BlueOak

I'm afraid, Elliot, you 1, Don't get to dictate the conversation. Especially when you didn't start the topic which is: Capitalism is objectively superior to any other form of governance. If you want to spin off a thread specifically on the cold war i'll debate you all day. Start one. 2, Dictate how others reply to you. 3, Brought Bernie Sanders and the western view into this not me. So you get to make points of reference and I don't is that it? Convenient eh. 4, Decided to focus on expansion when I never mentioned it. Shall I reply with. Stop addings Elliot, its bad. Or is that in fact the point of a conversation? To link things together, make connections and relevant points? How can I possibly answer you, when you can bring the west into it and Bernie Sanders and I cannot reply. Absurd.

A few things here. 1, Communism is too authoritarian for me yes. But then so is almost every country on earth right now after the attempted social and economic alignment of east/west. You would say to a greater degree, I would say in some respects yes but the gap is closing because of this integration. 2, Socialism generally in western nations is not the same as in eastern ones. Apples to Oranges in that respect. You are almost reinforcing my greater point for me about capitalism. Socialist influences and institutions would arise and form very differently in Europe or America compared to Africa, Asia or Russia 3, There was a lot of reasons for a cold war, primarily ideology. If those had been two capitalist states reaching germany, I doubt a cold war would have happened. Its important to note expansionism is not 1, related to communism or any ideology, and 2, practiced by those in most ideologies.

I'm amazed that you think the COLD WAR. Was internally fought inside Russia only. Or for some reason don't link the cold war to the fall of communism. If you are seriously telling me that I can discuss it with you.

We are in techno feudalism right now. Scandinavia too yes. Will it devolve into kleptocracy? It depends how much money Elon and others like him accumulate. Will countries have any agency if he gets enough? Some don't already

Oh come on Elliott. Do we need to go through the history of the Cold War and all the moves and countermoves? Everything is global in scope you know that, more so each year. Capitalism won. Communism was collapsed, and that's one of the reasons any attempt at reviving it meets with an unsurprising amount of arms delivered to the other side.

So i've noticed many things. Regarding this during my life. I 'm not going to call myself a vegan anymore, because nobody else calls themselves a carnivore do they, and if people call me it I'm going to laugh at them. Vegans are quite preachy generally speaking as its part of their indentity. Many are also not, but to them its not a huge part of their lives. There are of course a large number of preachy non vegans. You see them every day on social media, very wrapped up in their identity. Its so bad its an epidemic that reminds me of the 80s materialism and image concerns. Non vegans can be absurd about veganism. You can't eat an egg sandwich after being without food a shift lasting an entire day! Your a vegan! Your not a real vegan if you eat honey. Its like a religion to them too, what I put in my own stomach and seeingly of great concern to them. So it goes both ways. Do you get people categorizing what you put in your sandwich? Would that be annoying if it happened at work often? The level of religious zeal that its taken on is absurd. It really is. From both sides - I'm going to show you how absurd sides are here now. I've had carnivores, see how having your identity labelled by your diet is absurd, tell me straight that vegan's can't tell their kids not to eat meat. I'm like, Well, can I dictate to your kids what their breakfast is going to be? No? Oh? Surprising that isn't it. I've had people out of the blue, unsolicited, tell me they don't believe in veganism, thank you that's great, and I shrug what, do you think its a fairytale-like myth going on? Everyone just needs to stop. By all means show pictures of slaughterhouses or the cages they keep the animals in, factory farmed like rats to the fast food joints, but don't tell anyone what to do with that information. They either care or don't. They either don't mind what anyone jabs into animals, just to smell slightly more like vanilla-cakes or some synthetic form of paint thinner when they go out or they don't. But show them it sure. Show the reality so it either improves or doesn't.

As we enter tiktok politics its just about soundbytes. Get some good ones.

Seriously. You missed the cold war?

Sure if capitalism existed in America. It doesn't. Corporatism does. Sure if you live at the top. The middle's comfortable. If you are the bottom, where more people reside, its one of the more inferior forms of government. Its end state is corportism or worse kleoptocracy and now techno feudalism.

So this is well put. Pure stage orange thinkers are not selling their gold for roubles. As they know, Russia is too risky an investment. People whose only bias is wealth are not risking it on Russia, because they know what I do: if nothing changes, Russia is headed for sharper and sharper drops. @Kid A Yeah but the world didn't resist Russia. America and Europe did. Much of the world aided Russia.

Its reality trying to integrate a lot of fundamentally different opinions and ways of living, its doing it in a ridiculous 'we must have a single standard for everything' way. Its dumb in every incarnation or way it tries this in.

