zazen

Has anyone here seen Joker 2? I just saw it this past weekend, and with recent incidents such as Luigi's CEO assassination and now this - it made me think of the parallels. The connection here is that there is pain being dealt with in the wrong way. Their acting out like Joker when they could have or should have been Batman. All, including Batman - essentially view the system as unjust - but Batman and Joker diverge in their paths to redressing that injustice. People empathise not because they condone violence, but understand the pain it can come from. A Joker destroys, because he no longer sees the soul at all. He rejects society because he feels like society rejected him - didn't see him or nurture his soul enough to allow him to connect with it, so that he could connect likewise with the soul in others. Batman was given a love that was taken from him by violence, spawned from a system of unjust crime and corruption - Joker was never loved at all. Batman had hope for society because he once had love. Without giving spoilers - Joker 1 was about the conditions that twist the individual (Joker), Joker 2 is about finding that others have also been twisted by that same system - and finding a solidarity in that ie revolutionary rage. But, they deal with the pain in the same cold manner of the system that caused it - not seeing the person behind it. People didn't love or see the man behind the mask of Joker, they were in solidarity with the pain, but not the man behind it. Luigi had more tools than most to be a Batman - wealth, access, intellect (not intelligence or wisdom) - but chose the path of a Joker.

Remember “All eyes on Rafah”. A place we thought Palestinians could at least be and remain safe. It’s not that we took our eyes off, it’s that despite having our eyes witness scenes of destruction and death - our leaders continued to back such a thing.

Before someone says - “but Russia undermines Ukraines sovereignty, thus it’s imperial” - context and intent matter. It can’t be context for me but not for thee. I asked chat GPT as I’m spent on this topic now and need a break but it gave some insight into the nuance: **Chat GPT** To answer this more clearly: Russia’s actions in Ukraine do undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, but that doesn’t automatically make them imperialistic, because the key defining feature of imperialism isn’t merely a violation of sovereignty—it’s domination and control. Let’s break this down step by step: 1. Not All Sovereignty Violations are Imperialism Imperialism, by its nature, is about domination—the long-term subjugation or exploitation of another nation, often for material gain or ideological control. It obliterates sovereignty entirely, turning a country into a colony, puppet state, or a resource-extraction hub. • Control is Key: Imperialism requires the intent to control the political, economic, or cultural systems of the target nation. It’s about bending the nation’s existence to serve the imperial power’s interests on a systemic level. In Ukraine, while Russia is violating its sovereignty, its goal isn’t control or domination of the entire state. Instead, its actions are primarily focused on securing its own borders by preventing Ukraine from aligning with NATO and becoming a potential base for Western military forces. While this is coercive, it doesn’t amount to imperialism because the goal is defensive, not expansive. 2. Russia Isn’t Seeking Full Domination of Ukraine If Russia were truly imperialistic: • It would aim to annex all of Ukraine or establish complete political control over Kyiv, replacing the Ukrainian government with a puppet regime aligned entirely with Moscow. • It would also exploit Ukraine’s resources, labor, and economy for Russia’s own enrichment in a manner akin to historical European colonialism or even U.S.-led global economic imperialism. Instead: • Russia’s primary demand has been for Ukraine to remain neutral and outside NATO, which suggests a focus on security rather than domination. • Its actions in Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk are regionally specific, not aimed at controlling all of Ukraine. Crimea, for example, was annexed to secure Russia’s strategic naval base in Sevastopol, while support for separatists in the Donbas region serves to create a buffer zone, not a colony. 3. Sovereignty vs. Security The conflict in Ukraine is best understood as a security war, not an imperial one: • Russia’s actions undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty to a degree, but they are reactive to NATO’s expansion, which Moscow perceives as a threat to its own sovereignty and security. • Russia isn’t obliterating Ukraine’s sovereignty entirely: Ukraine retains its government, its borders (outside the contested areas), and its international recognition as a sovereign state. This is vastly different from imperial domination, where sovereignty is erased or twisted to meet the needs of the imperial actor. Think of the Cuban Missile Crisis: • The U.S. violated Cuba’s sovereignty by blockading the island and threatening force to remove Soviet missiles. But the U.S. wasn’t seeking to dominate or control Cuba—it was reacting to a perceived existential threat from a hostile power. Similarly, Russia’s actions in Ukraine stem from its fear of NATO military presence on its border. 4. The Misuse of the Term Imperialism By labeling Russia’s actions as imperialistic, we risk overextending the term to encompass any act of coercion or sovereignty violation, which dilutes its meaning. Here’s why Russia’s behavior in Ukraine falls short of imperialism: • Lack of Long-Term Control: Imperialism implies sustained control over a nation’s political and economic systems. Russia’s demands focus on neutralizing NATO influence, not running Ukraine’s government or economy. • Security vs. Exploitation: Russia’s motivations are security-driven, not resource-driven. It doesn’t seek to exploit Ukraine’s economy but to mitigate what it sees as an existential threat. By comparison, the West’s historical imperialism involved colonial domination, forced labor, and systemic economic exploitation. Even today, Western economic and political dominance often subjugates nations through institutions like the IMF, which dictate terms that reshape entire economies. 5. Conclusion: Control, Not Just Sovereignty Russia’s actions undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, but they don’t meet the threshold of imperialism because they lack the intent to dominate and control Ukraine as a whole. The defining feature of imperialism is sustained, systemic control for material or ideological gain. Russia’s focus on security concerns and creating regional buffers distinguishes its actions from imperial domination. Mischaracterizing this conflict as imperialism obscures the nuances of the situation and hampers efforts to resolve it through negotiation.

