zazen

Cooperation doesn’t mean condoning. If that’s your standard then no one should cooperate with NATO or US - they should be globally shunned. Also, understanding isn’t justifying which many here seem to conflate me or Leo with doing. I agree those countries should have self determination and they are valid to want to lean West after their experience of Soviet Russia. I just think Ukraine especially is a unique strategic threat to Russia considering its history. If Eastern Europe’s historic experience of Russia makes their aspiration towards a “defensive” alliance like NATO valid - then surely Russias historic experience of being invaded from Ukraine makes its own security concern valid also. Especially if the alliance Ukraine wants to be under the umbrella of is one which has not been solely defensive but offensive, and is operated by countries in the West that are antagonist. If it was a benevolent, defensive actor - Russia wouldn’t perhaps fear it as much and could entertain living side by side. Imagine if Texas decided to separate from the US tomorrow if it felt the gov had become too liberal. Would the US government simply let it go? Of course not. The Civil War itself is proof of this - the US fought a brutal war to prevent Southern states from seceding, not because of imperialism but to maintain the nation’s integrity. If Scotland voted for independence tomorrow, the UK wouldn’t just roll over. London has already resisted such moves, arguing that it would fracture the union and weaken the nation. Same with Catalonia in Spain cracking down hard on Catalonia’s independence referendum in 2017, declaring it unconstitutional, arresting leaders, and suppressing the movement with police force. When regions seek to secede, the larger nation invariably resists - not out of greed or imperialism, but because it views secession as an existential threat to its unity, economy, and security. The idea that Russia’s actions to maintain unity and prevent fragmentation are uniquely “imperialistic” ignores the reality that all nations resist fragmentation for the same reasons - though it’s unfortunate how bloody and violent they can be.

There’s so much to go into so I’ll try stay on topic and be concise as this thread is veering off. I get where you’re coming from and it’s true there are systemic problems with power itself that cause it to justify itself. That’s what we have to watch out for and distinguish. We’d all prefer cooperation over wars of course. But cooperation requires acknowledging Russia’s security concerns as valid rather than dismiss them as nonsensical and frame any action it takes as imperial. The West can’t seem to cooperate with others as it paints them as boogeymen. The problem is when we conflate things that happen to coincide but aren’t truly motivated by each other. Survival, security, wealth, and power are interconnected in the long run, but that doesn’t mean every instance of war and defensive manoeuvring is imperial. Context and intent matter a lot. Ukraine has resources and strategic value, but those are incidental to the primary driver of security. Russia’s focus on buffer zones stems from centuries of invasions through the very regions it’s now protecting. That’s not greed or exploitation but survival logic. The resources and geography of Ukraine are bonuses, not the motivating force. Imperialism is about domination for profit and power far beyond what’s needed for security. When the US invades Iraq or Libya, thousands of miles from its borders, for oil or regime change, that’s imperialism. When Russia intervenes in Ukraine or Georgia, a stone’s throw from Moscow, to prevent NATO encirclement, it’s a defensive posture, even if coercive and ugly. By conflating survival with imperialism, we risk mischaracterising defensive moves as imperialist ones, which leads to misdiagnosing the problem and proposing the wrong solutions - ones that could escalate conflict unnecessarily and which are as the West avoids the negotiating table and instead fights the phantom of Russia they have lingering in their psyche from the Cold War era. The West is still fighting a phantom Russia - a Cold War relic that no longer exists. Instead of engaging with the reality of modern Russia, it clings to outdated perceptions of an expansionist, imperialistic power akin to the Soviet Union. This misperception clouds judgment and drives policies that escalate tensions unnecessarily. Now I get why Leo emphasises truth seeking as essential.

