Everybody even Ukraine would have been totally happy with Ukraine being neutral... assuming that Russia wouldn't have intension of annexing large parts of Ukraine into itself, as it has done. — ssu

The move to change Ukraine's neutral status predates Russian military actions by some 6 years at least. Worse still, the Americans were aware that this was seen as a red line by the entire Russian elite even before the Bucharest Summit of 2008 took place; they knew exactly what they were doing.

Just stop and think it yourself for a moment: why would Sweden with a leftist government want to shed it's over 200 year neutrality and Finland, that earlier enjoyed the fruits of having good relations with Soviet Union and later Russia, suddenly join NATO? You think it was an American plan? — ssu

I think what plays a large role is that, despite all the historical evidence, Europe seems chronically incapable to view the United States as a ruthless great power which follows realist logic. And I think US propaganda plays a large role in that.

It's understandable. They fell for the propaganda storm and made a spur of the moment decision.

So Finland and Sweden gave up their neutral status and put themselves in the crosshairs of a future conflict to 'protect' against a power that was trying to return to stability to begin with. The power who is trying to avoid a return to stability is the one they chose to jump in bed with.

Geopolitical ineptitude is a problem that plagues all of Europe, and this is another indication of it.

The majority of Putin's rhetoric is negative. Not all. — ssu

We haven't had any real dialogue with the Russians because we refused to talk to them.

We had good relations with Russia. Finlandization has a negative definition, which as a Finn I clearly understand. — ssu

Yes, so everything that looks like normal relations with Russia you will call 'Finlandization', just like you referred to 'Finlandization of Europe'. Normal relations are, apparently, seen as something negative by you.

Is everything that makes war with "the enemy" less likely undesirable?

But your stance is that if a country attacks another and starts annexing parts of that country (and actually has done this to two of it's neighbors), then other countries should continue to have perfectly normal relations with this country. — ssu

That's not my stance.

Again, your pro-war bias is starting to shine through when you can only caricature any opinion that doesn't call for total war.

US propaganda has got you right where it wants you: begging for a war that will lead to your own destruction. I've even noticed over the course of our conversations that you repeatedly invoke World War 2.

One thing that propaganda does, is it makes you emotionally attached. When people are emotionally attached, they can no longer think rationally.

You clearly have a problem with the idea that things can return to normal after this war, even though it would likely be the best scenario for all parties involved (except the US). Why?

Because you want to see Russia punished. And that's somewhat understandable. But, guess what - that isn't going to happen in the way you envision it, and the price for clinging to this fantasy is costing thousands of Ukrainian lives per week.

Further, this effect has been amplified by US propaganda spreading insane war goals like "taking back Crimea" and "breaking apart Russia" and nonsense like that. Maximalist wargoals make people more emotional, because if one fails to reach the maximalist goals it will feel like defeat, leading to anger. It's designed to make and keep you emotional, and to make peace impossible.

Emotional actors are easy to take advantage of. This was known and written down as far back as Sun Tzu (circa 500 BC).

I'm a great supporter of deterrence: with good deterrence, you can avoid blackmail and war. Without any deterrence, Great Powers will do as they want with you. — ssu

I actually agree with this, but this is arguing after the fact.

Was changing Ukraine's neutral status a part of that deterrence? No, clearly it was provocative, and we knew the Russians perceived it as such.

Deterrence is good, but intentionally seeking to flip neutral buffers to our side, refusing dialogue, militarizing and combining it with openly hostile rhetoric is not deterrence - it's warmongering. The US then sells this to Europe because they're naive enough to believe everything Uncle Sam tells them.

Geopolitics is a delicate art that Europe understands literally nothing about, which is extremely dangerous for Europeans themselves. We know what happens to naive geopolitical actors: South Vietnam, various parties in the Middle-East, Ukraine - they get taken advantage of.

Your the one talking about enlarging the war, not me. — ssu

Do explain.

Russia with it's large armed forces and with it's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is more than a match against any EU country vis-a-vis. And with the US out of the equation, the military balance is quite on the side of Russia even if you group up European countries. — ssu

That's why I said "if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses".

We caused that military build-up by refusing a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine problem and subsequently feeding Ukraine all the weapons we have.

So not only did we let our militaries atrophy over the course of decades, we also sold what's left of them to a lost battle in Ukraine, forcing the Russians to mobilize in the process.

And now we moan about 'the Russian threat'. Please. The Americans are laughing all the way to the bank about how we let ourselves get played.

If Russia was so threatening, why aren't we at least talking with them? Talking costs nothing.

We both know the answer: talking brings with it the risk of peace.

I would love to engage with your comment, but as is unfortunately somewhat of a pattern, you're relying on me to decipher them first.

The ICJ brought out a report on the legal status of the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel, (once again) concluding it is illegal under international law, and thus confirming that Israel is a belligerent occupier to several million Palestinians.