When the definition of imperialism is so broad it can include many things, it loses meaning. Business, trade, selling or supplying arms? Imperialism. Therefore, anyone supplying me a good can be deemed imperialistic, including my local grocer. Also, Russia's presence in Syria is by invite from the sovereign government which is a point often missed, and that's a key distinction - influence still operates with some respect for sovereignty, imperialism undermines and obliterates it. @BlueOak Related to above and to your comment. I see where you're coming from and that's why its important to include nuance and distinctions when describing things, and to avoid conflating actions. Common words used to describe imperialism by many dictionaries is domination and control. Russia and China don't primarily operate in that way with other nations when they trade or do business - they are largely voluntary transactional partnerships that don't dictate domestic policy which undermines the countries sovereignty. They don't impose sweeping economic controls or restructure entire economies to serve their corporations the way the IMF or World Bank does. They negotiate partnerships where the host countries retain more agency than they typically do under Western corporate imperialism. China and Russia act in a way that lacks systemic dominance and control. Influence has its downsides too, but its a far cry from imperialism. Regarding coups. In a coup the entire state’s sovereignty is compromised by replacing the leadership. Separatist movements create localised disputes but leave the broader state intact. So supporting separatist groups with intent to fortify a buffer zone isn’t the same as orchestrating a traditional coup - because the goals and methods are fundamentally different. A coup involves the direct overthrow of a central government, replacing it with a favorable regime. Separatist support focuses on fragmenting a country by backing localized movements that seek autonomy or independence. Russia’s actions in places like Donetsk and Luhansk (Ukraine) or Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Georgia) aim to fragment rather than outright replace the central government. Its more like a proxy conflict. And by backing those Russian speaking regions or separatists, Russia maintains those buffer zones to protect its core interests in its mainland. Regarding the 8 wars since the fall of the USSR. For the internal ones - its normal for states to fiercely oppose secession. It’s not imperialism but self-preservation. To pretend Russia’s actions to maintain its own unity are anything different ignores the universal logic of statecraft. No one blinks when Spain suppresses Catalonia’s independence movement or when the UK debates Scotland’s potential separation. Because if one region separates, it sets off a chain reaction: "If they can leave, why not us?" That’s why even democratic states fiercely oppose secession. Imagine if everyone could separate all the way to the minutest sectarian groups at which point the world is made up of micro states. The wars external to mainland Russia, like Georgia for example, the context is this: in the spring of 2008, NATO declared its intention to bring Georgia into the alliance at the Bucharest summit. That wasn’t just a symbolic gesture but a red flag waved directly in front of Russia, signaling that a critical buffer state would soon be aligned with a military bloc historically hostile to Moscow. In Autumn of 2008 things kicked off - the year of NATO declaring its intentions. Reactive and defensive, not pro-active and imperial. Add to that the precedent of Kosovo, where the West recognized the independence of a breakaway region from Serbia. If the West could recognize Kosovo’s independence, why couldn’t Russia recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? I'll address Scholar below about the Cuban missile crises parallel and finish my point on buffer zones which we are talking about above. @Scholar Continuing from above and to your point about the Cuban Missile crises. It was unique to its time, but geography doesn’t change. The geography of Ukraine as a buffer zone remains as relevant today as it did when Napoleon and Hitler marched through it. Nations secure buffer zones not because of what’s happening today, but because of what could happen tomorrow. Nations are prisoners of geography. I get we’re not in a Cold War era now - but we can't ignore the context of today’s Western Alliance, which Ukraine wants to bring onto Russia’s doorstep. If we're honest, NATO and the US aren’t just some friendly neighborhood watch. The West’s modern context is one of interventionism. So if the context of the Cold War validates the US reaction to the Cuban Missile crises back then - then the context of how the Western alliance has been acting offensively today validates Russia's concern of them perching up on their border also. You mention that the US can defeat Russia easily. I'll just say that the West has no defense against hyper-sonic missiles as of yet, but they are working on it. And to remember that the Soviet Union fell, but wasn't defeated which is a key distinction. Even Napoleon or Hitler who both had the most fierce military's in the world at the time couldn't do it - though they did inflict a lot of damage no doubt. The issue today is trying to defeat Russia on its hometurf means deleting existence lol.