I think the main issue is mischaracterising Russia as an imperialist power, which risks misdiagnosing the problem, which results in wrong solutions that may be disastrous. Being a superpower or a great power doesn’t inherently mean being an imperial power - the distinction is in how a nation uses its power and the intent, scope and context behind its actions. Superpowers naturally exert influence and occasionally engage in intervention, but not all superpowers pursue imperialism. There’s also a blurry grey area between intervention and imperialism. A distinction can be made between influence, intervention and imperial - the actions of which often get lumped together including their negative associations. Influence is about persuasion and follows power like a shadow we can’t escape. Intervention is actively intervening, usually defensively or reactively. Imperialism is proactive domination and exploitation for material gain or the preservation of dominance. It’s often justified by ideology, carried out through aggression or coercion, and its focus on far off lands reveals motivations rooted in greed rather than security. If a power is truly imperial - driven by greed, resource extraction, and ideological dominance - then it must be stopped by all means necessary. But Russia’s actions don’t fit that mold so neatly. 1) How can you say Russia isn’t imperialist when it has fought 8 wars to rebuild and reconquer former USSR territories? With the above in mind, imperialism in Russia’s context dilutes the meaning of the word. If imperialism as it’s historically understood is about projecting dominance far from home, driven by greed and exploitation then Russia isn’t engaged in it. At least not yet as Leo mentioned. What Russia’s done in its post-Soviet era is nothing like the imperialism it did engage in, in the past. It hasn’t annexed territories for wealth or power disconnected from its own survival. It’s acted in its immediate neighborhood where the stakes are existential, not imperial. Those wars happened or are happening on Russia’s doorstep, in regions that have served as invasion routes for centuries - from Napoleon to Hitler. Which is why Ukraine is Russia’s red line - half of invasions launched from there. Ukraine, Georgia, Transnistria aren’t exotic conquests but buffer zones critical to its integrity. Likewise with Chechnya or separatists which risk fragmenting the country. It’s definetely messy and coercive, but not imperial in the sense that its actions are primarily dominance driven for expansion and exploitation. It’s less about conquest and more about security. Russia is already the most resource rich nation on earth with the largest land mass spanning multiple time zones and with a shrinking population making it harder to defend. Its size is exactly why it’s vulnerable as there are many countries it can be encircled from or contained by from the West. Strategically, it wouldn’t want to expand to have even larger borders to protect with even less men. Historically, empires expand when they have the demographic dividend for it. Russia’s actions in places like Chechnya or Georgia underscore the point that these conflicts are not imperialist, because they’re not motivated by the kind of greed or resource exploitation that defines imperialism. If Russia’s intent were to build an empire for profit, why would it invest immense resources into wars in regions that offer no significant economic return? Chechnya isn’t a treasure trove of resources, and Georgia isn’t a goldmine for exploitation. 2) Your mind believes that wars with neighbors over land or influencing spheres are more morally justified than wars over oil or trade. Why? I’m not justifying anything brother, just understanding the situation. Wars over land and influence often come from a primal need to secure survival, while wars over oil or trade are more about greed and domination. Losing control over a neighboring territory can mean the difference between safety and invasion, or stability and chaos. Russia’s conflicts with its neighbors aren’t about expanding a global empire, they’re about not being surrounded by adversaries. There’s a visceral, defensive logic to that. We don’t have to agree with it, but it’s understandable. When wars are fought thousands of miles from home over resources or trade routes, the justification gets thinner. Those wars don’t protect the homeland, they feed the machine. They’re not about survival but about greed and maintaining dominance far beyond what’s needed for security.They’re inherently expansionist and imperial. Wars over land and spheres are ugly, yes. But at their core, they’re about not losing buffer zones for survival whilst wars over oil and trade is taking more than ever needed in the first place. China has shown that it’s possible to be a regional hegemon without necessarily being imperialistic. Circling back to the beginning of the comment - being a superpower or a great power doesn’t inherently mean being an imperial one. Russia’s actions can be called imperialistic once they shift significantly beyond its natural buffer zones to places like Scandinavia, the Baltics, or Eastern NATO countries such as Poland. Intervening in these regions, far removed from any genuine threat to its core security needs, would cross the line from defensive posturing into true imperial aggression. Until then, we need to be wary of Western propaganda distorting the reality of the situation and dismissing Russia’s security concerns. The stakes are too high to not see the situation with clarity. *** Just saw your comment after I posted this. That’s an issue I was also having with the definition of imperialism - it was too broad to be used - I think distinctions between influence, intervention and imperialism bring more clarity. Including soft power and cultural influence broadens the term to the point where any great power’s actions could be labeled imperialistic. It can make the definition less precise and risks equating all geopolitical influence with imperialism. Otherwise, we could say the West and the US has been extremely imperialistic in this regard as people even in the remotest places drink Coca Cola, wear jeans and listen to Taylor Swift.