Note that an illegal occupier cannot claim a right of legal self-defense against resistance from the people it occupies.

It once again condemns Israel's attempts to colonize the Palestinian territories via its settlement policies and:

Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property,
as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, [...]

As regards the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force, the Court notes that the
Security Council has declared on several occasions, in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and has determined that

“all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic
composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories
occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity”
(Security Council resolution 465 (1980))

In a nutshell, roughly half of Israel is not theirs.

Nothing we didn't already know, but since there are many people, including some on this forum, who are still in denial about the legality of Israel's actions, here it is.

In addition, jurisprudence like this functions as opinio iuris.

Russia has been quite consistent in attempting to annex Ukrainian territory irrelevant of NATO. As it was an "artificial" country. — ssu

They've stuck to their red line for over a decade. They told us exactly what the problem was, and they told us exactly what the consequences would be.

We chose to ignore them, and they stuck to their word.

Have you ever noticed what kind of dialogue that was? It was that Russia should have a say if a country could join or not NATO. — ssu

Ukraine's neutral status is the key to a stable Eastern Europe.

So yes, obviously Russia's position should be taken into account and not simply ignored if a stable Eastern Europe is the goal.


It's worrying how your rhetoric turns any dialogue with the Russians into something negative.

Just like the way you use the term 'Finlandization' to describe any kind of positive relations with the Russians.

It bears every hallmark of war propaganda, which is designed to make war the only outcome. The same trick was used in Ukraine to make it fling itself willingly into the abyss.

The question you should ask yourself is whether you will be the beneficiary of such a war, or whether that will be some unnamed country across the pond.

That has nothing to do with it.

This is just the reality Ukraine has to deal with.

This is pure "what if" arguments, which are unprobable and now . — ssu

The point is, you're projecting aims and goals onto the Russians for which there is no basis.

Russian rhetoric and behavior has been surprisingly consistent over the course of more than a decade when it comes to this issue.

They bent over backwards to try to preserve peace in face of NATO expansion - that's how much they valued stable relations and trade ties with the West.

Ukraine was a bridge too far, and that too they tried to resolve diplomatically, even though they were consistently ignored by NATO. Even the Minsk accords were agreed upon by NATO in bad faith, showing that it's NATO and not Russia that has rejected diplomatic solutions.

After the war broke out, the Russians have been signaling for a diplomatic solution since day 1, which again was refused by the West.

Where is this imperialist Russia that wants to "Finlandize Europe"?

They repeatedly give NATO chances for dialogue, and NATO repeatedly ignores them.

As long as you provide a decent argument I agree there's no point in restating what has already been said, but these depictions of Russia as "the big bad" are just baseless caricatures used to fearmonger by parties who want war, not peace.

↪Tzeentch, do you think the demilitarization deNazification irredentism stuff (pertaining just to Ukraine) was blather for the gallery? — jorndoe

No, they mean it.

NATO used militarization and fanatical anti-Russian elements in Ukraine to create a fait accompli with regards to its NATO membership. The Russians are looking for guarantees that that won't happen again.

Had the West not insisted on changing Ukraine's neutral status, Russia probably would have never invaded. It's worth noting that the Russians spent 6 years trying to open dialogue, before the US forced the issue in 2014.

With denazification and all that? — ssu

The point is to enter negotiations and make a deal that's acceptable for both sides. This already happened in March/April 2022, so it's clearly possible.

Trump makes absolutely shitty peace deals. — ssu

Well, a shitty peace deal is all the Ukrainians will be getting and they have the US and cronies to thank for it.

Only when Putin is dead and buried perhaps something like that can happen. — ssu

The most important factor in whether this can happen is whether the US pivots and stops fueling Russophobia in Europe.

Once the European leaders start thinking for themselves again, they will seek normalization too.

Russia wants Finlandization of all Europe. — ssu

Russia has a fraction of Europe's GDP and population. Russia is hardly a threat if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses. There's no basis for this type of fearmongering nonsense.

Europe doesn't profit from a US China war. Russia does. — ssu

Europe would profit immensely from a US-China war, because it would become a critical market for both the US and China if it stays on the sideline. Russia will do the same thing.

Furthermore, while the US and China beat each other to a pulp, Europe and Russia would remain intact and grow in relative power.

Why do you think the US is trying so hard to embroil Europe and Russia in a war with each other? It's trying to prevent either of them from becoming the laughing third.

It's easy to understand why the Russians are so keen on a diplomatic settlement when you understand this context.

The only people who don't seem to understand anything are the Europeans.

To be honest, I think a peace deal is easily within reach. The Kremlin has signaled that they want a diplomatic settlement since the start of the war.

