BlueOak

@zazen 1, What is a sphere? Spheres do not require nationalism, nor violence, nor a military. Its consent vs coercion. Spheres can be cultural, military, religious or trade. Countries' elites and populations preferred the EU sphere. Iran's religious and cultural sphere is very strong, for example. The EU is an international power. Its sphere of influence is massive. That’s what Russia fears at its core, the democratic values of the countries, the quality of life offered by those inside of it. Because it would have changed their country without firing a shot. Now the US is going more authoritarian, the EU is distancing itself more from it naturally. No blood was spilt over Brexit because it’s a bureaucratic effort to maintain peace. That peace and democratic progress is its sphere. Plenty of fallout happens, bureaucratic and trade, as is its nature. 2) Europe’s Core Europe isn’t a single state, it’s a compound core. Single market, heavy on interdependence, it converts zero-sum rivalries into positive-sum gains. Which is why it's far superior to the old uni-polar model. This is part of your bias to try and play down what Europe is, to try and fragment it into a singular military framing. - Which negates a lot of Chinese, Russian or Indian power or influence also btw. But, what Russia has done is force the EU to project a military sphere. And that should worry everyone. Especially Russia. The latest 23 drones and missile attack on Poland, and now Russia simulating its military exercise to invade Poland, has caused them to shut their borders, erect a no-fly zone and put 40,000 of their troops on the border. That projects a military sphere, a very specific one. Poland's GDP and military alone would beat or hold Russia in a conventional war. 3) Security Outsourcing security to the US again wasn’t vassalage, because power isn’t just in the guns you have on hand. It was risk sharing, and a good way to ensure peace over the continent. However, Russia and BRICS require military deterrence; that’s obvious now and energy independence. - Again though, it won't stop at deterrence, GDP isn't put into something and not used. 4) “Russia reacts; the West provokes” This one’s Chat GPT quoted from an earlier convo, as it says what i've said before. Great powers push back when encircled. But structure doesn’t erase choice. Moscow had multiple coercive and diplomatic tools short of invasion (energy leverage, information ops, targeted sanctions via EEU/CSTO leverage, etc.). It chose maximalist war aims early, then adjusted under constraint. That’s not “forced by geography”; it’s strategy under agency. Also: if we grant Russia structural insecurity, we must also grant Eastern Europeans structural insecurity vis-à-vis Russia. Their remedy was NATO. You cannot validate one set of fears and delegitimize the other. End Quote 5, Russia vs NATO As I’ve often said zazen. It won’t be Russia fighting NATO, it’ll be BRICS on China’s say so. Russia uses mass and can take the areas it needs to, to cut off the Baltics, just due to it being a very small area that can be attacked from two (actually three) directions. BRICS has the ability to supply manpower and material indefinitely. While tactical nukes (not strategic, tactical) may be common in such a fight to counter manpower, they can just send men indefinitely. If he thinks he can win, Putin will try, even if it takes another 10 years. Our populations are already war-fatigued. I suppose Russia’s is also, the difference is Putin doesn’t care or need to care. Time doesn't seem to bother him. Oh and BTW Russia just threatened war with Poland unless it opens its border. Putin has stated that Russia's borders "don't end anywhere”. I mean, I can just keep showing you whats going on and quoting him forever. However, this could just be a clever way to force NATO to divert supplies to another frontline that isn't Ukraine. 6, Spheres aren’t fated to happen. Security threats from Russia outweight economic and cultural ties. Its something you and Russia both won't give weight to. If you could, you’d frame all of this differently. Sweden was a very neutral country, Finland preferred neutrality, etc. 7, This is the EU sphere happening in front of your eyes. As America goes more authoritarian, both the EU and the USA are drifting apart. America for example, is no longer calling the attack on Poland an attack. This is forcing Poland to stand up to Russia and the EU to back it. Its not America vs Russia, its Poland vs Russia, Ukraine vs Russia, the EU vs Russia. Russia’s influence will not extend into Poland, Romania or the Baltics, that’s a red line for Europe, not America, and that’s why there is conflict. Because Russia cannot help itself. Spheres extend till they are stopped, it will be stopped in Ukraine. You half acknowledge this reality but don’t see Europe in your framing. This is Europe’s sphere establishing itself in a military sense, removing energy dependency and standing up to the Russians and any other authoritarian powers threatening the continent.

