize Europe. I said and i'll quote it again: Countries have national interests. If trade benefits them, they'll trade. If bombs benefit them, they'll bomb. What a country won't do, for example, is assist another country in resisting China taking over its territory as its own. Not unless they had some sort of practical ties and reason to do so. These develop because their ideologies and/or interests align. There is often a natural drift on the meta level of a country (or any large group) toward others who share similiar views. However now you mention it, I very much think Russia especially don't want Europe to have teeth, and so by association China as well, but to a lesser extent due to geography. Again it seems you are focused on my personal opinion on ideology, when its of much less import. The only salient point to argue is: Has there been pressure from the east to restructure the nature of western countries. BRICS as a whole are authoritarian in nature and counter to democratic values yes. They have a mostly rightwing ideology among the member states like Russia or Iran, and moreover, an authoritarian one, with obviously countries who are more center-authoritarian.

Do you think it needs this to be a threat to China? Or do you think there are more weapon producers than there have ever been on planet earth right now? China needs Europe aligned or at least subdued to dominate the planet, yes. The economic and military power of Europe is a hurdle to BRICS dominance. Especially as we are moving to 5% of GDP on defense in Europe now over time, for reference, countries barely put 2% in previously.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But in the instance you are not @Elliott I see no inconsistencies. Not sure where leftists in your questioning came from as I never mentioned them? I would wager from your earlier posts, and then this absolute sort of question you can't see (or don't use) multiple countries in comparison to each other, or any kind of large potential political scale that allows for side-by-side comparison of policy and ideology, culture alignment, economic alignment etc. Countries have national interests. If trade benefits them, they'll trade. If bombs benefit them, they'll bomb. What a country won't do, for example, is assist another country in resisting China taking over its territory as its own. Not unless they had some sort of practical ties and reason to do so. These develop because their ideologies and/or interests align. There is often a natural drift on the meta level of a country (or any large group) toward others who share similiar views. It doesn't matter who I consider rightwing, almost all countries are center or rightwing. It matters how close other countries are ideologically are to others. Specifically in this case the level of authoritarism is a defining force. Yeah Europe is certainly resisting the efforts of the eastern powers, but there is a rightward and authoritarian drift (due in part with increasing tension and the wars themselves, migration and eastern efforts). There was a heck of a lot of pushback to get any aid whatsoever into Ukraine, at some points Russia's cronies in certain countries have tried to outright sabotage it. It's no different in the South China Sea or Taiwan, Tibet, or East Turkestan - only geography makes such things significantly harder to aid Taiwan, for example. https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.politicalcompass.org/test - or the test itself might help for reference.

Let's do a few easy ones: Second biggest trading partner. Closer alignment with them. Less opposition to their expansionist policies. Removal of competition. Far right countries generally don't defend other countries half the globe away, or even just the continent. They are considerably more insular and only concerned in their direct national interests. This is helpful for a country dedicated to replacing America as the world power. People are the world over trying to make it like them. They look at themselves and decide that's how the world should be, then spend their entire lives and energy focused on that. Cue everyone telling me how America/China are different. Yes. - That's part of the point. The results are largely the same. Wars, competition, new ideologies trying to replace others, and new billionaires. Same cycle, different reasons.

As i've mentioned before, I've watched some of Inmendham who is probably the most depressed atheist around. https://www.efilism.com/ Again a warning, don't go there if you are depressed, as he certainly is. This is a more extreme own-brand of natalism. His science series on things like there being only one force in the universe might even be worth a look, it was a different perspective. (Draft science at the bottom) But for me, its depression talking. It comes from the view that we inflict a great deal more suffering as a species. But it requires everything be measured in value judgments (including life itself), and that suffering itself have less value in that person's mind than in reality it has. It requires the person to want there to be an end goal to it all, or a scale to weight it on, when there is none, other than experience itself. Does anti-natalism or efilism still make sense when value judgments are removed? If survival is the highest priority of a species. No it doesn't. Because it'd be dead. But, the birth rate certainly needs to be lower for our species to continue having a reasonable quality of life, or space colonisation to happen as quickly as possible. For me suffering drives a lot of life's growth and development. Its like the moment you become conscious of the suffering you were experiencing was in fact your own creation; those kinds of moments, the exact time it happens as a situation is unfolding, are awareness jumps where you experience considerable growth in perception. I'd like to know why they take as long as they do sometimes but hey ho. I've described the level of depression I felt to be the equivalent of a constant broken rib (only as a full-bodied sensation) and I wasn't the worst off out there. I use that analogy, as I've had the pain of a broken rib. There were days when it was considerably worse. - Its not as rare in moments as you make out. Very well put. Almost poetic. I would caution, however, in using the language 'value' as that in itself is where the problem lies. Diminishing everything to a value judgment. Life doesn't sit there with scales weighing itself for example. And while a person can choose to not have a kid because they believe the patterns they experienced were too painful - I in part did this knowing those patterns were still part of me, and thus would become part of the child - its impossible to make that decision for anyone else. So someone making an ideology around this very personal choice is flawed.

Everything is in fact, the search for love; it doesn't mean this example is a divine order that everyone would be better off living by. Whoever is defining ''better off'. Shall I define my ideology as better off and put it in a divine context to give my ego a giant-sized pat on the head? I do it enough already I guess. I could do a three page essay on it also, it'd look very fancy.

Alright let's do the long debate as the one line wasn't enough This is an egoic reaction to an obvious truth. - You want the world the way you want it and for people to be as you are. Pick an area you think disagrees with this in your text, or shall I do them one by one?

Its the core point. All i'd be doing is taking everything you've said and putting it in different ways.

They'll never be a day someone doesn't want to build man in his own preferred self image. I guess I needed to hear it. *To save you time, all responses will collapse into this.