The Russian are feared and despised, — ssu

Yes, they are feared and despised by those who have always feared and despised them, like Finland, Poland, and England! :grin:

The fact is, Russia poses no threat to America, so there is no reason for Americans to fear the Russians. Unless you count Ukraine as part of the USA, which you appear to be doing .... :lol:

Presented without comment. — Baden

Very funny :smile:

However, I think it ought to be obvious that there is a difference between (1) “empire” in the sense of historical "Russian Empire" which was basically Czarist Russia, and (2) “empire” in the sense of expansionist system aiming to acquire territories beyond the original entity, e.g., the British Empire that kept expanding forever beyond the British Isles.

In other words, Russian Empire in sense (1) refers to an established, internationally recognized geographical area, whereas "Russian Empire" in sense (2) is an imaginary construct created by Western propaganda.

I think restoring some of the Russian Empire in sense (1) is legitimate. (Also, note that I said “some”.).

Creating an empire in sense (2) is (a) not legitimate and (b) unsupported by the evidence.

Hence my objection to the use of the phrase "Russian Empire" in sense (2).

Pretty clear and simple IMO ....

More like Russian Empire nostalgia, I think. — jamalrob

That's a good point.

I think Putin said something like "if you feel no nostalgia for the Soviet Union, you have no heart, but if you want to bring it back, you have no brain".

People like to talk about Putin allegedly wanting to "bring the USSR back". But this is only because they are stuck in the Cold War era and view the world in terms of outdated and moth-eaten stereotypes (no doubt reinforced by Western propaganda).

The reality is that Putin isn't stupid and there can be no question of him bringing back the old Soviet Union. But he clearly intends to restore some of the Russian Empire, which I believe he is perfectly entitled to do. Restoring Russia's past glory may have some drawbacks (depending on how this is achieved), but it also has positive aspects. For example, it can be a counterweight to other powers like America, Turkey, China, and other vultures circling the skies with an eye on easy pickings.

But, ultimately, the problem stems from the destruction of Germany as Europe's principal continental power which for centuries had kept Russia in check. This leaves a power vacuum right in the center of Europe that America and other non-European powers (including Turkey) are seeking to fill. Hence the total mess Europe is in.

IMO all the talk of Europe becoming "more united" in the face of Russian aggression is nonsense, as it obviously is an artificial and temporary unity that cannot possibly last as long as Europe is dominated by powers on its outskirts, like France and Britain, or non-European powers, like America.

Dear Sir,

Please stop. This is not helping.

Sincerely,

The West — Manuel

I think the issue isn't quite over yet. America always thinks in terms of financial profit, even when it doesn't look like it. So, the first step is to milk the situation to the limit and make some billions from selling oil, gas, and military equipment to Europe. The second step will be to get proxies to fight Russia, perhaps after the British instigate civil war in Ukraine. The third step, direct military involvement, if it does come, will come last. Meantime, there will be mass propaganda and targeted support for political opposition within Russia.

Incidentally, speaking of financial profit, I was glancing through the FT earlier today and you get lots of articles like "Russian aggression tests Zelensky's restraint", "Putin eyes next move after separatist states decision", "The West must show greater resolve towards Russia", and "Finland urges Nato option for Kyiv" (say no more :wink: ).

In other words, I think it's clear whose side the FT is on ....

For example, it is well known the Herodians and Hasmoneans before them were highly intertwined with the broader Greek world. Architecture and gymnasiums and theaters were established. It is also well known of the ancient Jewish practice of reclining like the Greeks. It’s mentioned in modern day Passover seders. It’s in the Haggadahs. — schopenhauer1

Well, Olivier for one seems to find the idea "amusing". :smile:

BTW the question of (compulsory) reclining at Passover is an interesting one as (1) the custom of reclining at table seems to have been widespread, and (2) it may not be quite as old as it is thought in its compulsory Passover form.

The Mishnah says:

Even the poorest of Jews should not eat the meal on Passover night until he reclines on his left side, as free and wealthy people recline when they eat.

And according to Instone-Brewer & Harland:

Although reclining was regarded as a decadent practice in Israel in the time of Amos [c. 760–755 BCE] (cf. Amos 3.12; 6.4) the many references to it in the Gospels indicate that it had been accepted as a Jewish custom. Indeed, it became so much part of the Jewish traditions that it was later regarded as a compulsory part of the celebration of Passover …
The earliest evidence in m.Pes. [Mishnah Pesachim] 10.1, which is difficult to date but is probably late 1st Century ... In later rabbinic literature we only find references to reclining at Passover, but Philo records that the Therapeutae reclined at a non-Passover meal (Contemplative Life 9, 69)

- Jewish Associations, above

Logos, the significance of a resurrecting god, substance, rhetorical styled epistles vs rabbinic styled midrash or strict halachic rules of Dead Sea Scroll sect, or essence and substance, virtues, matter and form, even the idea of communion, etc. can be considered added as part and parcel of later layers of Christianity that developed when it spread to the greater Near East, and Mediterranean world. — schopenhauer1

That’s the big question, isn’t it? Here is one way of looking at it:

The Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible were not the only books people of ancient times were reading and hearing at their religious communal readings. They were also exposed to a wide variety of Jewish texts that people thought of as spiritually profitable and many times also sacred. (Remember during this time the Canon (both Jewish and Christian) was not yet firmly established, the rough idea of what would become the Canon was already emerging).
In the Jewish treatises of Philo and others, authored in Greek, a very similar, if not the same, concept is also present. It is referred to by the use of the Greek word Logos just as in the Gospels, while in the Aramaic/Syriaic/Hebrew Jewish materials the same (or a very similar) idea is very often, though not always, signified by the word Memra (Targum Neofiti in Gen.3.13). Once a student of history of religion begins surveying Jewish pre-Christian ideas about the Word of God in para-biblical literature, pre-dating or contemporary with John’s Gospel, that student is quickly beginning to realize that up to this point (John 1:3) the author of the Gospel has not yet introduced any new ideas (and surely nothing foreign) to the Jewish first century thought-world as it existed at the time.

