Comments

  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Personally, I think the military balance has changed significantly.

    The Arab nations are no longer completely clueless when it comes to military matters, and recent history is filled with examples of how to counter the traditional western way of war (even carried out by the Arabs themselves).

    In addition, Israel has a tiny population compared to its neighbors, and it would simply crumble under the weight of a long war like the one we see in Ukraine. Not to mention the fact that if it ever were to be under a serious attack, the Palestinian population may rise up against it, which would be an uprising roughly equal to that of Israel's entire Jewish population.

    This is bleak to say the least.

    The Arab nations are all aligned to the BRICS, which means they have access to military knowledge and resources from capable states like China and Russia, further diminishing any power imbalance.


    Yes, Israel possibly has nuclear weapons. The truth is, we don't know, and we don't know how many.

    My sense is that a handful of (potentially outdated) nuclear weapons aren't going to change the power balance in a meaningful way, since nuclear use by Israel will likely mean they have to nuke their own territory, which is why they have always referred to it as 'the Samson option'.


    There are no good outcomes for Israel is it ever comes to blows with its neighbors.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    It's not so severe as you make it to sound, because once the operation ends and we have some kind of a cease-fire, then the people will forget the issue. Out of sight, out of mind.ssu

    I don't think this is true, with an eye on the changing geopolitical reality in the Middle-East.

    The West can "forget the issue", but the geopolitical shift with Arab nations aligning to BRICS and taking a bigger role cannot simply be ignored. Or rather one may ignore it at their own peril.

    And that goes double for Israel, because all of these Arab nations have a bone to pick with Israel over the question of Palestine specifically.

    Israel is a small island in a sea of historical and potential enemies, and it is cultivating the seeds of a gigantic disaster within and without its own borders.


    I honestly think you don't fully understand what is at stake here.

    The only reason Israel still exists is because of its "special relationship" with the United States and basically the promise that the United States will come to Israel's rescue if it were ever in real trouble.

    When the United States gets embroiled in intense security competition with China in the Pacific, which is essentially guaranteed to happen at some point in the near future, the United States will no longer be able to make good on that promise.

    If Israel sours its relation with the United States significantly, the United States may want to cut off Israel entirely, since Israel right now is clearly the United States' Achilles heel. It can't afford to drop Israel, nor can it afford to get bogged down in the Middle-East trying to protect it. It's clear that America's enemies are leveraging this bind.

    Lastly, the true nature of the US-Israel 'special relationship' remains somewhat of a mystery to me. I have never heard a truly satisfactory explanation why the Israel lobby is so powerful in the United States, but my suspicion is that its roots lie in the US financial system.

    That financial system is under heavy pressure, and basically headed for a giant crash in the near future as well, further compounding the geopolitical issues I have already laid out.

    When that system crashes, it may fundamentally change the US-Israel relation to Israel's detriment.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Right, in other words:

    "It's not me who is crazy. It's the whole world that is crazy."

    You realize how rare it is for almost literally the entire world to agree on something in the UNSC and UNGA?
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    I agree, the lobby is extremely powerful, and I think that's why Biden dared not bypass Netanyahu (who is heavily favored by the lobby). It's also worth mentioning that Obama was in a much, much stronger position than Biden is today, which allowed him to take a tougher stance on Israel.

    Right now, it appears as though Netanyahu is trying to leverage Biden's weak position, but he's nearing the end of the rope.

    US support for Israel is tanking US credibility pretty much across the globe. Arab nations are an especially important factor in this, because US influence in the region is rapidly waning and basically all Arab nations are aligning themselves with the BRICS, threatening to cut the US out.

    I think soon the Israeli government and the lobby will realise that there are in fact things more important to the United States than US-Israel relations, and that overplaying their hand is going to fundamentally hamstring their position in the future.

    As for the Israeli policy vis-á-vis Gaza and the West Bank, it's becoming painfully clear what that is:

    UN expert says Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, calls for arms embargo

    Note: not "potential" genocide - actual genocide.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Just look at how desperately the US is trying to play both sides:

    US says ceasfire resolution non-binding

    Suddenly UNSC resolutions are non-binding. Even an IR freshman could tell you UNSC resolutions are legally binding.