The biggest obstacle is Ukraine itself, which got royally fucked by the US and cronies, and is now refusing to be forced into a shitty deal by the same people that encouraged it to fight on. I'd say that's somewhat understandable from the Ukrainian side, but it's a bitter pill they will eventually be forced to swallow.

The reason the royal fucking hasn't come full circle is because Ukraine probably holds some serious leverage over the Biden administration.

Once Trump enters office that will be off the table, and he will likely be free to force Ukraine to sign an uncomfortable peace deal with the Russians or withdraw support.

After that, the Russians will in all likelihood seek a return to the pre-2014 status quo, restoring economic ties with Europe. They have no reason to involve themselves into large-scale conflict with Europe when the US and China are on the cusp of war, and with Europe and Russia standing to profit greatly from that conflict.

Ok, so how is it borderline irrelevant when you seem to agree the event may give Trump an advantage in a possibly highly consequential US election? :brow:

Don't you think the failed assassination attempt makes Trump more likely to be elected in what is bound to be a close election?

Trump being almost shot is a borderline irrelevant event in the great scheme of things — despite the cool picture. — Lionino

Hmmm. This is perhaps the one instance where I think who becomes the next US president somewhat matters.

The US establishment has been deeply split over the 'pivot to Asia' (ergo - pivot away from Europe and Ukraine). If Trump were to become president it might be the moment this pivot finally happens. That would mark a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. This is why Europeans are getting nervous, Ukrainians are getting nervous, etc.

The election might be considered irrelevant to the extent that US foreign policy will be guided by geopolitical realities anyway, which will force it to pivot sooner or later. Whether that happens now or during another presidency somewhere down the line (headed by Trump or someone else) I think does matter.

The world changed drastically over the course of Biden's presidency, and it may change drastically again over the course of the next.

The window during which the US can defend its position in the world is closing.

If the US has to endure another presidency during which it focuses on the wrong things, makes the wrong decisions and sees its international power and credibility evaporate, I think it will greatly influence the US position when the pivot to Asia finally does happen and it will most likely be too late.

Fantasizing about torture for the sake of a clown - well, where does that leave you? :brow:

Wishing death on people out of personal fancy is just poor character.

Point at something Trump did that makes him deserve to be assassinated. What illegal wars did he start? Which countries did he ruin? Which regions of the world did he plunge into chaos?

I doubt you'll get much further than "he said some words I didn't like." Compared to previous US presidents and even the current one, he's a lightweight when it comes to wanton destruction.

I don't know about them, but I sure did. — frank

What did the guy do, other than being personally disliked by you, that makes him deserve to be assassinated?

How is entering directly into full-scale war preferable over striking a deal with the Russians which they have been signaling is their intention since the March/April 2022?

That's some crazy stuff.

Absolutely nothing suspicious here, folks.

I forgot that 5.56mm isn't used by professionals to kill people. Silly me.

The Secret Service did a terrible job. — Michael

Yea, they missed.

It's pretty much unthinkable that security was alerted of a gunman and did nothing.

Very... erm... "strange."

Our clown is better than their clown!

Isn't it time you folks got off the clown car?

I think karma is real in the sense that immoral deeds hurt the actor as well as the victim, and no good things can be obtained through immoral deeds.

Immorality therefore is like a hole one digs for themselves.

Furthermore, if one wishes to truly better themselves, they will have to atone for all the sins of the past - a painful process, if genuine.

Very spooky. Maybe we should stop producing them then, eh?

Barring a debilitating health event, can we safely conclude the US establishment favors Trump / the Republican Party over Biden?

Is there really any universe in which the events of the last week could transpire if the purpose wasn't expressly for Biden to lose? Is there really any universe in which a senile old man is allowed to hijack the fate of the most powerful country in the world?

Personally, I don't think so.

This term is quite loaded and can have multiple meanings.

In the modern-day context, I would suggest that 'multiculturalism' is essentially a doctrine adopted by states with which they try to encourage migration to their country, thus increasing the amount of souls under their yoke, and thus increasing their power. (and also sucking power away from other, potentially rival, states - the so-called "brain drain")

The historical United States is an example of a state that rose to prominence through migration, and various modern-day European states are trying to replicate that feat in order to keep their social security systems afloat.

The question: "Can people of different cultures coexist?" is easy enough to answer - obviously, yes, under the right conditions. But this is fundamentally not the question at hand whenever politicians rant about multiculturalism. They use this implied context in order to make disagreement more thorny (if you disagree "you're a racist!"), when in fact the real context is what I described in the first paragraph.

Questions like: "Should migration be used to jury rig unsustainable social security structures?", while much closer to the real context, are for some reason a lot less popular among politicians.

Then again, socialism without open borders is, well, national socialism. Also quite unpopular.


With that out of the way, I think it's clear that mass migration is doomed to fail for countries with elaborate social security (like European countries).