Logos Theology In pre-Christian Judaism – Israel Institute of Biblical Studies

And the West has always despised the Slavic people, considering them second-class people. Biden is part of a tradition that is picking up where Hitler left off. — baker

The Germans in general looked down on Slavic people long before Hitler. This was because Germans were better warriors than the Slavs (in fact, the best in all Europe) and the Slavs had acquired a reputation for being “slaves” after being defeated by the Greeks and the Germans, and sold into slavery for centuries.

This was continued into early modern times with Slavs being captured by Mongols (Tatars) and Turks and sold on the slave markets of Crimea and other parts of the Ottoman Empire (Greek sklabos, Latin sclavus, from Slavonic slověne, “Slavic person”):

Slave from Middle English, from Old French sclave, from Medieval Latin sclāvus (“slave”), from Late Latin Sclāvus (“Slav”), because Slavs were often forced into slavery in the Middle Ages. The Latin word is from Byzantine Greek Σκλάβος (Sklábos)

slave - Wiktionary

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

10 Little-Known Facts From The Crimean Slave Trade

Russia’s biggest mistake of all times was to gang up with England against Germany in WW1 after being promised Constantinople and other bits of the Ottoman Empire by the British - which, of course, it never got!

This resulted in Britain and America winning the war and Germany being enslaved. Now it’s Russia’s turn to be enslaved by the same imperialist powers. Money rules the world. Quite simple, really.

But meditation is said to help alleviate anxiety, so you really have nothing to worry about .... :wink:

Imperialism by financial means; as distinct from imperialism by military ones. — StreetlightX

Western trade dominance, Western financial instruments, Western military imperialism... — Isaac

That's exactly what some people on here refuse to understand, that imperialism comes in many forms and shapes: financial, economic, political, cultural, etc., etc., not just military.

As British Foreign Secretary Eden put it to Parliament in 1951:

We have also the fact that all through these years gradually we have drawn Germany—this greater part of Germany [US-UK-controlled West Germany] —into the Western orbit. We have drawn this part of Germany into the Schuman Plan, and into every sort and kind of contact—political, economic, literary, cultural of every sort and kind ....

Foreign Affairs: 20 Nov 1951: House of Commons debates

This was done through a combination of (1) military threats (“the Russians will come and get you if you don’t comply”), (2) manipulation of public opinion through mass propaganda, (3) influence on trade unions, political parties, and political leaders through bribes, (4) financial and economic incentives (like Marshall Plan aid), etc.

And this is the template America and its British poodle (or, more precisely, Wall Street and the City of London), have been using ever since through the instruments they have created for the purpose: World Bank, IMF, EU, NATO, OECD, etc.

Countries are lured with financial or economic incentives after which they are drawn into a spiderweb of agreements, treaties, rules, regulations, and laws, often without the general public even being aware. Even governments may be unaware of all the legal, financial, and economic ramifications until it’s too late.

And, of course, we know that the current and proposed sanctions on Russia are being enforced by the same agents of capitalist imperialism, namely America and Britain, and their ever-expanding Euro-Atlantic Empire .... :smile:

As for Germany, it always obediently follows US-UK orders, no matter what government is in charge, and even when it goes against its own interests.

Yes. Brave, brave neo-nazis... — Isaac

Not all Ukrainians are “Nazis”, but some definitely are and they have links to the government in Kiev:

As Ukraine’s struggle against Russia and its proxies continues, Kiev must also contend with a growing problem behind the front lines: far-right vigilantes who are willing to use intimidation and even violence to advance their agendas, and who often do so with the tacit approval of law enforcement agencies.

Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem - Reuters

Incidentally, British capitalists have always aimed to infiltrate Russia and get their hands on its natural resources, especially metal and coal mines. The cities of Donetsk and Luhansk were actually founded by British industrialists who persuaded the Russian Czar to allow them to “develop” the area in the 1700’s and 1800’s by building metal factories and other operations. Over the years, the majority of people that settled there were Russians.

So, the area wasn’t strictly speaking “Ukrainian” and this should have been taken into consideration when Ukraine became independent.

The other problem that arose from Ukrainian independence was the Black Sea Fleet that had its primary base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The Fleet had belonged to the Russian Empire and, after it, to the Soviet Union. When Ukraine declared itself independent in 1991, the problem that immediately arose was who should control the Black Sea Fleet and where its bases should be located. The majority of the officers remained loyal to Russia, but the naval bases were now on Ukrainian territory!

After several agreements in which Ukraine “leased” (formerly joint) naval facilities to Russia, the turning point came during the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008 when Ukraine which sided with Georgia objected to Russia’s use of the Black Sea Fleet, and George W. Bush suggested a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Georgia and Ukraine. In the following year Ukrainian president Yushchenko announced that the lease would not be extended and that the Russian fleet would have to leave Ukrainian territory by 2017.

As we know, Russia responded by annexing Crimea in 2014, three years before it would have gotten kicked out by Ukraine. It follows that the situation did not happen out of the blue and it has nothing to do with “Russian imperialism”.