Because we are in a cold war. Article 4 just got invoked. People don't yet seem to understand that if these Russian military exercises are a prelude to invasion, it'll happen in the next few days. Not a guarantee but the recent attack(s) on Poland and the baltics was a good probe of their air defenses.

It depends on which lens you view this with . If it were an Israeli response to what happened, it's destructive to the future of their country. It was honestly cumbersome and odd and had a reactionary stupidity you get from theocracies. I instead expected special ops, covert actions and airstrikes for a period. @Schizophonia If it's in the context of the world being in a cold, almost hot war, then I understand it. The methods they use are absurd and sick doesn't cover it, but I understand it. Had Hamas continued, as world tensions mount, the fight would have increasingly been in their own backyard. Whether I like it or not, the authoritarian alignment that's happened cheapens life. That's a huge downside of the eastern shift we've all experienced. *NB Oh and the strike on Qatar on the Hamas leadership was something I thought was a long time coming.

I believe he was shot for speaking about the war in gaza specifically. But all things connect, there is no separation. The rest of the world is not fine at all. Russia and Europe are on the brink of war. Article 4 (not 5) was just invoked tonight, after a large drone (and single missile) attack on Poland. China is close to invading Taiwan. Israel and Iran might as well be at war. Qatar just got hit by Israel. Most major economies are backing one country or another in a proxy war. Its far from fine. Political commentators picking sides in this are unfortunately going to become targets, they already are in many theaters.

From what I understand, I think it is the escalating world tension which is the cause of this incident primarily. As much as I understand the suppression of any actual left is at an obscene level in US politics, this seems to be due to the ongoing wars globally. I mean we are but a few steps away from a world war, and people representing sides or countries in that will sadly and unfortunately be targets of political violence. Though perhaps if the suppression of the left (not the rightwing center the democrats sit in, the left) was not so obscene, and natural equilibrium could be allowed to play out, incidents like this explosive violence would be minimized either way.

Addicts yes. That's exactly what I said in the original post, that and more, as it saps drive to find a woman, or succeed in life to get one, and can develop into anti social habits and skewed views of the opposing gender, among other problems. Light porn use is not addiction, much like a beer doesn't create an alcoholic.

To be crass then and not hint at it: Sex on people's minds leads to more kids. With all the stipulations of my original post.

Russia attacks Poland, as usual. Same pattern on repeat. I'll respond to you Zazen tomorrow.

Outlets for sexual frustration and tension are natural. Not everyone can get laid or wants to for that matter, but the biological drive doesn't go away. Abuse of it can lead to addictive, unhelpful behaviors such as isolation or regressed social development, a breakdown of the birthrate etc. It also saps a lot of the drive to go out and get a girl, or take the steps such as working hard that would get you one. I would argue that light use of porn in society encourages the birthrate. Its one reason conservatives are behaving oddly, to increasingly prioritize a stricter dress code to be the social norm, although I understand the other benefits to monogamy etc that this brings. With climate change, countries drying up, causing crime, food shortages and food inflation, migration, and war, increased cases of heatstroke and heat-related damage to infrastructure, for example (will all increase), storm and weather damage, across the globe is of course, a major issue, and a leader not tackling them is the mark of a fool. *Oh and BTW the mainstreaming of only fans, to be a career path is extremely destructive to the family unit for those involved. If I could surmise it all in one sentence. If its not special, reserved for your spouse, and important: Then its not special, reserved for your spouse, or important. - Which is the breakdown of a stable family unit for anyone seeking that stability and legacy. Sex is made casual, and cheating normalised, and that is a bad thing, however, wanting sex to build something meaningful should be encouraged through stable relationships. Thus, banning porn itself is not the answer, but neither is building out the sex industry to be an everyday occupation. As always, the answer is a balance in reacting to social pressures.

Its already too late to save everyone. Water is already drying up in certain countries. As far as I understand it, there is a ten year lag, even if the problem was being take seriously as the biggest threat we collectively face on planet earth, instead its seen as a challenge but one that can be put off till later. But if it was being tackled globally, there is a ten year lag for any results we do today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zSyVnWMWQs Tesla's $7,759 Tiny House. Thoughts? If true. When he sticks to engineering for people, I admire him; when he does anything else, I hate every action I see. Obviously, the materials need to be different, but it's the sort of folding flat design that might be shipped to Mars in generations to come.

The most critical things were: France prepares for war in 2026. US invasion of Venezuela imminent. China's drone manufacturing for Russia is exposed directly. - The guy who filmed that is going out a window. It is becoming increasingly clear that China is the main threat to Europe. Not that it was disputed by anyone.