What made the historical United States successful is the fact that no one was getting a handout. So people went to the United States with a plan and an intention to build something. If they failed, they would likely become homeless or worse. Harsh, but ultimately a formula by which mass migration could succeed.

In modern-day Europe, the opposite is true. While the US accepted mass migration on the condition of "succeed or starve", the EU is giving a handout to literally everyone. That's why Europe is flooded with migrants who have basically no prospect of successfully integrating into European societies, which has lead to no end of trouble.

The end result will be predictably tragic.

A main point is that the focus on "peak experiences," tends to actually exclude a great deal of the people who we think of as "mystics" from the definition because they never wrote about such experiences. For example, the most famous "Beatific Vision" and "Platonic Ascent" in St. Augustine's work takes place in the Book IX of the Confessions. Yet it isn't a meditative trance but rather a conversation with his mother shortly before her death. (Book IX). Likewise, St. Bonaventure's "The Mind's Journey Into God," is cast into the mold of St. Francis' vision of the Seraphim, but that's just the mold for a heavily intellectualized ascent where the prose and ideas, not some actual singular experience, are the focus. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is why I prefer the term 'mystical' experience, because 'peak' implies something intense and lengthy, whereas it appears mystical experiences come in various forms, and not all of them are like that. Some last only an instant, though the impression they leave on the mind is very profound.

Mystical experiences do not have to involve meditative trances, but maybe this is the point the author was trying to make?

He starts off by comparing two views of mysticism, William James' influential modern view and that of Jean Gerson writing in the 14th century. With this comparison he is able to tease out the problem with James' focus on peak experiences, and as many of the case studies show, many "mystics" focus on a great deal aside from there experiences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd be interested to hear some of the conclusions regarding this!

To be honest, there hasn't been a young world leader that has ever made a good impression on me. They appear naive, easily manipulated, sometimes overtly groomed, and they seem to have little real wisdom or understanding of the gravity of the position they are in and the consequences of their actions.

Politics should be conducted by dusty, boring, old people - people from whom there is little to gain from corruption, and people who have children and grandchildren whose futures they care about.

Today we have to admit that too radical mysticism is equivalent to fanaticism or naivety, unless it takes seriously the challenges I have talked about. But a mysticism that is not radical and not deep is just not mysticism: what makes mysticism is exactly radicality and depth. — Angelo Cannata

Just curious; why do you think mysticism is inherently radical?

I agree that the term mysticism has been thrown around very loosely, so it's probably important for us to settle on what is its essence.

A mystic, in my view, is someone who experiences something that they find impossible to put into words (the experience is 'unintelligible'), while simultaneously recognizing the experience as something so profound that they feel compelled to investigate, often ranking it above the rational world of sense experience in terms of its significance.

The so-called 'mystical experience' and the investigation of its meaning is therefore the root of mysticism.

The search and the act of priming oneself for such an experience I would probably not call mysticism. Though it is obviously related, it is a particularly prickly subject since there seems to be no reliable method of triggering a genuine mystical experience.

Plato and various Neo-Platonist works do a very good job at putting in rational terms a relationship with what is fundamentally unintelligible.

In terms of modern scholars, I found the lectures by Pierre Grimes on Plato and various related subjects a treasure trove of insight. (Freely available on his YouTube channel)

No one is interested in hearing a hundred-year-old tu quoque to distract from America's many misdeeds in the present.

If you need me to give you examples, you're proving my point. Listing America's misdeeds is pedantry at this point, and I'm not going to waste my time in doing so. Especially since you already seem so eager to start shifting the blame.

Because of the "orders of magnitude" part of my argument.

Now that would be rich - the suzerain trying to evade responsibility by pointing at the involvement of her client states.

You need me to give you an example of America's misdeeds in the modern age? Please.

If you're going to play this game, you should probably find something that does not pre-date the concept of a European state.

How is Trump worse than several other presidents in recent times, who started illegal wars and supported genocides and revolutions with literally millions of victims? (I'm thinking Vietnam, East-Timor, the Middle-East, etc.)

Appearances don't count for much anyway, and a politician's words should be disregarded off-hand.

If Trump's previous presidency is anything to go by, it's really not that bad. He can't hold a candle to some of the absolute demons that preceded him.

I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but trust in US government and media is at very low levels, whereas trust in the EU is at high levels. That's really all I need to know about a stupid citizenry. — NOS4A2

I wouldn't say trust in the EU is at high levels. That's why right-wing populism is currently sweeping the EU. But I wouldn't say the EU citizenry is much better than the US, though Europeans are definitely less ignorant.

The difference is that the US government gets up to shit that's several orders of magnitude worse.

Their primary purpose is overseas expeditions. Not crucial for continental Europe which has airbases all over the place.

Furthermore, I think aircraft carriers will turn out to be massive sitting ducks when the next major conflict that involves them comes along. They'll be like the battleships in WWII.