This is why I have been arguing that Russia has a point on Crimea and on NATO expansion (NOT on everything that Putin says!) and that the conflict could have been avoided if Ukraine had agreed to share Crimea with Russia. Also, making the Black Sea into a NATO lake, is a direct threat to Russia’s national interests by blocking its access to the Mediterranean. So, yes, we should be against war but not against reason.

And I agree with @jamalrob's analysis to the effect that "in this thread there are too many useful idiots for the West, parroting the crap they are being fed by the Western media".

I think a greater degree of objectivity and better acquaintance with the facts (including historical events) would be in everyone's interests if we are to avoid descending into unphilosophical (or unthinking) black propaganda and political mudslinging ....

This assumes quite a lot, for instance that Greeks were likely to patronize Jewish carpenters at the time, in spite of all the hatred and prejudice on both sides. — Olivier5

Well, it may look like assuming a lot superficially. But the value of assumptions lies in their explanatory function, as you say. And that’s where I think the root of the problem lies, i.e. in the belief that there was this universal “hatred and prejudice” all over the country, which not only fails to explain the cultural syncretism brought to light by archaeology, but is unsupported by the evidence.

There is no doubt that animosity existed but it was not as universal as assumed. Essentially, Jews were more religious-minded while Greeks were more culture-oriented and tended to promote literature, philosophy, theatre, gymnasiums, etc., i.e., things that were appealing to many Jews, especially in the cities.

These differences divided Jewish society into two factions, one traditionalist that rejected Greek culture, and one progressive that sought to achieve various degrees of cultural assimilation or reform. This tension between traditionalists and reformists can also be seen in the OT books and in some members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin siding with Jesus (and his “Christian” group) and others opposing him.

And what is the advantage of this hypothesis? What does it explain better than the "zero hypothesis" that our favorite Galilean carpenter spoke only his mother tongue? What does a polyglot Jesus bring to the table? — Olivier5

For starters, if it turns out to be supported by the evidence, it will be more historically accurate. Second, it will afford us greater insight into early Christianity and it might even open the door to the possibility of greater influence of Greek thought on the new religion. This, of course, does not exclude the possibility of Persian, Egyptian, and other influences.

Speaking of table, I think an interesting example is the Greco-Roman custom of eating in a reclined position, especially at triclinia. The Greek triklinion (Latin triclinium) was a dining room with three couches (triclinia) arranged alongside the walls, on which diners reclined during meals.

Triclinium - Wikipedia

The custom was probably introduced from Persia from where it was adopted by the Greeks in the early 7th century BC, after which it reached the Etruscans and Romans, and became widespread in the areas of the Roman Empire that were at the time under Greek influence, including Roman Palestine.

Apparently, "Jews followed many of the customs found in other associations [Greek and Roman], including meals in communal halls, eating sacrifices, and reclining at triclinia"

Jewish Associations in Roman Palestine: First Century Evidence from the Mishnah – Academia Edu.

This raises the possibility or probability that the participants in Jesus’ last supper, for example, took their meal in a “Greek-style”, reclining position rather than sitting on chairs.

It doesn’t mean that Jesus was a “Greek philosopher”, only that Greek influence had penetrated Jewish society and culture in Roman Palestine deeper than sometimes assumed, which makes it legitimate to look for other forms of influence - so far as the evidence allows.

It is probably true that the watching of thoughts is not exclusive to Buddhism. However, when such practices are done in mindfulness meditation it is has how far one should go in seeking detachment, especially with emotions. Identifying with thoughts and feelings can be problematic in some ways but it can go to other extreme whereby people seek to 'overcome' them,. — Jack Cummins

I think watching one's thoughts is something we all do to various degrees. Moreover, it isn't an activity that requires the acceptance, or even knowledge, of Buddhist (or any other) religious beliefs. If nothing else, it teaches us to think more consciously and, hopefully, to take a more critical approach to our thoughts which seems to be the beginning of philosophical and spiritual life.

As regards "overcoming" thoughts and feelings, I think this is something that simply needs to be done sometimes as part of normal daily life.

But I agree that these are individual issues that differ from person to person and cannot be prescribed as something to be followed to the letter by all and sundry. There are some basic steps that everybody can take and benefit from, but beyond that it becomes highly individual and it is something that everyone must decide for themselves.

I think psychoactive substances may lead to a state of enhanced detachment from thoughts and feelings, but the drawback to that is that the thoughts and feelings observed under their influence aren't really what you normally experience, so that the practical value of it in everyday life becomes questionable. In short, it isn't something I would personally recommend .... :smile:

I remember well those who defended on the previous site the invasion of Iraq and deemed me anti-american. — ssu

Well, that only demonstrates some people's tendency to compulsively give in to ideologically (or psychologically) motivated knee-jerk reactions. And your double standards.

Delusional nonsense and lies, as you haven't been long in this forum. — ssu

I don't think I need to be "long in this forum" to see that tiny patches of land like Donetsk and Luhansk DO NOT amount to "empire" by any stretch of imagination.

Tibet has an area of 2,500,000 sq km. The Donbas region where Donetsk and Luhansk are located is only a few thousand sq km, and not all of it is controlled by Russia. Yet for some strange reason you keep blabbering on about "Russian empire", but not "Chinese empire"!

By your logic, Gibraltar makes Britain an "empire" .... :lol:

If one is against imperialism, it is logical to be against all imperialism no matter who or which side has these imperial aspirations. — ssu

Shame that you don't do as you preach though, seeing that you condone Chinese, Turkish, and American imperialism.

