zazen

@Nemra Under Biden Israel destroyed Gaza and plausibly genocided Palestinians. Biden did nothing to attempt to stop the Ukraine war or diplomatically speak to Putin. Nord stream pipeline was blown up whilst he was in office (most people assume it was the US). He gave Ukraine the green light to fire missiles into Russian territory escalating us towards WW3. Does that mean he didn’t do anything good? Of course not. Point is, your point about bad things Trump has done or is doing now doesn’t mean he’s incapable of doing something good here and there. Aligning on something like ending the war and de-escalating tensions with a nuclear heavyweight like Russia doesn’t mean wholesale backing Trump either.

Zelensky got cold feet after seeing how shaky his European counterparts convictions were when it came time to bite the bullet and send their own to fight in Ukraine. Now he’s trying to patch things up with the US.. Italy and Poland have among the most troops in the bloc and are against fighting alongside the Brits and French who are foaming at the mouth to take on Russia. Europe is like a centipede with each nation being a leg. It only takes a few to move in a different direction to cause the centipede to halt or creep too slow due to friction. Political will is a key element in sustaining a war, let alone starting one. Here we have a house divided against one mostly unified in Russia.

@Nemra I'm saying in regards to Ukraine what he’s doing seems way better than escalation - not that he’s good domestically or should be in power. @Breakingthewall Indian stream 2 lol that’s a good additional context. We could even use the current situation with Canada to hypothetically draw the parallel. Imagine now since Trump is imposing tariffs Canadians start getting nationalistic and prosecuting Americans and suppressing American culture in Canada. Chat GPT: Imagine This Hypothetical Scenario For decades, China and the U.S. were locked in a Cold War—a global, ideological, and military rivalry that nearly ended in nuclear annihilation multiple times. China ultimately won, the U.S. collapsed, and for a time, China reigned supreme. But now, years later, the U.S. is rebuilding itself, challenging China’s global dominance again, and China wants to keep it down permanently. Now, right on the U.S. border, Canada starts shifting. It undergoes a political revolution, installs a fiercely anti-American government, and begins cracking down on pro-U.S. Canadians—banning the American flag, erasing American history from schools, shutting down pro-American media, and even militarily suppressing Canadian provinces that still feel tied to the U.S. And who is backing this new Canada? China - their old rival who they nearly blew the world up over. This same nation, China, pours billions into arming Canada, embeds its military forces, and begins installing missile systems along the U.S.-Canada border—pointed directly at Washington, New York, and Chicago. And this isn’t a conspiracy—China’s own think tanks openly discuss their strategy to weaken and encircle the U.S., stating that American resurgence must be stopped at all costs. But here’s the real kicker: China has a long track record of invading countries, toppling governments, and breaking promises about its military intentions. It has: Launched wars under false pretenses , bombed nations into collapse, overthrown leaders who didn’t submit to its interests, crossed security red lines in the past, lying about its true motives. And now this same proven war machine is offering “security guarantees” to Canada—just like NATO has done with Ukraine. Would the U.S. just sit back and watch? Would it do nothing while: 1. A hostile, foreign-backed military buildup emerges on its doorstep? 2. Pro-U.S. populations in Canada are discriminated against, silenced or even attacked? Of course not. The U.S. would take action—diplomatically first, militarily if necessary—because no serious power would allow this threat to materialize.'' We don't have to condone the most blatant act of aggression (invasion) but we can understand it. The same way people can condemn Hamas on October 7th, yet understand the context in which it happened and who the aggressor is that pushed a certain group (Palestinians/Hamas or Russians) into such a corner that they were left with no choice but to act out in such a way.

@Nemra Even the silliest most corrupt people may once in a while do something good, even if it isn’t for pure intentions. If we frame everything someone does as bad regardless of the action that’s just being ideological and dogmatic.

@Breakingthewall Yeah, check this out - like a Time Machine. “Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington's planned seizure of Russia's historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century. “But Nato's military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself.” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/ukraine-us-war-russia-john-pilger A good parallel scenario from Chat GPT: “Imagine India is rising on the world stage, but the U.S. or China starts arming Pakistan to the teeth, turning it into a military outpost right on India’s border. At the same time, Pakistan starts persecuting Punjabis, banning their language, cracking down on their identity—people with deep historical ties to India. Does India just sit back and say, “Oh well, that’s Pakistan’s business”? Hell no. India sees the writing on the wall. This isn’t just a border dispute—it’s a geopolitical squeeze, an attempt to box India in and weaken it. So India pushes back, whether through diplomacy or force, because no serious power allows a global rival to build a military foothold in a historically connected neighbor without responding. That’s exactly how Russia saw Ukraine. NATO wasn’t just expanding—it was turning Ukraine into a U.S.-backed battering ram against Russia. Ukraine wasn’t just independent—it was actively cracking down on its Russian-speaking population. And Russia wasn’t just paranoid—it was reacting the way any major power would if a hostile alliance tried to install a military outpost on its doorstep. The only difference? When the U.S. or its allies do the same thing, it’s called “defending democracy.” When Russia does it, it’s called “imperialism.” Funny how that works.” India and Pakistan both share historical and ethnic ties with Punjabis - who were divided along the border. Works well as a example. The irony is that people call Russias move as some imperial expansionist play when it’s literally a response to Western imperialism itself!