    This would be hilarious if it weren't for the 'aiding and abetting genocide' part.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    The only reason would be if Trump's base would be upset about Israel. It's not. It's the leftist students in the university campuses and the Arab Americans who are upset about the treatment of Palestinians.ssu

    You don't think there are many normal people looking at what is happening in Gaza and drawing their conclusions? Where I live we call this "the silent majority".

    At any rate, I'm not an American so I couldn't tell you exactly why people are favoring Trump over Biden, or why Americans believe Trump might be able to change things.

    I think the whole slew of failed policies Biden is responsible for plays a big role, and that includes their failure to stop Israel from crossing the line.

    Maybe it's just a matter of Biden having been so atrocious that any alternative, including Trump, is considered better.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Biden has been stooging for the Israeli government in the hopes of securing support from the Israel lobby, which could in turn make the difference in the upcoming election.

    However, Biden's popularity is tanking, and a big reason for that is his unconditional support for Israel and the extension of a blank cheque to Netanyahu after the October attacks. A blank cheque which the Israelis happily cashed in as they went all-in on a punitive campaign against a trapped civilian population.

    In addition, there are many other things that make Biden unpopular. Project Ukraine is a neocon endeavor that Biden has long been a part of, and it is widely regarded as being in the process of failling. His age is also an obvious problem.

    There are two things that could save his election: A) Trump being unable to run, or B) a war breaking out.

    In other words, the Israel lobby's importance in the upcoming election is diminishing, and as such the US may take a harder stance on Israel, since Israel is estranging itself from the entire world with its genocidal behavior, and its dragging the US down with it, destroying what little credibility the US had left.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    With a second Trump presidency looking more likely, perhaps the United States may come to its senses.

    If Biden is going to lose anyway, the US might as well stop making itself complicit in genocide and accept Israel and the Israel lobby are going to throw a fit.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    IDF general: US official accused IDF of sexually abusing Palestinian women, general says

    Normally I would treat articles like this as likely spin, but it comes from the Jerusalem Post, and the intelligence comes from Israel's best friend, Uncle Sam himself.

    Odd.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    For the first time, a demand for an immediate ceasefire has passed a UN Security Council vote. The US abstained.

    It seems like supporting genocide is no longer in US interests, or rather, tanking Joe's chances at re-election.

    It remains to be seen whether this will be anything more than a symbolic victory, since even if the US reprimands Israel in word, it likely will continue to support the genocide through its actions, as it has.

    It seems ol' Joe is between a rock and a hard place. Support genocide, invite Trump. Condemn genocide, get dragged through the mud by the Israel lobby.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Yes, it could be argued that Hamas committed genocide on October 7th.Punshhh

    Despite the barbarity of the act, anyone who argues that isn't worth taking seriously.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And that policy has to start with the real situation.ssu

    The relatively stable and friendly relationship between Russia and the West in 2008? :chin:
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Make no mistake; while there are many perverse incentives at play in this conflict, and the MIC is certainly one of them, it is US grand strategy that has primacy.


    The US succeeded in:
    - driving a wedge between Europe and Russia
    - tanking the German economy (a geopolitical rival)
    - changing the nature of European energy dependency
    - creating fertile ground for further conflict in eastern Europe

    And,
    - is in the process of remilitarizing Europe, which will further increase the chance of escalated conflict between Europe and Russia in the future.


    This is the ultimate goal: to prevent both Europe and Russia from becoming the laughing third once the US gets sucked into large-scale security competition in the Pacific, by embroiling the two in a war with each other.

    That's why Ukraine matters to the US - it's a geopolitical pivot area and the key to stability in eastern Europe, thus the key to stability between Europe and Russia.

    Thus by controlling Ukraine, the US got to decide when conflict would break loose. After all, the Russians made it clear over the course of some 15 years that Ukraine was a red line for them: if the US wanted conflict, which they did, they knew exactly what they had to do to get it.