As Putin is obviously trying to reconstitute and reconquer the Russian (Soviet) Empire, he truly is the modern imperialist in the genuine sense. — ssu

You obviously don't understand the term "empire". Donetsk and Luhansk are tiny patches of land compared to Russia. They do not amount to "empire" by any stretch of imagination. Though it may be different with people from the Finnish outback where imagination apparently serves as substitute for knowledge .... :grin:

I think a very good reason for Jews to have learned Greek is that the area was under Greek control for two centuries following Alexander the Great's conquests. At Maresha (Marisi) in Judea 60 tombs from the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC were excavated with paintings of animals and mythical figures from the Hellenistic world. All inscriptions are in Greek and indicate that Jewish children were given Greek names.

This is why there were members of the Jerusalem Council (Sanhedrin) with Greek names, e.g. Nicodemus at the time of Jesus.

And, of course, Greek language and culture experienced a revival under Roman rule. People, including Jews, communicate and share ideas, beliefs, and customs. A Jewish artisan from Nazareth could perfectly well have discussed things with his Greek patrons in the nearby town of Sepphoris, the farmer with his customers at the market, etc. And the same goes for people with an interest in philosophical or spiritual matters ....

The FT is interesting. It has to present more or less tolerable view of the world to the people who own it, they can't be like CNN, almost never having dissident voices on. — Manuel

I agree. The FT does provide an insight into interesting financial dealings that are going on across the globe. But its owners Nikkei are Japanese and the Japanese are firmly aligned with America. Unless Nikkei are a front for someone else ....

Thanks, Wayfarer, we already know that. And there is nothing you can do about it. So, you might as well relax and think of how we could get China to return Tibet to the Tibetans.

"Gentile Palestine" is not Palestine? Places like Nazareth were close to Greek cities like Sepphoris. And carpenters and other "peasants" traveled to where the customers and the markets were. Bilingual Jews cannot have been that uncommon.

Anyway, Ehrman argues that there were writers who composed Christian texts under false names, including the Gospels, in order to “influence” or “shape” Christianity. If this is the case, the NT cannot be used as reliable testimony. Some may claim that a particular NT statement is more “probable” than another, but this does not constitute hard evidence.

Interview: Bart Ehrman on Forged & Apocryphal Gospels

IMO if we go down Ehrman's path, the whole discussion becomes pointless. This is why I prefer scholars like Scott Greaves who seem to make more sense.

In another article, the FT writes:

Former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski observed that without Ukraine, there can be no Russian empire. Putin fears a Ukraine that is economically and politically orientated towards the west with an ever closer security relationship with the US and other members of Nato — even if it is not a member of the alliance. He regards that as a critical security risk and, just as bad, an alternative economic and political model likely to be increasingly attractive to Russians — a dagger pointed at the heart of Russia.

Note how the article insists that Ukraine is "not a member of NATO". But the whole bone of contention, of course, is not that Ukraine is not a member, but that it wants to become one!

Moreover, the FT fails to say how America would react if Mexico were to join Russia and park Russian nuclear missiles on America's southern flank.

Very "objective" and "impartial" analysis from the FT mouthpiece for Anglo-American democracy and justice ....

"Why Putin has Ukraine’s separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in his sights"?

You are not some "apologist for Putin", by any chance, are you? Or "Russian silovik"? :wink:

We actually don't know who the people who wrote the NT were! — schopenhauer1

Yes, perhaps little green men from Mars. If you put NT parchments under the microscope, I believe you can still make out a subtle green tinge. If you wear green lenses, that is. And especially if you stare at them for long enough while focusing on the word "green", and slowly and attentively repeat it in your mind.

Or, perhaps, it woz Greeks pretending to be Jews, or Jews pretending to speak Greek. Or Romans pretending to be Greek-speaking Jews. I think I'm beginning to like that idea ....

On a lighter note, and having regard to the fact that even scholars like yourself admittedly "actually don't know who the people who wrote the NT were", it would be premature to conclude that it is known that they weren't Greek-speaking Jews from Palestine. In which case, they could have been Greek-speaking Jews from Palestine, as Scott Greaves says. Not that it makes any difference to me, to be quite honest .... :smile:

Again, it was not common for religious-minded Jew to speak Greek unless certain mitigating circumstances or from the diaspora. — schopenhauer1

Well, I don't know what their "mitigating circumstances" might have been, but I think the guys that wrote the NT were (a) religious-minded Jews and (b) spoke Greek .... :wink:

Modern scholarship has enough knowledge of 1st-century Koine Greek dialects to tell the difference between, say the LXX which is Alexandrian Greek, and the NT which is Palestinian Greek.

And Greek linguistic and even cultural influence on Palestinian Jews was considerable. Many Jews even gave their children Greek names, e.g., Nicodemus of the Jewish Council at Jerusalem. The Council itself had a name derived from Greek: Sanhedrin from synedrion, etc.

What I find particularly interesting is the Jewish synagogues with mosaics from Greek religion and mythology that were built in the region into the 600's, i.e., until the time of the Muslim conquests. Clearly, these mosaics are not mere decoration but seem to have a religious content that illustrates the cultural syncretism of the time.

The question is when exactly did this syncretism begin. I tend to believe that it must have begun prior to finding expression in art and architecture, e.g., in the 1st century if not earlier.

Sure. But if we start from the fact that Jews in 1st century Roman Palestine spoke a distinctive dialect of Koine Greek, then it is legitimate to look into other Greek influences on Palestinian Jews.