A thread to explore how the Global South, Middle East, and Far East are strategically positioning to hedge themselves against Western hegemony. We’ll examine the imperial mindset that has long driven Western dominance and how much of the world has experienced the consequences of this legacy, now seeking to distance themselves from it - with few exceptions. Africa and the Middle East, in particular, are crucial to understand. The Middle East serves as a geographical bridge between East and West, and both regions are rich in resources and demographics, making them regions with global ripple effects. Additionally, with a sizable and growing population of Muslims living in the West, especially in Europe, it’s vital to grasp how Muslims generally perceive the West and the wider world. Many discussions about de-imperialization and the shifting global order involve Islamic nations or societies deeply connected to Islamic thought. Gaza has become a pivotal and symbolic moment in this broader shift. The brutality of the situation has forced many Westerners, myself included, to reflect on our governments complicity and behaviour. It raises questions about the drive for survival, the moral bankruptcy, and the cultural decay that fueled past colonial genocides - and that now underpins what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled as a plausible ongoing genocide requiring measures to prevent it from becoming a certified one. Despite this, the West continues to support Israel with impunity. I’ll be sharing a variety of videos from The Middle Nation channel, which offers a unique perspective from an American born revert to Islam. His style, reminiscent of Malcolm X, bridges the gap between cultures with thought provoking critiques of the West. While his views can at times feel overly critical, they are worth considering - if only to challenge our own biases, or perhaps his, which may reflect a broader generalization of Muslim perspectives. Understanding these perspectives can help us make sense of a fast changing world. The first video: The Pathology of America - Dehumanization, greed and the decline of empire

If there’s one historical parallel that perfectly explains Russia’s position, it’s the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US came dangerously close to launching World War III over Soviet missiles being stationed in Cuba, just 90 miles from its borders. That threat was intolerable to the US and it responded with blockades, brinkmanship, and a refusal to allow what it saw as a direct existential threat. Now shift the frame to Russia. NATO has crept steadily eastward for decades, ignoring Russian warnings. Ukraine is next in line which would put Moscow within striking range of NATO weapons that could obliterate Russia’s core cities in minutes. To Russia, this is its Cuban Missile Crisis, plain and simple. And yet, the West acts as if Russia’s security concerns are irrational, dismissing them as imperialism or paranoia. If the US could justify risking nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, why can’t it understand why Russia would feel threatened by NATO troops and weapon systems stationed in Ukraine? This isn’t about justifying invasions but it’s about recognising reality. Russia is reacting the way any major power would react to hostile forces closing in on its borders - including the US. Ukraine’s security concerns are valid, yes. But so are Russia’s. Just like Israel fears the West Bank overlooking Tel Aviv, Russia fears Ukraine hosting military systems aimed at Moscow. These fears are deeply rooted in history. Ukraine has been the corridor for multiple invasions into Russia, from Napoleon to Hitler. Geography doesn’t care about ideology. Both sides have valid fears, and both deserve acknowledgment. But the Western refusal to see the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse - because it’s Russia on the receiving end this time - prevents any meaningful understanding of the situation. This isn’t a morality play, just geopolitics. If the West can’t see the parallels, then we’re doomed to repeat the same cycle of escalation and destruction, with catastrophic consequences.