    Russia and Europe also represent a gigantic market that the Chinese will have to rely on once the conflict between the US and China starts. The US will block Chinese overseas trade; that's why the Chinese started their Belt & Road Initiative - to create an alternative to sea trade, to keep their economy going when conflict erupts. If Europe and Russia are in shambles, it will negatively impact the Chinese economy and deny them the market that they need to keep their economy going.

    It's a classic strategy of divide and conquer, and, if all else fails, of sowing maximum chaos on the Eurasian mainland, which is the only way the US can maintain its primacy with its relatively small population of 300 million.


    Don't let the MIC or BlackRock play the patsy here. Again, it's US grand strategy that is driving this conflict and US decision making. Corporate interests are just the vultures flocking to the smell of fresh corpses.
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    Maybe the period of US history you're referring to is an exception, where the political elite can be said to have gone against the will of the people with a moral justification. That's hardly the case today, though. Then again, wasn't the Democratic party complicit in the whole affair? I can't say I know a ton about that part of US history.
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    Many times it can be the politician that falls out from the "in-crowd", messes up or gets his hand in the cookie jar. You won't find a better person to tell how crooked the elites are!

    The real issue is, what really to do then!
    ssu

    Whoever leads the crowd probably doesn't matter all that much. They are just a vessel for the discontent. That's why they're so often demagogues and other types of uncouth individuals as you suggest.

    In the end it doesn't matter. Populism is a symptom of corruption and thereby that the system is nearing its expiry date. It will be refreshed the easy way or the hard way.

    Yet are these individuals? Or is this a class or something vague?ssu

    Corruption is an ugly beast that affects individuals as well as entire systems, so it's hard to say. For populism to take root, I would have to assume the majority of the political class to be corrupt, because if it weren't there would be counter-forces in the system that would make populism unnecessary.

    The real question is if targeting people is the answer in the first place.ssu

    Corruption is a human phenomenon, so yes, I think it is.

    However, when populism takes hold the system is probably already so rotten that targeting individuals is no longer a feasible option, and thus the anger is directed at the political elite as a whole.

    The alternative would be fighting corruption one rotten individual at a time, which is obviously unfeasible and would play into the hands of the corrupt elite.

    And one thing is how do you define someone to be the culprit. Is trying, but making mistakes wrong? Or not doing anything about some issue when believing it's not your responsibility in the first place.ssu

    That's the 'force of nature' element I'm trying to get at. When shit starts flying, nobody cares about the details anymore and people who are genuinely innocent would probably do well to get out of the way instead of trying to plead their innocence to an angry mob.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    We don't need historians telling us what happened. We have first-hand accounts from the Ukrainian side and neutral mediators of what happened.

    Ignoring those in favor of random people who say what you want to hear is silly and a clear sign of bias.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The history speaks for itself.

    The US intentionally sought to flip Ukraine, while a neutral Ukraine was the key to stability in eastern Europe and everybody from the administrations in Washington to the Kremlin knew it, and openly complained about it.

    Well, they got what they wanted: war.

    Vicky did her job.

    Worse still, they always knew they were just going to prop up Ukraine until it eventually collapsed, to maintain at least some international credibility towards their other allies. Vicky taking the fall for this was probably established way beforehand.
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    Your definition is more like saying "Yep. Populists got it right!" :wink:ssu

    Well, yes. Kind of.

    They often correctly sense there is something wrong with the political elite. Their methods and visions of "the way forward" can be wrong, of course.

    Populism doesn't appear overnight. Usually years of neglect precede it, which is where all the anger and discontent comes from.

    Corrupt political elites especially cause a lot of anger, because it makes people feel powerless. The political elite no longer have the best interest of the nation at heart, and they have usurped the mechanism by which the nation could correct that.

    The people are right to feel that anger.

    So if that is basically universal for all politicians, then what makes the populist different? In short, it's the antagonism, which is in the core message of populism: the culprits are the elite, who are against
    the common honorable people. And if the populist has been part of the elite, that's absolutely no problem: he or she can just say: "Believe me, I know these people, I've been part of them!" And immediately the populist is made, by his or her own count, as a rebel and the enemy of this elite, who he or she has betrayed here when coming to the help of the common people.