@Scholar I think I’ve engaged far more with your points than you have mine. The point is, we don’t agree on some points even existing to even agree with or disagree with. We’re both starting from different places. For example, you presume that Russia wants to enslave and rule half the continent, that it’s a weak pathetic backwater and geopolitically irrelevant, yet somehow at the same time is more imperial and coercive than the US. Those presumptions are relics of a Cold War hangover - they once held truth but no longer do. In fact, it’s the modern West that embodies most of those traits today - being imperial, interventionist and coercive. Or in other words being pro-actively imperial rather than reactively protective. Regarding the “natural” hegemon - I agree that the US has many natural strengths lending to its position. It’s geographically blessed and protected by vast seas and weak or allied neighbours. That’s a big part of why it can dick swing and flex across the world with little consequence. But this is the same reason why people critique its need to be imperial or interventionist in the first place, which are inherently coercive. It has no need to violently venture out as there are no real threats to its existence, just its global dominance. Instead, the US projects itself into regions it doesn’t have any natural connection to. It goes beyond its own natural advantages to dominate regions where its “natural hegemony” would not otherwise extend and requires un-natural constructs for it to do so ie dollar dominance, global institutions, military bases etc. The US dollar is the ultimate symbol of a construct that isn’t so natural but that artificially benefits a lifestyle of excess many Americans are able to enjoy. It’s not backed by gold, commodities or anything - just the collective faith in US dominance, which is enforced by military might (800 bases) and global coercion. The moment nations begin trading outside it or start building alternative financial frameworks they are dismissed at best or delivered democracy at worst - Libya, Iraq. But don’t mind me, that’s natural hegemony.

@Scholar Being critical of US foreign policy isn't being a commie or hating on America as a whole, or its people. That's a lazy cop out similar to Zionists claiming someone to be a anti-semite for being critical of Israel's actions. You’re being emotional and condescending towards me and for example Raze in another thread calling him a bane on existence and to be removed from the forum so don’t mind me being snappy back. Not as a natural reflex but to reflect back what you put out. You’re the one being irrational and triggered by criticism of the Western narrative that seems to have seeped deep into your marrow. The purpose of highlighting the West's behavior is to highlight bias and hypocrisies, and to be relatable if one is unable to place oneself in the shoes of another - in this case Russia. Because if you can put yourself in Russia's shoes, you would realise that no nation would allow or entertain the possibility of antagonistic players to put bases and point missiles towards you from a neighboring country - US wouldn't accept Russia or China doing that in Mexico. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a perfect example of how no nation, especially a major power, tolerates the placement of antagonistic military assets near its borders. The US reacted and came dangerously close to nuclear war to prevent what it perceived as an existential threat. Their response wasn’t ideological but strategic and about national security. I know of Russia's barbarity and its imperial history, but that's the point - it was that way in the past some decades ago now since the Soviet Union fell and has become a different entity today. You invoke the Soviet Union’s legacy to frame modern Russia as inherently imperialistic and ideologically aggressive. If Russia is to be judged for its Soviet past, the US must also be judged for its record of interventionism, both past and present that is ongoing today. Over the past 20–30 years, the US surpasses modern Russia in terms of the scale and destructiveness of its actions. The behavior attributed to the Soviet Union - global military interventions, regime changes, ideological imposition - fits the US and its allies more closely in the modern era. The very lens you use to demonize Russia more accurately describes the US's actions in the present moment. You’re projecting the sins of modern imperialism onto Russia while excusing or downplaying the fact that the US is the empire dominating the globe today. You in fact moralise about how this is fine as it's the natural hegemon and beneficial for the world, then accuse me of moralising. Hegemony isn’t natural or a one time purchase - it’s a subscription that requires plenty of upkeep in order to maintain - and yes, that includes power plays and coercion - something you downplay and seem to illogically think smaller players do instead. Coercion implies you have the strength to be coercive in the first place. If you are weak, you are are not feared enough to be able to be coercive in the first place. Can a baby coerce you as an adult? Maybe Russia wouldn't have to worry about NATO being on its border if it actually was what it said it was ie defensive. Instead, the whole world just witnessed it along with the US empire act imperialistically across the globe for the past decades. If Eastern Europe fears Russia behaving as it did in its past Soviet era decades ago - since which it has changed - why shouldn't Russia fear the Western alliance behaving aggressively with far more recent proof of it behaving so across the planet up to today. It’s entirely rational for Russia to distrust NATO’s intentions. If an alliance that claims to be defensive behaves offensively, why would any rational actor welcome its presence on their border? You started a thread with Wesley Clark going in on Mearshimer realist fan boys so you may appreciate him describing how there has been a hijacking of US foreign policy by vested interests: ''The purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, not to deter conflict'' referring to their plan to destabilize the Middle East. The difference today is that most nations go to war out of necessity. The US seems to end wars in order to start the next one. This is my critique of Mearsheimer also (which you falsely believe me to be a realist fanboy of when in fact I don't belong to any ideological camp) - he wants to end the war with Russia to focus efforts on containing China next.