I don't think it would have made much of a difference to the map I agree, its pretty much where I predicted after Ukraine kicked their initial invasion out, natural borders and all. And because its moved so slowly for Russia, it's changed the map very little for what Russia has wasted. But yes it would have ended the conflict quicker if arms had come quicker and America had held a hard line. Ditto if India and BRICS hadn't continued to fund Russia's expansion. I don't think Russia is giving up on its aims. Nor China. I think the more arms given and the more damage done to Russia, the less likely Putin will be able to continue expansion any time soon, and the more it dissuades China. Hopefully Russia is battered enough that Putin is dead before they go for round 3. Which I am nearly certain, if nothing changes, will come. Its the obvious pattern. Two former invasions, and all the USSR countries invaded previously—it'll probably be the other half of Georgia next. It'll take 2 more years to take the donbas region and another million or so casualties, which I am far from certain Russia can sustain with the amount of economic and long term military damage they are taking, such as another 350 million dollar plane just going up, or their s400 batteries being reduced to critical levels, so much so Ukranian drones can just waltz in wherever they like and take their country apart. The Russian economy is in terrible shape now. If I had to visualise it, it'd be a life support drip from BRICS. Europe does need a significantly larger military and military industrial complex to supply it, so its not reliant on anyone else for its own security. That I fully agree with. We cannot rely on anyone else to keep peace in Europe or Russia, China, Iran and BRICS in check. Europe certainly is trying to uphold international law, in Europe. The world doesn't give a damn about international law or recognize it. You are sort of proving my point. But i'll roll with this, where outside of NATO, has the world held Russia accountable? Genuinely interested if this is your position? I would say the complete opposite was true, and further, while a singular country with a few allies is supporting Israel, most are condemning it.

Japan moves missiles on their islands to cover Taiwan, and their own islands in the area. After rising tensions, ongoing threats from China against Japanese islands, and Japan stating they'd intervene in any threat against Taiwan. One of many Chinese: China South Sea expansion plans, moving their vessels into other countries' waters and pushing us closer to a larger war.

A simple soundbyte evoking a feeling. Change is easy to say. Hard to do. And even harder to put into a 6 second tiktok clip with the results. Shout change a lot in the bad times and you win the American elections. Be the status quo in a good time and you win the American elections. Be the change candidate in the good times and you lose the American elections. Be the status quo candidate in the bad times and you lose the American elections. But this is one place where Generation Z will have a strange effect I cannot fully see yet (which makes it interesting to me) They have no permanence, they like surprise outcomes, they need it delivered to them in 6 seconds, then on to the next thing. This is a pattern breaker if ever I saw one (and/or a clawing towards needing a stable pattern as they mature). Maybe there will be a trend of 6 second informative political deliveries; I don't know. Someone get on that and make a career :D.

Chomsky has never been a hero of mine. He'll excuse a lot of things to secure something else. It fits the profile. Though I highly doubt he's a pedo for whatever it matters, doesn't fit his character at all. I don't like him but I don't see that either.

The Russian Army. Recently they've put they want absolution for their warcrimes into their peace negotiations. The Europeans even offered it in their counter proposal (which Putin will never accept, not until he's got all he wanted). After all the torture, 4 years of civilian bombings, terrorism abroad, kindapping of children, and forced conscription. They want all that swept away as if it didn't happen. Now I know it will be anyway, because money > than everything and the world has no international law. The next time someone tells me there is international law, or that I should somehow consider it, I am going to belly laugh at them. Generation Z influence - the generation where nothing has any permanence, so why does it matter, under generation X's leadership: The world's screwed anyway attitude. Why am I posting this, because two people here have tried to tell me international law matters. It doesn't exist, and if, conveniently, two years from now it suddenly starts to exist, I will say excatly that: International law is optional and exists when its convenient to. Ditto Israel. All this outrage for Israeli bombing but Russia just does whatever the hell it wants without a peep makes me sick. For greater context this guy is on the ball as always:

No he's not as desperate as Putin, but then his country isn't as radicalized and far right either. He works with many authoritarian governments, and they have adequate relations. I would say China is considerably more balanced and stable. This changes nothing about what i've said. You tend to look at absolutes, I don't. I think if Russia fights their wars, weakens themselves, and radicalises Europe that presents opportunities and dangers for China, I think if Russia has peace, NATO grows bolder, and China more subtly competes with trade and industry that creates opportunities and danger for Chinese influence. Either way they are still influencing directly and indirectly, both by their existance and intent the course of the world.

Aligned with China's interests? No. China would be very happy if Europe started giving them everything they wanted, including arms, money, military allies and political support. I have however mentioned, and will do so again, that creating authoritarians, and right-wing ones especially (as Russia is attempting), can backfire quite spectacularly.