@zazen 1-3 All true and not disputed, but giving up sovereignty for unity was not without ALOT of effort, and even then, we couldn't fully commit in the UK enough. The nation’s are preserved, and war is averted; it was the best of both worlds. Its also my rationale for an effective one world government, with local regional control like a court system hierarchy. (In which I'd list the worst off areas of the world, and work on them sequentially to raise the base of the world up) 4, In the Middle East? Iran has a sphere, a clear group of proxy countries or regions it influences and controls. Turkey is getting one in Syria and Central Asia as Russia weakens, so is Israel. Without America's military projection, The EU will have to project its sphere for it to continue to exist, that’s the new dynamic. 5, I'd argue war is a natural organic catalyst for peace, but you are correct; it took a political effort because those nations valued their sovereignty, as discussed. 6, Putin is trying to rebuild the USSR, its what his mind is, its what he grew up in. I've seen maps from the early war indicating an invasion of Moldova. Their state TV talk about the Baltics and Poland. There are literal false flags on Estonia in play. Some units are flying USSR flags. I mean what I do need to do here Zazen, see him write empire after the country name? On the one hand we have Russia propaganda, on the other a natural pattern that the entire world does, and has done for thousands of years, with literal wars and threats going on right now pushing into Europe. *For the first Video: The Nordstream pipeline is taken out and will remain down for the war. LNG export has been taken out, natural gas storage and operation has been badly damaged in Western Russia. But I’d answer yes, Trump wants the world. I’m not sure what the point here is to this conversation. America bad? Yes, they are authoritarian. That’s why Europe needs a sphere and needs its military to push back against the Russians and defend against America (greenland for example). But i'll take authoritarian assistance to push back people directly invading any day of the week. 7, I look at what’s happening on the map and speak about it. I don’t much care what the US or the UK, the EU news, or anyone else is telling me the reality is. I watch it and make up my own mind. At the moment Russia has waged a war against the civilian population of Ukraine for years, i've watched too many atrocities to ever want a single Russian influence in the UK or Europe. It's threatened every country in Europe. Its state TV has claimed it wants to invade. It's pushing its drones into Europe. This is the fear we are reacting to. Its not something America is telling us, its what Russia is DOING AND TELLING US, their spies are frequent, their far right groups active, their threats constant, their wars ongoing, and their immigrant push working to destabilize Europe. - Oh and did I mention this is what always happens with Russia, they invade, its a constant historical pattern. I watched 15 minutes of the last video it advocates weaking EU interdependency and appeasing an aggressive expanionist Russia. Europe is no longer massively dependent on Russia’s energy. That’s propaganda, only the countries that don't want to adapt are. Russia is interested in expansion; you don’t appease dictators. There was no argument, statistics, or rationale behind the first 15 minutes, just do this and America bad. - Might as well have been Russian state TV nonesense, all it needed was a lot more shouting and some USSR music playing in the background.

@Twentyfirst That was convincing. Well done. I'd agree internally China's collective consciousness, as a country, is more conscious than the US. Externally and individually, i'd argue differently, but collectively as a country, yes. The reason is that they have stricter social controls and embrace more aspects of socialism, which gives them a healthier social framework for things like family values, as you point out. Believe it or not, until they started expanding and pushing out into other countries or shared sea territories, becoming a threat, I used to want to live in China, I learned Mandarin for six months. All human behaviour is to meet the six human needs. That's universal. This is why consciousnesses on the planet is not that different and follow a predictable pattern of development, reinforced by their peer group, which is what defines the upper limit for many people, and gives China a potential edge. People are people the world over. They want things like safety, security, and food. Certainty, Significance, Connection etc, then comfort and a few luxuries if they can get them. On a country level. I could point to thousands of years of history. And people's focus being so short, that collectively they don't see patterns in history as relevant anymore. But sadly, they are just playing out over and over again. China is not a benevolent power; it's got a bloody history just like everyone else, and now it's gaining an edge, it's ever trying to expand its influence and borders. - This is what is always happening due to money being the defining factor of everyone's lives, the world's currency is a de facto religion. If China can take Taiwan diplomatically, it will. Economically, it will. Militarily, it will. Because it can. That's the only thing that matters to most leaders in power currently. Not in Europe. We've been happy to collectively build in relative peace, while American adventurism decided to engage Russian-backed and aligned regimes around the world. - Because it could. - Just like BRICS is doing now in places like Africa. There's a large difference in European Cultures and American culture, their foreign policy, their governance, their military structure and economic policy/outlook. Treating them as one means we are having two different conversations and risks you doing what others accuse America of doing to India in BRICS, solidifying and rearming NATO (which is what's happened) I'll end with: We are fixing our own problems. Russia is a problem, its directly threatening our security, or specifically, the aging KGB relic of Putin dreaming of the USSR is a problem we are fixing.