For example, Scott Greaves writes:

That the GNT (Greek NT) is saturated with Semitisms is not disputed. The Semitic elements of structure, style, and grammar in the GNT are noteworthy. Such Semitic impregnation is characteristic of Greek-speaking Jews whose biblical knowledge and spiritual formation most likely grew out of the LXX. Additionally, in a bilingual culture, languages often intertwine, particularly during a period of transition as one might move from predominantly speaking in one’s native language to communicating in a second language more often.
Greek-speaking Jews during the transition from Aramaic to Greek in the first century CE would naturally have a pronounced Semitic quality and, of course, such a Semitic quality would reveal itself in the GNT

And Alexander Roberts:

Palestine alone can be said to be the country in which the dialect exhibited in the New Testament flourished. In their native land did the apostles learn the style of Greek in which their writings are composed …

Not if he had no business with the Kittim. You learn a language for a reason. Jews in the diaspora had very good reasons to learn Greek, but not those in Palestine. — Olivier5

What? You did say that there were Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews, didn't you?

Of course there were. — Olivier5

Plus, if there was Persian influence on Judaism, why not Greek? Why do scholars speak of Hellenistic Judaism? And what about Jewish texts like the Book of Wisdom and Maccabees 2, 3, 4 that were composed in Greek and show clear Greek influence?

IMO we shouldn't ignore the fact that NT Greek is NOT Alexandrian Greek, but Palestinian Greek, i.e., Koine Greek with Palestinian characteristics. It is the very existence of a distinct Palestinian Jewish dialect of Koine Greek that enables us to know that Greek was spoken in Roman Palestine by local Jews.

Yep. From you.
Maybe you should leave those Pali suttas for a minute and try reading some history ....

The Truth from you (likely as a slip, — ssu

More like YOUR slip of memory! :rofl:

The reality is I've always said that Crimea is not Ukrainian and everyone knows that, even Ukraine:

As for Crimea, don’t you see that the very fact that Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine in 1954, demonstrates that it cannot be Ukrainian??? Crimea had been invaded by Mongols (Tatars) and Turks in the Middle Ages and was under joint Tatar and Ottoman control until Russia took it back in 1783. It had never been “Ukrainian” before 1954! — Apollodorus

And "international agreements"??? You forget China annexing Tibet and Turkey occupying Cyprus, no? Another slip of memory from you. Or maybe a slip of judgment? :grin:

Like many others ...

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

Erdogan is not shy to publicly chase his Ottoman dream and to reinvent himself as a Caliph. If Erdogan is out to overshadow the legacy of Ataturk, then undoing the Lausanne Treaty is what will help him accomplish this goal – even if it means declaring war. Once the 1923 treaty expires, Erdogan will immediately seek to reclaim the territories the Ottomans lost.

Erdogan’s mission to revive the Ottoman Empire – Muslim Vibe

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s chief aide said the Treaty of Lausanne, which ended the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies and established the modern border between Turkey and Greece, had “expired,” freeing Turkey up to seize rich resources including those in northern Iraq.

Erdoğan’s secret keeper says Lausanne Treaty ‘expired,’ Turkey free to grab resources - Nordic Monitor

It could feasibly be the beginning of WWIII, but even if it's not, it really is war, and it looks like it really is coming. — Wayfarer

No shit. There has never been a war before, you know. And, didn't you hear? Moscow has just announced it will invade OZ, like tonight. So, you better get ready, matey! :smile:

Plus, the economic impact on Europe was predictable from the start. If America cared about Europe it wouldn't impose sanctions on Russia that hurt Europe! And it wouldn't insist on EU and NATO unlimited expansion. But, of course, Biden has told Europe not to worry because he will supply it with American oil and gas. So, the reality is that the only ones who have anything to gain from this are US oil and defense corporations ....

This is what @Apollodorus is utterly incapable to understand: the US didn't create it's sphere of influence by "divide and rule", but through integration, that the other countries saw beneficial also. — ssu

You know what Swedes and other Scandinavians say about Finns, don’t you? So, I’m not going to repeat it here.

As usual, you mustn’t have thought your argument through because there is neither rhyme nor reason to it.

First off, I never said that “the US didn't create its sphere of influence through integration”.

Second, of course spheres of influence only work "when the relationship is mutually beneficial and there is not hostility or aggression". They don’t work when one power decides to expand its sphere of influence at the expense of other powers. And this is exactly what Britain and America have been doing.

Another thing that is missing from your “logic” is that it may be “mutually beneficial” for a country like Finland, with a population of 5 million, to be integrated into America’s European Union and to be ruled by Brussels. But this may not be the case for larger countries like Germany, Britain, or France.

Obviously, the British didn’t think it was beneficial for them to be in the EU when they voted to leave in 2016, did they? France hasn’t left yet, but negative opinion of EU membership is among the highest in Europe.

And this is what you seem incapable to understand: that “beneficial” doesn’t mean that there are only benefits. There are also disadvantages to being an EU member. Both benefits and disadvantages are different from country to country. This is why there are countries like Malta, Romania, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Denmark, Ireland, with strong support for the EU, and countries like Greece, UK, Italy, France, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Slovenia, that are highly critical of the EU.

When the divide between favorable and unfavorable view of the EU is nearly 50-50, as in France, this means that there are some serious issues there, and the problem isn’t as simple as you are trying to paint it.

In addition to being told by Brussels what to do, there are other problems like corruption:

According to the European Commission, corruption costs the EU economy around €120 billion per year in terms of lost tax revenue and investments. The European Parliamentary Research Service's Cost of Non-Europe report, has found that corruption related to public procurement alone costs the EU over €5 billion annually.