I doubt they want the entire world. They certainly want BRICS dominance of it, and they are the majority partner in BRICS yes. For their own ends, as in China itself, they want continued expansion both in terms of territory, trade, influence and military power yes.

@Elliott Right of where they were? Are you really asking why a country wants another to align with it ideologically, economically, and militarily? - Is this something that needs an answer? China specifically wants them authoritarian and (in my view of a global context) slight right of center, buying, trading, and allowing China to expand what it wants where it wants.They want policies in Europe that benefit them, they want to remake Europe and America in a way that suits Chinas continued interests. I mean that's just common sense. Or this is again about my personal view of the political spectrum? Why is that so important to you? Again you've failed to mention why the vietnam war has anything to do with China and European relations? Do I have to guess? I can hazard a guess but I doubt it'll be whatever you are hinting at. Are we saying that because France was involved in a conflict in 1955 (don't quote me on dates its before my time), that in 2025 China is what, angry at France? Is this map an attempt to tell me that China's aggression and expansion is justified due to European colonies from hundreds of years ago? Are we hinting that a militarized Europe is going to, what, invade vietnam? I am not sure what you are getting at.

30% less of it. Global oil prices apparently just jumped 3% overnight. The line downwards for the Russian economy continues to accelerate. 2nd video for a more nuanced take. *Also Turkey, and India etc, those countries buying to sell have stopped.

New low for Russia. Tricking foreign migrants into their army and sending them to die. I am quite impressed that Russia continues to surprise me with their depravity. Four years on watching it all.

Okay. And what does America's war in vietnam decades ago have to do with Chinese European relations? One last try. No I said Europe was resisting Eastern influence (both direct and indirect). Primarially the authoritarian drift, but there has been some shift. I have said before in other conversations that a possible result of Russian meddling primarily is that it does not create countries friendly with Moscow but rightwing governments likely to fight harder. I never said China wanted to demilitarize Europe. I said and i'll quote it again: Countries have national interests. If trade benefits them, they'll trade. If bombs benefit them, they'll bomb. What a country won't do, for example, is assist another country in resisting China taking over its territory as its own. Not unless they had some sort of practical ties and reason to do so. These develop because their ideologies and/or interests align. There is often a natural drift on the meta level of a country (or any large group) toward others who share similiar views. However now you mention it, I very much think Russia especially don't want Europe to have teeth, and so by association China as well, but to a lesser extent due to geography. Again it seems you are focused on my personal opinion on ideology, when its of much less import. The only salient point to argue is: Has there been pressure from the east to restructure the nature of western countries. BRICS as a whole are authoritarian in nature and counter to democratic values yes. They have a mostly rightwing ideology among the member states like Russia or Iran, and moreover, an authoritarian one, with obviously countries who are more center-authoritarian.

Do you think it needs this to be a threat to China? Or do you think there are more weapon producers than there have ever been on planet earth right now? China needs Europe aligned or at least subdued to dominate the planet, yes. The economic and military power of Europe is a hurdle to BRICS dominance. Especially as we are moving to 5% of GDP on defense in Europe now over time, for reference, countries barely put 2% in previously.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But in the instance you are not @Elliott I see no inconsistencies. Not sure where leftists in your questioning came from as I never mentioned them? I would wager from your earlier posts, and then this absolute sort of question you can't see (or don't use) multiple countries in comparison to each other, or any kind of large potential political scale that allows for side-by-side comparison of policy and ideology, culture alignment, economic alignment etc. Countries have national interests. If trade benefits them, they'll trade. If bombs benefit them, they'll bomb. What a country won't do, for example, is assist another country in resisting China taking over its territory as its own. Not unless they had some sort of practical ties and reason to do so. These develop because their ideologies and/or interests align. There is often a natural drift on the meta level of a country (or any large group) toward others who share similiar views. It doesn't matter who I consider rightwing, almost all countries are center or rightwing. It matters how close other countries are ideologically are to others. Specifically in this case the level of authoritarism is a defining force. Yeah Europe is certainly resisting the efforts of the eastern powers, but there is a rightward and authoritarian drift (due in part with increasing tension and the wars themselves, migration and eastern efforts). There was a heck of a lot of pushback to get any aid whatsoever into Ukraine, at some points Russia's cronies in certain countries have tried to outright sabotage it. It's no different in the South China Sea or Taiwan, Tibet, or East Turkestan - only geography makes such things significantly harder to aid Taiwan, for example. https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.politicalcompass.org/test - or the test itself might help for reference.