Jarvis323 said:
But how do you explain the high heels?
Truth be told I put that video as a joke here. I don't know nor do I have the sources to know whether that is true. It could be AI video software editing or it could be true, if it's true, well all people have insecurities. I have mine but I don't justify my resulting bad actions with them.
Jarvis323 said:
I don't get your point. It's a general truth that he would be more respected overall if he were to stop/give up when he has failed (or wear normal shoes once everyone knows he's secretly wearing heels). This is a truth he is blinded to, because he is obsessed with never yielding, even to the point of extreme irrationality. I'm not saying it is possible to get through to him. But if it could be done, then it might save many many lives.
You could be right but if history is any measure I think that would be a futile attempt. I'm sure many mass murderers or murderers in general also had severe psychological problems that contributed to their actions but do we try to comfort them in order to stop their actions or do we arrest them/ stop them by force and then figure out what to do?
I personally am not convinced a softer and forthcoming relationship with Putin would make stark difference in the long term, because that would imply he would completely change course and give up all his ambitions if that were the case and I personally don't believe that, if anything he would use that for his personal benefit as he has done so before. It's like trying to talk your way out of a speeding ticket with a "law and order" type policeman, no approach will succeed for someone who is determined on his path.
Jarvis323 said:
His action to wear ridiculous high heels was calculated. Calculated, but silly and stupid. His decision to invade Ukraine was calculated but stupid. Sure things have gone is way in the past, but not through intelligence, through brutality. He's assassinated his competition, and invaded weaker countries and territories. He's corrupted his government and pillaged his people. I would challenge you to point to anything he's done which shows true intelligence.
Again I don't know about the heels part , can't really comment, as for Ukraine , well it may seem stupid but there was a real plan that would have benefited him if it succeeded, can call it evil but not sure whether it is stupid.
The assassinations also benefited him, I think it's easy to see. If your goal is to become the only ruler in town then you have to get rid of your opposition, so far I don't see much inconsistency.
I think you are confusing good with intelligent, evil can also be intelligent, just the result is different.
Some of the biggest oligarchs here got their money through ill ways , often including assassinations and bribery. They are very smart. It takes a lot of planning and thinking to get away with so many broken laws.
Jarvis323 said:
I thought I remember you criticizing the west for its aggression in the past. Now you're acting as if they finally became "tough".
True, I did that, but when I said this I thought it in a specific context , namely that of policy towards China and Russia. I still hold my position in that I don't like expansionist policy neither from west or east. I don't think it is possible or viable and wise to accept every country along the Russian border in NATO. It may look nice on paper but it's not doable in a real sense. I got some "heat" (more like hate) for these comments here before although not sure why.
That being said I also don't believe that not being in NATO is an excuse for some aggressor to come in and use the situation. Taiwan is also not in NATO nor have there been any real plans or even talks of accepting it in NATO, but that doesn't mean Taiwan is "up for grabs" to the strongest bidder.
Even more so Ukraine had already a treaty guaranteeing it's territorial sovereignty , had it any effect ?
My particular criticism would be that this wasn't a surprise attack, Russia pretty much signaled it's intentions as far back as 2014 with the "little green men" and Donbas and Crimea. Back then EU and US did next to nothing, which probably contributed to the current escalation.
I don't know whether Ukraine in NATO would have helped to avoid this situation or instead made a Russian attack sooner and their fulfillment of their threats more realistic, and it seems that now they will reach a "deal" that could have been done long before where Ukraine doesn't join NATO but Russia is forbidden to interfere in their sovereign territory.
As for soft power interference , well NATO doesn't solve that, Baltics are in NATO and Russia meddles politically as if nothing changes.
So to sum up what I believe , if anyone has the time or cares to read, I believe in peace but achieved taking into account the particular peculiarities of certain regions. Sure ideally I would also say that Ukraine can go for whatever they wish, be it NATO, EU, Mars etc but realistically there are compromises, this war could have been avoided most likely with stronger policy, sanctions in the past towards Russian previous aggression and meanwhile recognizing that Ukraine has to stay neutral without joining NATO but asking that the Russians agree that if this is achieved that they cannot interfere in Ukraine and if they do like they just did then Ukraine reserves the option to have NATO troops fighting on their behalf as foreign military aid. Honestly we have come close to this anyway now, so what's the difference?
Jarvis323 said:
And in terms of "wokeness", it was the conservative politicians, including the previous Republican president, who were advocating leaving NATO and leaving the Baltic nations to fend for themselves while getting friendly with Putin. Meanwhile, his first (centrist I guess) Democrat opponent (Hillary Clinton) might be even as aggressive militarily as Putin is.
I agree , Trump made some weird foreign policy moves that got us rather worried and infuriated here in Baltics. On the other hand I don't think Hillary would have been better, being too nice with Putin runs the risk of him getting his way, but being too tough with him runs the risk of actually making WW3.
So far I must said Biden has been manageable , maybe bit slow but fine.

But this is not about US politicians as much as it is about the idea to have certain red lines and agreed upon rules that don't necessarily involve having a particular country within a particular union. Sweden or Finland isn't in NATO, does that mean we should tolerate any Russian advances towards them?
We did tolerate just that with Ukraine back in 2014...
Oldman too said:
Hi Artis, I was thinking that maybe your use of "woke" might have been misapplied here, not sure how its construed in Europe but here in the U.S. it, means among other things, well...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/woke-meaning-origin , it can also be a "political football" but as they say "The ambiguity is the essence" so it's a somewhat loaded term, or not, depending on whom one is addressing
Hi, nice to hear your comment, I agree
@Oldman too I most likely made a mistake, this word is "loaded" , powerful but loaded and easy to get enemies using it.
That being said my points about US companies and certain politicians having very "apologetic and apologizing" attitude towards rivals like China I believe is on point. Much like the example of John Cena apologizing in mandarin for daring to call Taiwan a country. I wonder would he also do it if China invaded Taiwan like Russia did with Ukraine.