Corruption in the European Union – European Parliament

Some of the corruption comes from America:

Research by historian Dov Levin, for example, found that between 1946 and 2000, the United States manipulated the democratic elections of other countries more than 80 times, including in European countries such as Italy and Greece … From a strategic point of view, there is criticism, among other things, that relations between Europe and the USA are unequal, as the US enforces its foreign policy with little consideration for European interests …

- Atlantiker – Wikipedia

So, we can see that integration into America’s sphere of influence (or empire) doesn’t always happen through legitimate means.

What do you think empires do? They integrate new territories into their existing territory or sphere of influence. And this integration is done by many different means, economic, financial, political, cultural, or military.

You have said it yourself:

If you are overtly hostile towards a country, which the US has been towards Cuba, in the end you only have the option to invade. When sanctions, coup attempts, using proxies, assassination attempts aren't options anymore ...

In 1914 Britain declared war on Germany, followed by America in 1917. Did Britain and America expand their sphere of influence? Yes, they did. And I’ve explained to you already how they created the European Union after two world wars.

In any case, Crimea doesn’t belong to Ukraine, it isn’t for Finland to decide, and there is nothing you can do about it …. :wink:

Of course there were. But it does not follow that Jesus was one of them — Olivier5

Correct. But it does follow that he could have been one of them. In which case the LXX quotes in the NT could have been original and not inserted later by "Greek speakers" to make them sound more "authentic".

As regards Persian influence on Judaism, it seems highly likely, as does Assyrian, Egyptian, and Babylonian influences.

I think the main Greek influence on Jesus was linguistic, as was the case with other Palestinian Jews of the period. But cultural influences shouldn't be ruled out. After all, there was such a thing as Hellenistic Judaism and, as is well-known, Jewish texts like the Book of Wisdom and Maccabees 2, 3, 4 were composed in Greek and show clear Greek influence.

They wouldn't, not in 1st century Palestine, but a century later, when Greek speakers wrote the story, they used the LXX to check that they had the quotes right. — Olivier5

Well, it is entirely possible that the Gospels are fictitious narratives fabricated by Greek speakers in the second century.

However, who exactly were these “Greek speakers”?

I think it is fairly clear that they were Palestinian Jews as they were obviously familiar with the local geography, society, culture, and language.

And if there were Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews in the 2nd century, there is no reason why there couldn’t have been Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews a few decades earlier, in the time of Jesus.

It follows that the original quotes could perfectly well have had the LXX as source, in which case there would have been no need for anyone to check.

The NT does indicate reliance on LXX (Septuagint) as a principal source. But this in turn puts into question the whole Aramaic Hypothesis. If Aramaic was the sole (or even main) language spoken and written in Roman Palestine, why would anyone turn to the Greek LXX instead of Aramaic or Hebrew texts?

IMO this seems to suggest that Greek was more widely spoken than sometimes assumed.

All that you mention there is fine and important for people to know. But even without such a context, one can say that the US would not allow for Russia to have military bases in Mexico, regardless of what Mexico wanted. — Manuel

This is exactly the point I've been making. Of course the anti-Russian camp are being disingenuous. They claim that "the US doesn't have a military base in Ukraine". But if Ukraine joins NATO, there will be military bases with NATO and, probably, US troops.

That historical info adds further foundations as to why Russia is acting as it is, which look to me to be rational behavior. — Manuel

I think it is rational enough. As I explained already, Russia needs the Black Sea to access the Mediterranean. It can't possibly agree to a Black Sea controlled by its Western enemy. And Crimea is central to the Black Sea.

Moreover, Crimea is NOT Ukrainian. It was "given" to Ukraine by Soviet leader Khrushchev in 1954. But, first, Crimea wasn't his to give. And, second, it was only a political gesture without strategic significance at the time, as both Ukraine and Russia were part of the same one Soviet state!

Khrushchev couldn't have envisaged in 1954 that Ukraine would one day be not only independent from Russia but Russia's political and military opponent. Therefore, he couldn't possibly have meant for Crimea to belong to Ukraine in today's circumstances. I think Crimea should either belong to Russia as heir to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union (to which Crimea used to belong), or, if practicable, peacefully shared between the two.

And, one should mention, that saying "the interests of X people", be it Russia, the USA, South Africa, Australia or whatever, can be confusing. It's not as if the interests of a public school teacher is the same as the CEO of some Bank, yet both belong to "X people". — Manuel

Correct. However, there is something like "national interest", i.e. interest that is common to the people as a whole, and on which most citizens of a country agree. What matters is the interest and will of the nation. If the majority of Russians are behind Putin, then it is legitimate to say that he represents the interests and the will of his people. From what I see, he seems to have higher approval ratings than Biden .... :smile:

And it isn't just Russia. Is it in the interest of the German people to be told what to do by America, Britain, and Turkey? I don't think so.

As for Russia being a "kleptocracy", are Americans and Australians prepared to pack their belongings and return "their" countries to their original (Native American and Aboriginal) owners?

Are they calling for sanctions or war on China for annexing Tibet or on Turkey for invading and occupying Cyprus???

Russia is trying to keep out Western influence, build a great firewall like China, say no more expansion of NATO or EU. It's too late for that, Russia will probably be joining both this century. — Judaka

Well, it is entirely possible that Russia will eventually join. The West is trying to speed this up by overthrowing Russia's current government.

However, equally possible is that Russia will join China, India, Brazil, and parts of the Mid East and Africa to form a united front against Western imperialism and neocolonialism.