    A political ideology that has antagonism and starts from an inherent juxtaposition might not be the most helpful to create social cohesion, and can surely be abused.

    Before anybody makes the remark here that "Isn't sometimes antagonism justified", it surely can be so. Revolutions do happen because of justified reasons. You can have a corrupt, out of touch elite that is ruining the country and when there is no other way to correct the system, then you can have in the end a revolution. But then it should be about the individuals in that elite, not about general hatred toward elites. It should be about correcting the culture of corruption and unlawfulness. It is abot the absolutely crucial question of how to solve the problems and what to build in the place of the old. When the ideology itself is antagonist from the start, it has the difficulty to then make the small fixes that are needed. There's the urge to just throw everything away and you can end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Also when you have started from the idea of the "evil elite" that you have to oppose, it's quite logical to replace this with your "own elite" of the right-minded. It isn't that your objective is to listen to your opponents and try to get some consensus. The populist has the moral high ground: he or she is working for the people, the common man and woman.
    ssu

    If innocent people get targeted, that is of course regrettable. Personally, I don't see this as a problem particular to populism. "Guilty by association" is an altogether human phenomenon, and honestly populism is more of a "force of nature" than something truly rational. It's something that the corrupt (or neglectful) elite themselves create, and eventually it gets out of control, and is led by mankind's less sophisticated tendencies. I'm not even convinced people like Trump play a key role in it. I think they only serve as a vessel. That's why many people who don't like Trump still vote for him. Same goes for Wilders in the Netherlands.
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    There is a long history of "the people" supporting the centralization of power as a means of keeping recalcitrant elites in check.Count Timothy von Icarus

    I think this is a wrong depiction.

    Corrupt elites are often extremely powerful, since they have hollowed out the state (which formerly protected citizens) and put it infront of their own cart, leaving the citizen defenseless.

    The only way to remove a corrupt elite is therefore by overpowering them, sometimes through mass voting, discontent/protests, sometimes through revolution and violence. This is something markedly different from "authoritarianism", since in one instance it is a means and in the other a goal.
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    But then the "people's" will often is to do some pretty nasty things. Massacre the Jews, again and again, disenfranchise and segregate African Americans, etc.?Count Timothy von Icarus

    You're talking about constitutional/human rights, not the basic function of democracy.

    Corrupt elites don't serve democracy - they undermine it and use it for their own gain. Yes, sometimes states do awful things, almost categorically enabled by the elites.
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    Many of this thread's participants seem to view "populism" as something negative, and therefore try to understand it in negative terms: "anti-democratic", "authoritarian", "truth-denying", etc.

    I think this is fundamentally wrong.

    "Populism" is a term that is used when a political elite continuously refuses to acknowledge problems that exist inside a society.

    The person outside the political establishment who does acknowledge the problems (A Trump, a Wilders, etc.) is then called a populist.

    The genesis of populism happens inside the political elite who, contrary to what their citizens believe, believe "there is no problem" (or have a vested interest in pretending there isn't).

    This political elite forgets that it is there not to impose its opinions on its citizens, but to carry out the will of the people. Because this political elite does not want to carry out the will of the people, it attempts to persecute those who do as "populists".

    It's a political elite who has somehow gotten it into their ant brains that they are the "rightful ruling class", and that what the people believe or want changed, solved, etc. is unimportant.

    This usually goes hand-in-hand with a healthy dose of hubris and an inability to accept view points other than one's own (again, the current political climate is filled with this dogmatic "wrongthink" attitude).

    It's indicative of a political elite that has gotten out of touch with reality, and with the people. The term "populism" is a symptom of a failing democratic system, and people who busy the term are probably part of the reason why the system is failing!
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Queen Vicky has resigned.

    The Ukraine debacle is slowly becoming complete.

    Though, one may wonder why Vicky resigned, since the US approach to Ukraine has been mostly successful. 15 years of prodding the bear finally bore fruit and got them the conflict they were looking for.