@Breakingthewall People will conflate and inflate things without nuance. As a example - if Russians in Kazakhstan were being violently attacked or systematically discriminated against in a way that threatened their security, of course Russia would intervene, not because it wants to build the USSR, but because no nation willingly allows its people to be persecuted without taking action. Thats basic state responsibility. But the real irony is how the West justifies its own interventions. The US and NATO launch wars, sanctions, and regime change operations in countries halfway across the world in countries that have no historical, ethnic, or strategic connection to them - on the flimsiest moral pretexts. They claim they must protect democracy and defend human rights in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan.

If Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union, why hasn’t he invaded weaker, non-NATO former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan, Armenia, or Azerbaijan? If Putins goal has always been restoring the USSR, why would he bother trying to negotiate a security deal first? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2021_Russian_ultimatum_to_NATO He offered a proposal to NATO in December 2021, which the core demands of were rejected in January 2022, which then precipitated the invasion in February 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/03/israel-prepares-gaza-hell-plan-to-pile-pressure-on-hamas-reports During the fasting month of Ramadan: “The Israeli government is reportedly planning to ratchet up its blockade on Gaza as part of what it has called a “hell plan” to pressure Hamas into further hostage releases without a troop withdrawal from the Palestinian territory.“ Disgusting and sick state.

I’m guessing you took Zelensky’s words to heart when he said to Trump “But you have a nice ocean and don’t feel now, but you will feel in future”. You’re not on the same continent, I am, and have a sober mind about what’s going on. This kind of rhetoric is catastrophizing a localized territorial conflict in Eastern Europe into some grand ideological battle for civilization itself. Just like Netanyahu does with Hamas and the battle between children of light and darkness slogans. Zelenskys playing the same playbook to get the West to fight his countries war. If Russia really had ambitions of marching through Europe, it would have to first win in Ukraine. After 3 years, despite Western weapons, intelligence, and funding flooding the battlefield, they’ve just about gotten Donbas and nothing beyond it. There’s very little evidence that Russia has the capability or intent to even try such a thing as to attempt taking and then holding onto all of Ukraine. A lot of people are taking Cold War paranoia and turning it into a boogeyman that justifies endless escalation towards WW3.

Perhaps the real information warfare is coming from the Western establishment, waged against its own people. For decades the mainstream narrative was unchallenged because the gatekeepers controlled the flow of information. But with the rise of independent media and social platforms, people started encountering perspectives that clashed with the carefully curated story they had been fed their entire lives. Sometimes it’s not about misinformation but about the same information framed differently. The same facts can be arranged differently to tell a completely different story. The problem isn’t that people are being lied to by Russia, but that they’re being exposed to realities that the Western establishment would rather keep buried. About Russian misinformation fueling the rise of right wing population..the real driver of nationalist movements isn’t some Kremlin psyop - its the policies of globalist elites who have neglected their own people in favour of foreign wars, corporate interests, and ideological crusades. The establishments refusal to prioritize its own citizens is exactly whats making people turn to politicians who at least pretend to care about their needs. The irony is that the more the elites push for endless confrontation with Russia, the more they accelerate this backlash. Just because certain leaders align doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy. Leaders may be influenced but that doesn’t mean controlled. The claim that Russian propaganda is manipulating people into opposing war or questioning the establishment is just a convenient excuse - even it were true, is that a bad thing? lol. Being fed information to make peace with a nuclear superpower.. sounds terrible. People don't need Putin to tell them they're being screwed over by their ruling class. In fact in UK where I’m at, Keir Starmer has come out and said he's ready to put troops on the ground and planes in the skies, and has signed us up for a 100 year partnership Ukraine - with £3 billion of support till 2030 to be continued if necessary. This is in the context of this same government slashing a winter fuel allowance for the elderly, who have to choose between staying warming or staying full. This is on top of a slew of other austerity measures on social services which are already crumbling. People care for Ukraine, but not to the extent where we go cold in the winter, or have to spill the blood of our own people to fight a useless war with no outcome, except to escalate the world towards World 3. The elites are framing this as a Churchill vs Hitler moment, when it's just not the case. And that's the problem, when you misread reality, you can have very severe consequences that could have been avoided altogether. We have access to different information now, which counters the peddling of establishment misinformation at its worst and mischaracterization at its best, which can lead to these disastrous consequences. This is why people are fighting this and voting for politicians who care more for their national interest. If you think the West can deal with Russia with 'force' then why do you think Russia is such a threat to the point of being able to not only take Ukraine but then continue to penetrate into Europe and face the might of the West? Which is it.. is Putin/Russia the threat we are told, or are they weakened and able to be defeated in Ukraine ie forced into a peace? Nice warning Jesus. Just because you are awakened in consciousness doesn't mean you understand geopolitics or the reality and technicalities of warfare. Your spiritual ego is blinding you to the reality on the ground. Your framing of this whole thing as a battle of “democracy vs. dictatorship”, but there’s nothing democratic about how these decisions are being made in our name. NATO countries never got to vote on whether they wanted to be dragged into an open ended security commitment with Ukraine.