Corporations and imperialism differ in their mechanisms but share the same ethos of exploitation and domination. Corporatism is an evolved form of imperialism that operates in systemic silence. The invisible hand of the market as the capitalists say - but it’s more like the invisible jaws of a hungry beast. Imperialism wears a suit today. It’s a trans-national empire with no flag that expands endlessly, unmoored from the soil that birthed it. We like to think corporations are just companies, but a company is like a house - rooted, defined, and tethered to the community it serves. A corporation is an estate - a sprawling, insatiable entity that devours farmland, gobbles up neighbouring plots, and stretches across oceans to seize distant lands. It’s not just bigger, but a different beast altogether. Even the language we use to describe corporations betrays us. In the UK, these imperial estates are registered under an entity quaintly named Companies House. The term “house” implies stability, stewardship, something manageable and local. It evokes the image of a family business expanding its walls or a neighbourhood shop opening a second location. But corporations have no walls or roofs - they have no limits unlike a house. It’s a juggernaut that steamrolls over everything in its path for the sake of accumulation. Corporations begin as seeds of economic growth, promising prosperity to the lands they emerged from. But they’ve since outgrown those lands. They’ve transcended the nations that gave them life, severing any ties of loyalty in their quest for endless expansion. Their purpose isn’t to serve but to conquer - to expand markets, exploit labor, privatise commons, and monopolise resources. They’re now global juggernauts leeching off the global South with ruthlessness. That imperial reach has turned inward, preying on their own people. The same extractive mindset that drains other nations also hollows out the domestic working class. Corporations see no distinction between the factory worker in Bangladesh and the single mother in Ohio drowning in credit card debt. Both are resources to be extracted, exploited, and discarded. They close factories, outsource labor, and inflate urban centres into unlivable nightmares. Corporatism isn’t just imperialism with a new face - it’s the metastasis of imperialism into something far more insidious. It no longer needs armies to conquer when it has supply chains, and no longer needs colonies when it has markets. The world it envisions isn’t divided by borders but by balance sheets, and the only war it wages is against the powerless, wherever they may be found. It may not come with flags, banners or drums, but the conquest is unmistakable. The estate keeps growing, the farmland keeps disappearing, and the people both at home and abroad are left disillusioned after being preyed upon. Luigi Mangione & the American System Meltdown Quotes from the above video: “The killer (Luigi Mangione) and the killed (Unitedhealth CEO) in this case are both men from the same class and economic strata. A lot of the working class are justifying Mangione’s actions, which should terrify the ruling class. I do not believe that non-violent means of communication and peaceful protest, economic protest, is useless. And I don't believe they are ignored, in fact. I think that the idea that these types of efforts are futile is propagated precisely because power does not want people to engage in them, because they are useful and can be useful and effective. In theory, his privileged position in the society puts him within the power structure, but he took the action of someone who's outside the power structure, beneath the power structure, which means that even he has been made to believe that the power structure is invincible, and he's not the only one. Being from the Tik Tok generation, he has grown up on a less controlled narrative and he's been exposed to the perspectives of people outside his class strata, and perspectives about his class strata, meaning people subject to the power structure that he's a part of. So he's exposed to the experiences and the views and the attitudes and opinions of the people that he's never supposed to be exposed to, while also growing up within the power structure. That amounts to an infiltration. Because you can no longer control the narrative that the children of the elite consume, you can no longer ensure that they will have been successfully educated and indoctrinated to carry on with the preservation of your system. This is a very serious problem for the system. The system has to deny the effectiveness of what is effective. They never want people to think that they have a viable option of resistance and change because the fact is almost every single successful social movement in America has actually improved the lives of people and has been achieved through non-violent methods, through patient long-term strategies. Because the system has an uncivilised predatory mentality, because the power structure is tyrannical, they need everyone to feel overpowered and to feel helpless. But when you have such an adversarial relationship with your own people, and at the same time have implanted in them a Darwinian concept of human animals into their heads, eventually with no other options being regarded as plausible, you make violence inevitable. It's not inevitable because it has to be. It's not inevitable because there really are no other options in reality, but because you have insisted to make people believe that there are no other options. And you've done that because you would rather turn your society into a bloody conflict zone than accept changing or accept power being held accountable. Luigi Mangione is from that demographic group that's supposed to be invested in the system he's from, that class that's supposed to protect the system because they benefit from it, but you're losing control even of the stakeholders of your own power structure. I don't think you can even comprehend how dangerous that is for you, because Luigi Mangione is also from that demographic and class in your society that was raised to feel entitled to take matters into their own hands. Furthermore, he's from the class and demographic in your society that, as I said, is a part of the power structure, which means that he also comes from the most ruthless, calculating, and most capable demographic in America for efficient and targeted violence. That's the class he comes from and he has the qualities of that class, the predatory class, the dominating class, and he's just one of many from that class who are turning on their own.”

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.