Personally, I doubt that American hegemony can last for ever. Much of the global economy is already dependent on China ....

Sure about Russia not joining the Western sphere of influence. But Russia itself is hardly a paradise. I think they right in this situation. — Manuel

I think what is happening here is that some people are emotionally and/or ideologically committed to the American cause which is why they are unwilling or unable to consider any facts that might contradict their beliefs. This is exacerbated by ignorance of historical facts. This is not necessarily their fault, rather the fault or failure of the Western education system. But without knowledge of the historical events that have led to a situation, no objective analysis of the situation is possible. This is also why, as can be seen, there isn't any genuine discussion here.

IMO to understand how the current situation emerged and developed over the years, we need to look at some key actors and their activities in the region.

George Soros is a Hungarian-born billionaire speculator and financier, and close associate of British, French, and US bankers. Between 1984 and 1989 he was involved in Eastern Europe where he established foundations in Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Albania, and elsewhere, for the purpose of promoting political and economic reform a.k.a. “open society”.

In 1991, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, Soros’ financier associates founded the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to finance the “reconstruction” of Eastern Europe, which meant (1) currency devaluation and (2) selling state-owned assets to private buyers. As very few people in those countries had any cash, many buyers were foreigners, often in partnership with local “businessmen”.

When Clinton came to power in 1992, he put his old school buddy Strobe Talbott in charge of Russia policy, first as Ambassador-at-Large and then, from February 1994, as Deputy Secretary of State.

Talbot turned to George Soros, who hired Jeffrey Sachs of the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID) and his team was tasked by Clinton’s US Agency for International Development (USAID) with overseeing Russia’s transformation from state control to market economy. Sachs’ HIID oversaw and guided disbursement of $300 million of US aid to Russia with little oversight by USAID and was later accused of misusing US government money.

Harvard Institute for International Development - Wikipedia

This is when the greatest robbery of the century began, with Soros, Harvard, and Clinton agents using money from the World Bank, IMF, and USAID to bribe Russian politicians and business managers into selling Russian companies, especially in the oil, gas, and metal sectors, to foreign interests and their Russian frontmen.

Thus the 90’s era of the “Garvardniki” (“Harvard guys”) and the “oligarhi” (“oligarchs”) began.

Meantime, the European Union was founded in 1992 for the purpose of incorporating as many former Eastern Bloc countries as possible, including Russia, and the EBRD aimed to "reconstruct" 30 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia!

NATO was operating in tandem with the EU. As part of its policy of containing Russia, NATO in 1999 bombed Russia’s ally Serbia and incorporated Hungary and Poland. This was followed by Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia all joining in 2004.

Moreover, we know that Soros was involved not only in the “privatization” of Russian and Eastern Bloc state assets, but also in the overthrow of several democratically elected governments in the region.

As shown by New York Times columnist and author Richard Poe, Soros’ strategy followed a set formula entailing Seven Steps:

1. Formation of a shadow government
2. Media control
3. Imposition of economic sanctions
4. Funding protest groups
5. Provoking an election crisis
6. Mobilization of street protests
7. Funding opposition until the government is forced to resign in order to avoid civil war or NATO intervention.

https://www.richardpoe.com/2004/07/16/velvet-revolution-usa-2/

Soros himself later admitted in a news conference:

It is necessary to mobilize civil society in order to assure free and fair elections because there are many forces that are determined to falsify or to prevent the elections being free and fair. This is what we did in Slovakia at the time of Meciar, in Croatia at the time of Tudjman and in Yugoslavia at the time of Milosevic.

After Yugoslavia, Soros turned his sights on Georgia where he was involved in the “Rose Revolution” of 2003. But by then Putin had come to power and he intervened in the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 that resulted in the formation of the separate state of Abkhazia.

Through his Renaissance Foundation, Soros also instigated Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution” of 2004-2005 that resulted in the election of pro-EU Yushchenko as president. However, in 2010 Yushchenko was replaced by pro-Russian Yanukovych.

Soros then got involved in the Maidan Revolution of 2013-2014 that ousted Yanukovych. Speaking of "Russian oligarchs", Soros also backed Ukrainian oligarch and presidential candidate Poroshenko and his closest rival and fellow oligarch Tymoshenko. Poroshenko won the elections and in 2019 was succeeded by current president Zelenskyy.

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, after years of EU and NATO expansion and constant Western interference in Russia and neighboring countries like Ukraine.

Incidentally, Harvard “economists” were also involved in the 2008 EU-US Union for the Mediterranean project that aimed to incorporate the Middle East and North Africa into the European Union, and in which Harvard Management Company invested $ hundreds of millions.

I think we can clearly see close collaboration between the EU, NATO, and US and international financial institutions in an attempt to take over country after country, and Russia being forced into a defensive position. Putin’s job was (a) to restore order and (b) to stand up to the West. And, at the end of the day, he has the support of the majority of Russian voters.

So, the issue is not whether Russia is "paradise on earth" given that America isn't perfect either (there is ignorance, lack of education, poverty, crime, violence, racism, separatism, etc., etc.), but whether the Russian government is acting in the interests of the Russian people, which in this case, I believe it does.

So behind all the dissimulation and circumlocution and fallacious comparisons, you’re basically an apologist for Russia. — Wayfarer

I'm not an "apologist" for anything. I'm simply saying that in logical terms, Russia has a right to defend itself against Western imperialism. The problem seems to be that you are emotionally and ideologically committed to the American cause which causes you to be in denial about flaws in the pro-American narrative (or propaganda).