Quite a viral podcast at the moment going into the USS liberty incident (false flag) with a survivor veteran. Israeli deception.

Isn't that contradictory though? It's either: the US is the natural hegemon so they don't need to suppress anyone, or they do in order to maintain their power against potential competing powers? A common claim I hear is that the West and the US must dominate the world because other powers "can’t be trusted" - these same people bemoan dictators, but this is itself a justification for a global dictatorship - its dictatorship taken to another level beyond nation states. A classic case of projecting the very behavior they claim to oppose. By insisting on a single hegemon to "keep the peace," they’re advocating for a system where one power dictates terms to everyone else, under the guise of moral superiority, human rights and democracy - yet ironically being un-democratic geopolitically.

You can only think the destruction of Russia is a viable solution if you also happen to think it's a backwater country that is geopolitically irrelevant - as you've stated. Brinkmanship with a country known to have the most nuclear warheads and second most powerful military (according to GFP's latest ranking) is more suicidal and reckless, rather than a solution. This same backwater country just used a intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) - the Oreshnik - which I don't think the West has any capability of even neutralizing or intercepting. and was demonstrated as a warning to stop escalating. Russia's also the most resource rich nation on earth which used to supply almost half of EU's gas and a third of its oil. It just signed a $13b a year deal with India yesterday - one of its largest, cementing its ties and footprint in Asia where the most growth is going to take place in the next century. Russia has acted aggressively within its sphere of influence, but the US has engaged in imperialistic wars, regime changes, and economic coercion (sanctions) across the globe. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria to name a few - the US has left a trail of destruction far beyond its borders, even within its own backyard in Latin america. If power and violence are the currency of international relations, it’s the US that has minted the most. Russia hasn’t acted imperialistically in decades - not in the sense of unprovoked conquests or global domination. Its actions in Ukraine and Georgia are aggressive and unlawful, but are rooted in strategic concerns about NATO encroachment and preserving buffer zones. That's a far cry from the US whose global dominance rests on economic and military imperialism to remain relevant via coercing the use of the petro dollar. The US hasn’t transcended the need to violate the sovereignty of many states through its interventionist foreign policy. As you said ''This is why the US can afford to act from a non-coercive position geopolitical speaking, which benefits not only the US, but all nations in the world.'' Just ask the Middle East if they think the US has acted non-coercively or the ICC who have been threatened for investigating Israel and Bibi. You can think society is failing socially, but acknowledge the might of the state and military. Russia’s actions aren't driven solely by the principle of NATO expansion but by specific strategic threats posed by NATO's proximity to its core security interests. The issue isn’t NATO expansion in itself but NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders, where it creates a direct threat to Russian security. The context of proximity, population and pathways matters. Proximity is having missiles stationed close enough to strike Russia’s core cities and centers, mainly Moscow. NATO’s existence doesn't provoke Russia, its presence within a proximity that threatens key Russian assets does - which is from Ukraine. Population is having enough manpower to mobilize forces and support operations from. Pathway is having a flat and easy terrain to make your way into Russian territory from. Besides any cultural rhetoric Russia may use to justify needing Ukraine to be neutral or ''on side'', the above all make NATO in Ukraine a strategic threat compared to other NATO members bordering it such as in the Baltics or recently Finland. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have bordered Russia since 2004, and Finland joined NATO in 2023. Yet, Russia never invaded those countries because they don’t post a threat in the way even the potential of NATO in Ukraine does. They aren't threatening if seen through the lens of proximity, population or a clear pathway to mobilize troops through and towards Russian assets. Many antagonistic nations have geographic boundaries to help maintain the peace, or aren't being antagonistic to the level the West often frames China and Russia. Plenty of nations aren't nuclear powers locked in a tense rivalry with the world’s most expansive military alliance, nor do they face an existential threat from missile systems minutes from their capitals. Related to this, I'm critical of and against Israels occupation but still recognise their security concerns are valid. The West Bank's high ground overlooking Tel Aviv offers a direct line of sight, making it a strategic threat if any future Palestinian state with its own military were allowed to exist there. Likewise, the existence of a threat to Moscow at the Ukraine border is equally valid. And the US doesn't maintain it's position violently and artificially? That must be why it needs over 800 bases across the world. The US is blessed geographically and it's unique culture and dynamism has definitely propelled it to be where it is. But it also maintains its dominance through military interventions, economic coercion, and control of global institutions. The idea that the US operates "non-coercively" is contradicted by history. If anything, it seems that the US is trying to maintain its power through violent means against rising powers in the East. In the past we could have a uni-polar hegemonic power, because the power to destroy the world many times over didn't exist. But in a world with multiple powers with enough power to destroy the world with advanced weaponry - there's no choice but to be multi-polar and share power with others, rather than have power over others. Otherwise as the current hegemon starts to inevitably be challenged, as always happens in history - it will be apocalyptic if it arrogantly views those rising as simply backwater countries who need to get checked into position. Western exceptionalism and hubris will get us all killed - which is what you demonstrate - but then have the audacity to say that my way of thinking is what will lead to issues if more people thought like me. On the contrary. This is twisting realism to defend US hegemony while completely ignoring the coercion and violence it relies on to maintain its dominance. On the one hand you view imperialism as evil or only narrowly define it's worst aspect as annexation - but then go on to claim that from a realist position the US should maintain its power by suppressing weaker nations like Russia. First, Russia isn't by any means weak. Second, this overlooks that realism isn't about being prescriptive, but descriptive of power dynamics. Third, realism means not being so propagandized by the empire that you are unable to see the reality of the players your dealing with and view them as geopolitically irrelevant backwaters when they are anything but.