    Perhaps Washington is disappointed by the lack of enthousiasm for war in Europe?
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    Good that you point out this, because here lies one important reason why populism is in the end anti-democratic.ssu

    No, I think this is too much of a sweeping statement. The PVV in the Netherlands for example is both populist and not anti-democratic.
  • I’m 40 years old this year, and I still don’t know what to do, whether I should continue to live/die
    Sorry to interject, but are you still getting psychological help?

    You mentioned it earlier in the thread, and judging by what I am reading you are in need of professional guidance.

    I'd steer clear of a forum like this if you are sensitive to certain philosophies. Philosophy is maybe a part of the answer, but probably not in the stage you seem to be in right now. I'd sooner view some of the people here an actual hazard to your health.
  • The Role of the Press
    My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said and believes that the press has a duty to stake out a preferred social objective and then to use its power to promote that objective? Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, or do you see the press as having no objective other than the presentation of facts from various viewpoints, leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw?Hanover

    The former option sounds to me little different from propaganda, and I am convinced many major news outlets have degenerated into just that.

    I find myself firmly in the second camp. The press should seek to provide objective coverage of events. Obviously perfectly objective coverage doesn't exist, but if a news agency genuinely pursues that goal, it will do a good enough job.

    If journalism can be said to have a proper objective, it should be to scrutinize those in power through investigative journalism, and not to play as lackeys of the powerful.

    Media are very powerful, and perverse incentives are everywhere. It is no coincidence that there is a 'press code', much like there is for example a hippocratic oath.
  • Why populism leads to authoritarianism
    Corruption of the elite causes populism (basically, wide-spread discontent among the people), which causes a rejection of the system since it is deemed to be corrupt, though it isn't necessarily anti-democratic, but it can be.

    The important factor here is the cause of populism. It doesn't appear out of nowhere. It's a symptom of an elite that is increasingly corrupt and losing touch with the people, and reality. This is for example readily apparent in the US and Europe.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    A while back we discussed the danger posed by the Houthi missile attacks in the Red Sea.

    It now seems the first vessel has sunk - the cargo ship Rubymar. Quite a large vessel as well.

    This goes to show that the missiles used by the Houthi are a serious threat. They're weapons of war capable of sinking large vessels, and that includes military vessels if they are isolated and their defenses overwhelmed.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    If the US would be such a Machiavellian player when it comes to Europe, why favor then the emergence of the EU?ssu

    That's easy. The EU is an undemocratic, untransparent, bureaucratic monster of an institution - inept and easily corruptable by design, which grants the US easy avenues of influence and saves it the hassle of having to deal with each European nation seperately.

    Gee, thanks America!

    I'm sorry, but this is just naive.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I fear what happens when the US can no longer keep Europe weak.

    Ever since the end of the Cold War, there has been plenty of anti-American sentiment in Europe as a result of the various wars that have been fought.

    Populism / nationalism are on the rise, and such movements are generally critical of participating in the US' geopolitical games (for example, PVV in the Netherlands, AfD in Germany).

    We are soon approaching a point where populism takes over, and the muppets and puppets who have been shilling for the Americans will be ousted.

    Moreover, the US will be forced sooner or later to address China, giving it less room to focus on Europe.

    As I mentioned, at that point Europe will simply be seen as a potential rival, and there are a lot of buttons the Americans can press with which it can try to embroil Russia and Europe into a long-term war with each other, which I have no doubt they will try to do - in fact, I believe this is already the American strategy for Ukraine.

    The fact that their goal is "to weaken Russia" is clear for all to see. Now it's time for the Europeans to realize that "to weaken Europe" is the other side of that coin.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Just reading through some of these passages has me reeling at how incriminating this stuff is.

    To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.Zbigniew Brzezinski

    This once again proves one cannot be too cynical when analysing US foreign policy.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    By the way, , you claim to have read The Grand Chessboard.

    So how come you have failed to notice chapter 2 makes exactly my point?

    Dishonesty? Illiteracy?

    Again, you have wasted my time.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    So learn how to use references, Tzeench. It's very sloppy and wrong (at least in academic circles) to say something and then refer to papers that don't say what you are saying!ssu

    They paint a clear picture. I could dig through them to find the exact quotes, but I have done that enough times to know you will handwave them simply because it's not something you want to hear.