If it's on earnings, it doesn't matter where they live; it's where the money is being received. Ideally, it would be where it was produced also, so there was no imbalance, but that would require a socialist consideration in a person's mind. I agree, but what kept them in check? The ideal scenario, but the same question. What keeps whatever new system develops in check? The answer to both these questions will be People. Which is why you raise the base of anything up. Which requires an undemonizing of socialism, and applying its principles in a balanced, sensible way to those in the worst conditions or states of mind/body.

Fair enough. I personally get fed up with being called American in these conversations; it drives me nuts. Yes on Europe. Any large country you can name does the same thing given the opportunity, resources, and technological edge. Humans are humans the world over, and it's been that way since the dawn of time. There are outliers, as always, but it's not the major powers. Describe how the collective of China is more conscious than the collective of the US, without a moral argument being the central point. This may surprise you, because people may think I hate Russians in my description of their foreign policy, I don't, this man has a lot of takes I agree with. Its not a perfect analogy, but the Kings part is. The reason the world fights is in the fact money is the controlling force of the world. It will always fight while this is the case, because it requires/rewards a zero-sum focus and approach. No matter who controls the world currency. Whether its gold, the dollar or the yuan there will be conflict if it's the central focus on which the world is based.

We've got a long way to go on this one. Here's a reflection for you. Russia is China.

@Twentyfirst The only time I have mentioned the US in these posts was to say corruption is high there. You are doing the comparison. I loathe morality arguments; they do not cross cultural, ethical, or even individual perspectives well. If you want this line of reasoning: You'd have been better to say, from your European perspective.... your argument is flawed because... but you are too laser-focused on the US, a country I increasingly don't like or trust. It clouds every sentence you make from actually focusing on what's being said. If you want to get past the noise, just focus on the message, not who is saying it, where they are from, or why. *Oh and I repeatedly do say what you've said, I did so throughout this thread because it brings people closer together to acknowledge everyone operates off the six human needs, and all they do is in service of meeting them. Countries play zero sum games with people's lives all day every day. Its sick, but first we've got to deflate this your right i'm wrong, because this side is good and that bad mechanic that is in everyone's mind.

It's not complicated. People are greedy; in their hands, some get rewarded. Governments can force a better quality of life for more people at once at the expense of some. Example arguments against this are that people need to compete, fight, and earn it to progress society, technology and mankind as a whole Example arguments for this are, how many sports cars and luxury homes does that millionaire or billionaire need before its absurd? The answer, as always, is a balance.

Exactly why the government needs to give the money to people, business owners never will.

Proof I am tone deaf to Western war crimes? Do you want 500 quotes where I am not? 1, How many do you want, its not as if they are hard to find: A) Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nearly-2-million-excess-deaths-followed-chinas-sudden-end-covid-curbs-study-2023-08-25/ Which included mass-testing and stringent and persistent quarantine lockdown B) Think Global Health https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/shadow-chinas-lockdown-remains China’s problems stem from how Xi’s administration ended its zero-COVID policy, which relied primarily on draconian lockdowns to eradicate the coronavirus. They raked in profits, but China had to rely on lockdowns to keep the coronavirus suppressed. I like this article, it says how China were initially trying to ignore it at their peril, and then they went too far the opposite way, sounds familiar to me as to what many governments did, only China was draconian, unsurprisingly. C) Radio Free Asia https://www.rfa.org/english/china/2024/12/06/china-zero-covid-anniversary/ Guo and his mother were left to get by on potatoes and cabbage, while they heard of elderly people who lived alone without internet access starving to death that winter. 2) Its perverted to think you need to kill 1 man's voice if you've a population of 1.5 billion people. That's a fragile country. 3) Tibet | East Turkestan | China's absurd amount of border disputes | China just claiming the entire south China sea, screw every other country there. - Typical authoritarian greed for territory. 4) Yes Russia. Threats are not normal. They've become normal since BRICS started taking power, threats destabilise the world. - Like that other country you like so much, America. The fact BRICS are doing it now doesn't make it any less destabilising. 5) China have been doing something for the last decade. When they are standing in Taiwan it's far too late. 6) For some reason, you are under the mistaken impression I like the US. Its the typical BRICS answer. The US are bad. And? What does that have to do with China's boom and bust sucking?