You seem to be in a trolling mood lately dropping in on different topics to dismiss peoples comments in a rude manner. Just like calling Raze a 'bane on existence' and that people like him should be removed form the forum. Cancel culture vulture energy.

That's a great video. No doubt the Eastern front want to protect themselves after the historical record - the issue is Russia can't risk anything on its border that can threaten Moscow and Russia itself either. Grid lock.

Two souls fractured by the machinery of consumption, underpinned by an unhealthy stage orange. These two are not only symptoms of a sick system, but are mirrors reflecting the ugliness of it. This is the toxic run off of individualism, materialism and domination. When your state breaks laws and bones abroad, this ethos trickles into the psyche of the people, who end up violently breaking the law themselves vigilante style, and breaking hearts - even their own, in the name of freedom. Their embodying the same creed their empire taught them. They sell individualism as agentic freedom when it’s sophisticated isolation. We are atomised in urban jungles, ripe and vulnerable for predation by corporations. The same ethos of materialism, individualism and domination that imperialises beyond Western borders, cannibalises its own citizens within its borders. Luigi lashed out to harm an avatar of the system - the CEO of the largest health insurer. Lily lashed out against herself in an act of self harm - dressed up as liberation and spectacle.

Another good reason for alternative media:

Israeli influencer already at it. Not sure if translated accurately but read “We have expanded” Syria has liberated itself from a dictator only to be made subservient to Israel and other powers. US controls its grain and oil which provide essential resources for the country - are these going to be given back to Syria? Who knows. Israel took a whole day to get to the border on October 7th, but have seized the golan heights within a day of Assad falling. They’ve destroyed inferior yet still existent military and naval assets Syria had left, essentially leaving Syria like a sitting duck too weak to swim from its prey. Like I said days before, the jihadi origins of HTS will be resurrected as a pretext to justify carving up Syria faster than a Christmas Turkey in 2 weeks time - and the Syrian people won’t even get to have the gravy.