    It's this type of willful naivety towards US intentions that allows the US to get away with things like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine etc. (it's a very long list...), and Europe will be the next on that pile of nations ruined by the US.

    If you think I'm going to conform myself to academic standards to educate people who don't want to be educated you are sadly mistaken.

    Engage with my arguments instead. They are simple enough.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    If after 500+ pages of discussion these thinkers and their works are still a mystery to you, I can't be bothered to educate you either. (I have mentioned, quoted and linked them many times) Do it yourself:

    The Geographical Pivot of History (Mackinder, 1904)

    Defense Planning: Guidance FY 1994-1999 (aka "The Wolfowitz Doctrine", Paul Wolfowitz, 1992)

    The Grand Chessboard (Brzezinski, 1997)

    But you don't need to read these works at all to understand that what I'm laying out is the basic formula for US dominance. It must keep the Eurasian mainland divided, or lose its dominant position. With strong powers on the Eurasian mainland, the US would simply be an island with a mere 300 million inhabitants, incapable of securing global dominance.

    That's the basic strategy which has propelled US foreign policy since the 1900's, and with renewed intensity after the end of the Cold War. It's the basic strategy that one talks about when they talk about the Project of a New American Century (PNAC), 'neocons', etc.

    The Anglosphere, consisting of all 'island nations' in practical terms, shares this basic strategic challenge, which is why the Anglosphere and the Five-Eyes alliance is the actual military alliance the US cares about. Europe simply represents temporary interests. When the US can no longer control Europe (and we are rapidly approaching that moment), it will seek its ruin. Just like the US cannot allow Russia or China to rise, it cannot allow Europe to rise either.

    And this is what is propelling US strategy today. This is why the US is pursuing long-term war in Ukraine - with the express purpose of dragging Europe into long-term conflict with Russia.

    Talking about "conspiracy" is just an admission of ignorance. All warfare is deception, and "conspiracy" is the rule, not the exception.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And the decision to join NATO was based on non-hypotheticals?boethius

    Even if it was a foolish decision, it was based on a very tangible perceived 'Russian threat'.

    What the Finns missed is that they are only putting themselves in the line of fire while there's literally zero chance of the Americans coming to their rescue when they get into trouble with the Russians - trouble that they themselves brought closer by joining NATO.

    Moreover they seem to have also failed to realize that they put themselves into prime position to be used as a pawn by the United States in the geopolitically tumultuous time we are heading into, in which the United States will view Europe as a potential rival to be kept down (destroyed even) rather than 'a friend'.

    We are roughly in agreement on that, I gather. But what I'm taking issue with is making the discussion about nuclear war that will never happen.

    The only correct answer to someone bringing up nuclear war and Finland is: Russia won't go to nuclear war over Finland, and the Americans won't go to nuclear war to defend it.

    Simple as.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    However, let's imagine the war in Ukraine comes to an end and a decade from now there's some entirely new crisis we can't really imagine now between the US and Russia.

    Or then Macron makes good on his threat to send in ground forces, and tensions spiral out of control and Russia is risking conventional defeat.

    By your own reasoning Russia would then use nuclear weapons.
    boethius

    That's piling hypotheticals upon hypotheticals.

    Besides, Macron is a clown. France has no capable army and the people of France would probably have his head at la Place de la Révolution before going to war with Russia (again :lol:).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    There's not much point in discussing nuclear war. If there is going to be nuclear war, it will be between the US and China (or their Pacific allies), and even then both sides will have nothing to gain and everything to lose, making the chance of it happening very slim.

    The US would never go to nuclear war over Europe, and the Russians would only go nuclear if Russia itself is invaded by overwhelming military force.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The US will be forced to pivot sooner or later.

    When that happens, NATO and American influence in Europe will be used to send Europe into chaos, the seeds for which have already been sown when the US sought to change Ukraine's neutral status which was the key to stability between Europe and Russia.

    What is happening is that the US fears that Russia and/or Europe will become the laughing thirds when the US is sucked into a large-scale conflict in the Pacific. Provoking war between these two is the way it intends to stop that from happening.