Thats true, though they still have a sizeable amount of troops to deploy from. When I say the West don't have the strength to enforce a peace on Russia and ''win'' I mean it in the conventional sense of winning offensively: by taking the war to Russia itself and fighting it in their own sphere of influence. Thats the context I'm talking about. But in a war of defence the West is formidable. This is why I think the Putin as Hitler rhetoric is overblown. Theres no major idealogical driver, incentive, capability or appetite to expand and take Ukraine, let alone Europe. Beyond simply troop numbers the other 5 factors in war are: materials (to build weaponry), labour (to do the building), energy (to fuel the previous two), logistics / geography (to get troops and weapons to the front lines) and the political will (to sustain war). The issue expansionist imperial powers usually run into after satisfying some key elements (troops + weaponry) are geographic and logistical. Russia very well may get through Ukraine with mechanized warfare on flat lands, but the further away the front line gets from home the harder it gets to sustain a solid supply line / logistics. This only gets even tougher once you hit geographic hurdles such as forests, urban centres, hills / mountains and rivers. Hitler ran into the same issues. If we look at a map of what Russia currently holds its not even gotten into middle Ukraine let alone the West. And thats after sizeable losses. The idea that Russia will not just take but hold onto Ukraine in its entirety, and then keep steam rolling further into Europe where there will be major rivers, hills, urban areas, mountains and the military might of the collective West including the resistance of millions - is frankly absurd. What would Russia have to even gain from it? It already has the most resources in the world and has only incidentally got some more now in eastern Ukraine, though that wasn't the primary driver of this war. It's got its Russian speaking regions, access to the sea fortified, and a buffer zone to fortify the Russian heartland if there were to be any Western presence at the border. With an already ageing and now dying (in war) population, there is no appetite to go into a endless, expansionist war with nothing much to gain. Neither Putin nor Russia have the appetite, desire or capability to steam roll their way to Germany for some bratwurst, stopover in France for some baguettes, and hop over to the UK for fish and chips under grey skies and rain. This is just a Cold War hangover the boomer class are still clinging onto individually, that has entrenched itself institutionally in the West. Just saw this: From 1:30 - 3:30 Dugin says that even within Russia there’s a consensus that they don’t have the capability to take large parts of Ukraine or even Eastern Europe. Despite a minority of nutters desiring that. The main thing is a neutral Ukraine and no threat from Western presence close to Russias core.

@puporing What about the fact that Russia outproduces the collective West in tanks, shells and artillery? Or is that not a fact. How are we going to show equal force to Russia..to achieve peace through a “strength” we lack?

Europe has been dwelling in a self-imposed strategic twilight for decades. When you outsource your vigilance to an empire's pitbull for generations, your geopolitical vision atrophies like an unused muscle. The continent that once possessed the sharpest strategic minds has willingly developed diplomatic glaucoma, content to let America scan the horizon while they focused on internal bureaucratic minutiae. This dependency didn't happen by accident. It was cultivated, nurtured, and enforced through a complex system of carrots and sticks – NATO bases, financial entanglements, intelligence sharing that was really intelligence capturing. The arrangement suited the empire perfectly: Europe remained comfortably blind while their resources were redirected, their industries captured, and their sovereignty quietly hollowed out. Europe's strategic myopia is now so advanced that they can't distinguish between their own interests and Washington's commands. They've forgotten how to assess threats independently, how to engage with neighbors directly, how to calculate the true cost of following imperial directives. They've traded their binoculars for a blindfold and called it security. It's time for Europe to reclaim its sight – to dust off those spectacles that have been gathering cobwebs since the end of the Cold War. The continent needs to rediscover its capacity for independent strategic thinking, for seeing beyond the narrow frame the empire has provided. The alternative is continued blindness while being led toward conflicts that serve another's interests. The carrots that once seemed so appealing have revealed themselves as the most expensive meal in history. Meanwhile, the stick is no longer just looming – it's firmly pressed against European backs, driving them toward economic suicide and unnecessary confrontation with their neighbors. True vision requires the courage to open eyes that have grown comfortable in darkness. It requires the willingness to see uncomfortable truths: that treating your largest energy supplier and natural trading partner as an existential enemy might not be the strategic masterstroke it was sold as. That perhaps the greatest threat to European prosperity and security wasn't coming from the East after all. Europe must rebuild its atrophied strategic vision before it's marched blindly into one last, final abyss from which there is no return – all while believing they're walking toward the light.

Cool bro, but do we have equal or greater force? I agree the West should be stronger, but the point is it’s not going to happen quick enough to affect this current war - only to deter a future one.

@puporing Maybe you or anyone else on this forum can answer the question below: Explain to me the path to defeating Russia and what does it look like? The thing with the whole “peace through strength ” slogan is that you have to have strength in the first place. So someone tell me the strengths of the West against Russia in the context of the Ukraine war? I’ll wait forever and am open to changing my mind.