Syria is a ground for proxy war among larger players, with civil war characteristics. US baked the cake, Syrian rebels blew out the candles. How the cake was baked over years/decades: - Clean break (1996) ''A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel. The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems.'' The authors Richard Perle and Douglas Feith were Bush advisers at the time and architects of Iraq. ''Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.'' - The Redirection (Seymour Hearsh article 2007) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection ''The Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.” - Timber Sycamore (2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore ''Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and training program run by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by the United Kingdom and some Arab intelligence services, including Saudi intelligence. The aim of the program was to remove Syrian president Bashar al-Assad from power. Launched in 2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to Syrian opposition groups fighting Syrian government forces in the Syrian Civil War. According to US officials, the program was run by the CIA's Special Activities Division[6] and has trained thousands of rebels.[7] President Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to begin arming Syria's embattled rebels in 2013.[8] The program became public knowledge in mid-2016. One consequence of the program has been a flood of US weapons including assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades into the Middle East's black market. Critics of the program within the Obama administration viewed it as ineffective and expensive, and raised concerns about seizure of weaponry by Islamist groups and about Timber Sycamore-backed rebels fighting alongside the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front and its allies''

New 3 hour talk between Dugin and Mearsheimer

Of course it isn't available on CNN any more: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/international/2012/07/11/exp-amanpour-assad-2005.cnn There are many hands involved in Syria. US / Israel didn't topple Assad by mind controlling every single Syrian into doing something they didn't want to - there was a genuine grass roots cause there. It's more like a table with different outside players sitting around it - with the Syrian people on the table itself. The outsides players tilt the table enough to be able to move the situation to desired outcomes - the Syrians themselves flipped the table. Some players align on the same goals and decide to tilt the table in the same direction ie Turkey / Qatar can now have the Gas pipeline instead of Iran which Assad was leaning towards, and Turkey can return many Syrians from Turkey to Syria which was causing tensions within Turkey. US baked the cake, rebels blew the candles - seems to be a good description. Without the level of intervention and sanctions applied to Syria affecting the people and brewing resentment to a tipping point that made even Assad’s army backdown. They must have also viewed the situation as not worth salvaging. Another big part of why Russia and Iran didn’t do much beside being busy themselves was because they can’t fight for Assads army who were visibly standing down - so why get involved in a fight the Syrian army didn’t want to fight. Assad’s time was up, good riddance. This was the will of the people - that just so happens to align with the Western establishments goals. How the situation plays out now is anyone’s guess.

Assassinating a CEO is an unjust act, done in the name of a just cause. Just like October 7th. Syria overthrowing Assad was for a just cause, done in a just way (apparently no deaths) that may have unjust consequences. Cause > conduct > consequence. Check out his review of Kaczyinski’s book: Link: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4065667863?book_show_action=false He’s what you get when you combine Greta Thunberg and extinction rebellion with MAHA anarcho-libertarianism on steroids.

Israel’s secured its position of dominance whilst distracted, in a day. With Israel on one side and US still occupying the other, they can literally sandwich the country and encroach on it slowly if chaotic in-fighting allows them to. If the media machine so wills it they could overnight justify this encroachment to “stabilise” the country. The pretext is already set waiting to be utilised - the “Al Qaeda origins” of the leadership deeming them villains destabilising the country and needing an American helping hand in bringing order. Not that they will do this or have the appetite for it, but it’s an option on the table whereas before it wasn’t. This would allow them to carve up plenty of land. Multiple things can be true at the same time. That Assad was a brutal dictator. That Syrians have agency and that it’s popular opinion to have Assad overthrown. And that foreign powers meddled greatly in Syria’s affairs for their own ends. I read an interesting analogy for the situation: The West baked the cake, the rebels blew out the candles.

@integration journey It’s fine to be happy for overthrowing Assad who caused a lot of suffering. My Syrian friends are celebrating also. It’s just that the situation needs to be dealt with properly to fulfil Syrian aspirations. Julani may speak well and be moderate himself, but who is he surrounded by or allying with? If they aren’t they will clash or drag things towards the more fundamentalist side.