Yes. Thank you! THANK YOU! Its a European problem at its core. The desire to preserve the independence of countries leads to more countries. Meaning a stronger likelihood of any one of so many countries coming to hostilities or dispute. It's been this way since the feudal system, and built from that fractured nature. This was somewhat solved within the EU, but outside of it still exists. Its not the desire but the result that's a problem. A lot of war happens in Africa, for example, because they are also very fractured. There is an inherent advantage in being a large unified block like China or the EU, now, such a block can be effectively ruled (in eras gone by, they just repeatedly fractured). But when one country tries to do it by force in Europe, it has always been resisted; it can only be done diplomatically in the modern day without a devastating war. Which is where another big friction point is. The large authoritarian countries to the east just assume that absorbing countries is natural, whereas in Europe, we preserve them (democracies anyway, because democracies align with this view). A long time ago, Europe was repeatedly conquered from the outside (especially the UK), so this was bred into the nations. Might makes right. Europe gained such a technological edge, they were able to conquer anywhere, which explains their overseas behaviour and the resulting fallout of the larger wars. The desire eventually to create peaceful coexistence with other democracies doing the same came about and created the EU.

Yes, European Powers Ally together against expansionist European powers. its happened for hundreds of years, more, it's happening now against Russia. It's a familiar pattern that requires understanding that each country in Europe, no matter the size, has its sovereignty and culture not only respected but celebrated. None are seen as a buffer states from a European perspective, not willingly anyway. BRICS. Of course, everyone's going to milk the war to their advantage, individuals and countries. But BRICS vs NATO allows Russia to attack NATO in smaller theatres or collectively as a whole. They could overwhelm a small country like Estonia, which only has about 7,500 active service members, and then just dig in. Sure Estonia can call on reserves if they get warning. Russia may even cut the Suwałki Gap and thus encircle the Baltic, which is harder as Poland is no pushover, but the distance to Kaliningrad is not far, and it can be attacked from two directions. Part of it is that you can only fit so many people inside a small area. There is a battlefield term called "unit capacity," which effectively means only so many NATO forces can fit in a small area, and tactical nukes could be used to just wipe them. Tactical nukes are tiny in comparison and designed to take out clusters of units. Its one consideration as to why Russia's drones are probing into the center of Europe, to see NATO's force groupings and hit them at the start of the war.

Germany has officially declared they are in conflict with Russia. I think the drone hitting their territory was the last straw to publicly deny it. So whatever you think the reasons for or against are, whichever side you've decided to embrace: The reality is Germany is in conflict with Russia. I'd describe it as a cold war, but that's my perspective.