    People here are simply misunderstanding the US' central strategic challenge, which is to keep the Eurasian continent divided (as described by Mackinder, Wolfowitz, Brzezinski, etc.) in times of peace, and in utter chaos in times of war. (and also to stop any regional powers to arise in the Western Hemisphere, but that's another topic).

    There is no other way for the US to protect its hegemony due to its limited population and relative inability to intervene on the Eurasian continent. (thousands of miles of ocean works both ways)

    Finland made a critically short-sighted error when it jumped on the NATO bandwagon right as US power is waning. Not only is the US in no position to actually protect Finland in the case of a conflict, but Finland is actually ensuring it is first in line to suffer the consequences when the US pulls the plug on Europe with the intention of disabling it as a rival for the foreseeable future.

    Europe is heading for absolute strategic disaster.

    The situation is way worse than people realize, since they have been lulled to sleep over the last decades, foolishly believing that the Americans are our 'friends' when in fact they represent as much of a strategic threat as Russia or China.


    Also, on the topic of the UK getting special treatment - it certainly does.

    It is part of the Anglosphere and the Five-Eyes intelligence pact which is essentially the part of the US sphere of influence that the US actually cares about, because all nations within the Anglosphere share the US central strategic challenge, since they're all island nations.

    This is why the UK should not be part of a functional European security structure either.

    Note that it was the US and the UK who blocked the Istanbul agreements. Given what I just told you about the strategic challenges of island nations, it is no wonder why specifically it was these two nations who sought to block peace.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Because US politics doesn't align with EU interests and they are warmongering reptiles. If we stay in NATO sooner or later we will be pulled into a war which isn't anything else but the death throes of the end of an empire.Benkei

    If we're not careful it's even worse - we'll be the ones sacrificed on the altar of American hegemony, since the US fears that Russia and Europe will become the laughing third once it becomes engaged in a security competition with China. To prevent that, the US endeavors to draw Russia and the EU into conflict with each other, which is why it intentionally undermined the key to stability in eastern Europe - a neutral Ukraine - and subsequently did everything in its power to prevent a peaceful and diplomatic solution.
  • Is our civilization critically imbalanced? Could Yin-Yang help? (poll)
    I think that supposing that even if the main problems we as humanity face are not CAUSED by the ‘rulers’ and their allies (corporations, banks, governments, militaries), they are certainly AMPLIFIED by such agents.

    As a whole, the system seems to be locked into a game that it can’t stop, even if willing.
    (Not unlike the nuclear weapons escalations and potential global war in the past century).
    0 thru 9

    The system is made up of individuals making their individual and mostly free choices.

    One can say what they will about capitalism and the filthy rich multinationals, but who is it that gives a company like Amazon its power? It's the people who buy from Amazon. If the people stopped buying from Amazon today, Amazon would be gone tomorrow.

    And apparently the individuals that make up society still believe buying their products a little cheaper is worth the trade-off.

    Simple as.


    Democracy works in much the same way. How is it that the most powerful nation on Earth cannot produce anything better than Trump or Biden?

    Because the people have become ignorant, shallow and out of touch (Yin imbalance), and keep voting for these baboons instead of putting their foot down and demanding something better.


    Yes, there might be a part of the system that seeks to keep people ignorant, but I'm not one for excuses. One cannot outsource one's responsibility to educate oneself. It's up to people themselves to learn to distinguish fact from fiction, to not be manipulated, not to accept comforting half-truths, etc.
    If people refuse to do that, they end up with a wicked system of their own creation.


    As such, the system will only change if the people change, and that will eventually result in individual people making different choices. They make different choices if their belief system (Yin) fundamentally changes. And just to clarify, I believe that can only happen genuinely and voluntarily. There are no shortcuts here. You can't fake it, and you can't force people into it.

    Humanity's salvation will come about (if it ever does) one individual at a time. The same goes for positive change. Such is my view.
  • Is our civilization critically imbalanced? Could Yin-Yang help? (poll)
    I'm not really interested in the whole "capitalism versus communism" debate.

    Suffice to say, I think these are symptoms and not causes.