Syrian Armed Forces (Assads corner): 300’000+ HTS (rebels): 15-30’000 They had a 10:1 ratio, yet it wasn’t a Sparta battle where the rebels won against an outsized enemy. It resembled a coup of Assad.

It’s strange there was barely any resistance or push back from Russia / Iran and Assad’s forces. It seems they were overwhelmed and Russia / Iran stood down after having agreed upon who knows what. Let’s hope Syria can consolidate itself and rebuild. My friends from Homs who are abroad are all celebrating with glee - understandably. Many Syrians know someone who’s been taken in or killed by Assad. It’s understandable why people automatically assume the worst about whoever the West backs as history is littered with examples of disastrous interventions. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya - they back a faction, topple a government, and leave chaos in the wake. Syria complicates this reflexive cynicism because some factions claim to represent the will of the majority, fighting against Assad’s oppressive regime. The problem is that even when the West backs a valid cause, their track record of turning allies into pawns for imperial ambitions makes it hard to believe motives are pure. If these factions are who they claim to be - reformed moderates wanting to unify the country - all well. People aren’t rejecting these factions outright - they’re rejecting the baggage that comes with Western support. It’s sold as liberation when really it’s subservience to those who funded your uprising. The West’s involvement taints the cause. It’s hard to separate genuine liberation movements from imperial imposition when history shows the latter almost always dominates. Another thing thats hard to parse is how natural movements and causes are. Real grassrooots movements get hijacked and amplified to something larger they naturally are - and may not represent the will of the majority. Some causes not only get amplified, but metastasize into something very different to serve different interests. So reflexive skepticism of Western involvement isn’t paranoia, it’s awareness of the track record. People need sovereignty, not saviours who will twist their causes into imperial ambition.

@Bobby_2021 Aaron Bastani is from Novara media which is left leaning / liberal and even he is speaking on this. Regarding Romania - NATO is building one of the largest airbases there - https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/15/in-romania-nato-is-building-one-of-its-largest-airbases-in-europe_6716228_4.html https://www.politico.eu/article/romania-presidential-election-calin-georgescu-military-nato-russia/ Makes sense. Similar reason Imran Khan was ousted - he denied the US to operate or establish a military base in Pakistan that could put the country at danger - a nuclear power with over 200million people. When people complain about West bashing it isn't necessarily bashing, but disappointment and disenfranchisement from a civilisation that talks to high and might all the time. They set us up to have high hopes which they continuously fall short of and in fact do the opposite of. It only makes sense to direct our forum activism towards the highest ROI pain in the ass of the world, and that right now just so happens to be in the West operating out of Washington.

Homs getting taken and held means it’s almost over for Damascus. If Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, Syria is the imperial dance floor. So many interests in one place colliding. Erdogan just came out saying he hopes for the advance of the rebels all the way to Damascus. What’s revealing is how Hamas was portrayed as the ultimate villain, while HTS - a group with Al-Qaeda roots is being given a PR makeover. Suddenly, they’re “rebels”. So it’s worthy to rise up against an oppressive dictator but not to rise up against an oppressive occupation? The Telegraph even dare to weave in buzzwords like “inclusivity” and “diversity” to sanitize their image. Rebels with jihadi DNA wrapped in DEI-approved packaging to make the Western backed group palatable for domestic Western audiences - bear in mind this same group is on the terrorist watch list. But we all know how that label is weaponised - the Houthi rebels were also on and off the list when it suited interests - them blockading sea routes to protest a Western backed genocide apparently made them real terrorists worthy of vilifying . This doesn’t invalidate the Syrian cause and the potential that these groups are now moderate and possibly worthy of leadership. It’s just to show the game board of imperial interests playing out with Syrian people having to suffer for it. The Western establishment doesn’t care about democracy or principles, but for interests. That’s why one dictator is bad whilst another across the ocean in Saudi Arabia and the gulf more broadly are buddies. The He/Him pic is obviously fake.

Fuck it phase continued: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly/2024/12/04/bidens-next-pardons-00192689 More possible pardons - this time Liz Cheney, Anthony Fauci, and Adam Schiff. “They (politicians) are public servants, who have made the public, servants” “Classists with no class”