1, On Estonia I've told you so many times why Russia has a possibility of attacking the Baltics or Poland, why it would benefit them and how now they can do it. i'll just be repeating myself @zazen, you can't or won't see it in your framing. I'll add the video showing how close we are to war. Maybe that'll bypass the hundred reasons I keep listing and the vast potential power of BRICS, to just show the state of the world. – Potential power is power in geopolitics. 2, India, China and BRICS Thank you for admitting China and India don't consider European security. Europe and the US did consider India's security because they considered it more of an ally. Anything goes against India in a war state. I've seen 'oh poor innocent india' spoken or written many times; they are making their choice strategically. You are championing BRICS messing around domestically in their competitors' countries politically, causing social unrest, fighting land wars and trade wars. And calling this acceptable as it's been done before the opposite way, then getting confused when the same is returned. It'd like me being confused as to why BRICS formed or decided to compete with the West, its not hard to work out or see. I think it's an idiotic move of old dictators to force land wars when their economic positions are improving so rapidly relative to their competitors, but I understand it, and the desire to project power over others when you have it, which resides in many men's minds. – You’ll counter this with an understandable security argument and I’ll either say spheres move until they are stopped, OR just point again to hundreds of years of history. 3, We are literally in a cold war zazen. Literally. I don't think you are aware that almost every war the US fought was against regimes backed, funded, armed and trained by Russia (or China). Of course Russia pushes its influence way past its borders; it was the second biggest arms dealer on the planet and the direct competitor for the US, its been highly active in shaping the Middle East and Africa. They just don't blare it on their media, or overplay their hand, sounded to trumpets like some patriotic diatribe, which the US did in the 1960s - 2000's You refuse to acknowledge Europe has a sphere, and as a block is far stronger than Russia is. I'd put Poland against Russia, but backed up by Germany, France, the UK etc, forget it. Russia is far weaker. That’s the regional realignment; just like BRICS is able to push the US’s influence back, Europe does the same to Russia. The US supplies the weapons, but it's Europe and Russia that were directly engaged against each other for centuries (like all great powers till they aligned in Europe). You might not like this, but that is the dynamic in countries that require spheres, a trade empire or prioritize land gain in their foreign policy. NATO is a large defensive alliance. You have a personal bias on this subject that clouds any conversation, both in its decision making but also strength: Its GDP without the USA far dwarfs Russia, and is comparable with China, more with other potential allies in the region like the UK or Turkey. Potential power is power in geopolitics, not seeing this was a failing of the west looking at Russia in this recent war. Why everyone wants Europe to remilitarize directly to consider its perspective is beyond me. Nobody takes history seriously, because Europe's remilitarizing concerns the hell out of me. I guess power needs to be demonstrated to be seen, which is what BRICS also concluded. 4, Russia and the EU were intertwined. Less so now, but I agree it's a mutual recession, and necessary to show everyone the interconnected nature of the world to counter this nationalist trend, but it's a necessity because of BRICS supporting Russia's aggression, and nobody wants a direct shooting match, although that possibility is getting closer. Russia is fully in BRICS yes. There is no going back for decades to meaningful trade with Europe. What you haven’t considered is there are other markets, and they are now getting the investment. India was but its shot itself in the foot also. To accept that, you’d need to accept both perspectives! The reason the pressure has slowly been turned up rather than completely obliterate the country's factories, oil etc. Is twofold, one not to cause unnecessary pain to Europe's own countries, and two to not draw such a shock reaction from Russia as it is hollowed out from the inside out. Hungary is already aligned with Russia, on the Ukraine issue specifically, it makes little odds what happens to them in their decision making. Removing Russian influence on their economy will take them decades before they align more with the EU. 5, Perspectives have to shift to reach a compromise; zero sum thinking needs to be transcended. Exactly, you can only posit one perspective, done in great depth and detail, but all your conclusions are half answers. It's structural, but for one side. I can 100% see, understand and appreciate your perspective. If you were advocating that Russians were monsters, and BRICS were merely aggressive warmongers, I’d be giving you a different perspective. I will restate my exact framing of this situation: Given their economic, technological and population growth rate, BRICS are engaging in unnecessary land wars and aggressive expansion for short-term advancements, which is destabilising the world. They have old territorial ideals and an inability to consider the sovereignty of smaller nations. - As an alliance, they were and can achieve all their objectives without firing a shot, if they are able to objectively analyse the state of the world. There we go: If this were instead a gradual realignment, none of this conversation would be happening. Because everyone would still be asleep. If China weren’t obsessed with a 1000-year-old map, none of this would be happening. They have a gigantic and powerful country already, but just like the US they are pushing this influence outward, whatever their method of doing so. If Russia just decided oh look we have the biggest country on the planet, we actually don’t need a 0.01% territorial gain to improve our station in life, this would not be happening either. Putting a buffer around a country that large is just impractical to enforce. But that’s not how BRICS thinks. More is better. They are stuck in an old 80s American mindset, only for them its towards territory. I know there are 500 other reasons, we keep listing them, which is why it's odd you can’t see why Russia would invade Estonia. You argue that the EU should just accept X, well why the heck can’t you turn that mirror back on the side you’ve embraced, on the things causing the hot part of this war? Not the overall struggle, but the part that’s killing people. Because doing that would mean you’d have to adapt the structure you’ve built up, to include the full reality on the ground, not what you like or don’t like. I don’t like Russia, at all. I hate authoritarians, but it doesn’t factor into my analysis of a country's place in the world. – Below is exactly how authoritarians think. If this were China on this border, I’d be telling you Europe would have a hell of a time, and the buffer state would naturally be in Poland. They are roughly 9 times stronger in GPD than Russia, they lead a large economic block, they have ten times the population. This is not China; this is a tenth of China. Would I like people to break out of this authoritarian, zero sum mindset? Hell yes. But they have not done, so that's why I am framing it this way. if it were my way, we'd have a global government and regional councils.