As I said, what would you do if you were in Russia's place? IMO a refusal to answer a simple question like this, is indicative of duplicity and hypocrisy.

On my part, if I were Russia, I don't see how else I could possibly act except in a similar way to what Russia is doing. So where exactly is the "dissimulation"???

BTW I've noticed that some Buddhists on here tend to have a rather short fuse. Maybe they should try some meditation or something, don't you think? :wink:

I don't agree with everything Fisk says, but he is a keen observer and focusing on the Middle East isn't necessarily a problem as the region is one of the keys to understanding the current situation.

People like to imagine that empires no longer exist, but they very much do, only in different forms. And so do colonized and subjugated nations.

If you look at the Germans as a nation, they are totally paranoid, schizophrenic and in self-denial. They can’t even breathe without worrying what America and Britain might say. And this is the result of systematic British and American indoctrination, conditioning, and brainwashing - a broken and zombified nation with no mind or life of its own and no future.

For all its flaws, Russia is the last European nation that is still free and has not fallen into the New-World-Order spiderweb woven by the Anglo-Saxon “master race”. And this is why I think Russia has a point.

And, exactly as I predicted, Western pressure is forcing Russia to align itself with China, which is a win-win for China (and potentially for Turkey) and a lose-lose for Russia and the West. In other words, the West is shooting itself in the foot by antagonizing Russia ….

Incidentally, Britain in WW1 had been hoping that if it dragged America into the war, it would be allowed to rule the world as before, with America as an equal partner. Unfortunately, it got the shock of its life after the war, when it discovered that it had become indebted to America up to its neck, that New York had become the world’s financial center instead of London, and that America now ruled the world instead of Britain!

Now, Britain’s Turkish Prime Minister Boris Johnson, whose great-grandfather was none other than Ali Kemal who was in the government of Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, was hoping that being a good poodle to America was going to earn him America’s goodwill.

But, like Churchill and many other predecessors, Boris has been forced to discover that America doesn’t give a fig about anyone except itself. He had been dreaming of a trade agreement with America which he had promised to the British voters. Instead, Biden told him that Britain must make separate agreements with each American state!

The EU’s situation isn’t much better, either. America and the EU are each other’s largest trade and investment partners. This means that US-EU relations are dominated by economic considerations. And as the US is the dominant partner in this relationship, this means that it is dominated by US interests. The World Bank whose main members are US, UK, France, Germany, and Japan, is dominated by America. The IMF is a US-UK creation. The global stock-market is dominated by America. European investment banking is dominated by US banks, etc.

Many of Europe’s current problems were directly created by America and its anti-Russian policies. In order to contain Russia, America in 1952 made Turkey a NATO member, after which it sought to bind Turkey and Europe closer together. In the 60’s America forced Germany to accept migrant workers from Turkey who are now four or five million. In the 70’s, in order to keep Russia out of North Africa and the Mid East, America sought to bind the region closer to Europe by launching the Euro-Arab Dialogue followed by the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (1995) and the Union for the Mediterranean (2008), and together with Turkey instigated the civil war in Syria as well as meddling in the Arab revolutions across North Africa, eventually creating a tide of millions of refugees all heading for Europe.

Turkey is now hosting refugee and migrant camps on its soil amounting to millions of people that are funded by Europe and that Turkey threatens to send to Europe unless Europe complies with its demands.

It follows that the situation is as complicated as it is volatile and dangerous, and any weakening of Russian power can only serve to embolden Turkey and its North African and Mid Eastern allies to interfere more and more in European affairs, destabilize the whole continent, and bring about its downfall, while America is watching and counting its petrodollars - until al-Qaeda and Islamic State rise again from the ashes ….

This dissociation of consciousness from feeling and mind from body is the natural response to trauma. So while it may 'work' in the sense of allowing thought to be calm, it increases the fragmentation of the self, and leaves the emotional self neglected. — unenlightened

Well, I think it is generally accepted that when we are overwhelmed by strong emotions, physical pain, etc., our capacity for rational thought can become impaired. In order to restore our reasoning faculty to its optimal or normal functional state, we need to release it from the grip of the factors that have caused the impairment. And this involves a degree of detachment or disengagement.

In my experience, this disengagement coupled with self-identification with the conscious background of experience leads not to fragmentation but to unification of consciousness and a sense of wholeness or "being whole again".

It is like taking an elevated position in space, where you are at once at greater distance from the objects lower down and in possession of a more comprehensive overview that places each object in the right relation to the others and to the observing subject. So long as this balance is maintained, there is no danger or even possibility of fragmentation.

Having said that, I am not familiar with the psychology of people suffering from extreme trauma (who may not be in control of their psychological processes), and I don't know to what extent "mindfulness" techniques would be helpful in their case. So I will leave that to the experts ....

It's the common theme for super powers. Britain, Spain, etc, is the same thing, but now there's more tech involved. — Manuel

Correct. The lies and the propaganda may be more subtle and easier to conceal under the cover of "democracy and human rights" than in the past, but it is very much there all the same.

The "colonial mission" to "civilize the barbarians" has remained unchanged. The only difference is that Africans and Indians have been replaced as the target of "Western philanthropy" by Germans and Russians .... :smile:

In other words, no matter what Russia does, it's always the West that is at fault. — Wayfarer

I don't know by what logic you arrive at that conclusion. People do tend to become emotional when loss of life or property, alleged or factual, is involved. But being in the grip of emotions is exactly what makes us easy to manipulate and why a cool head is needed. After all, philosophy is about thinking, not emoting - or so I was brought up to believe.

The fact is that things don't happen out of the blue. There is usually a historical background to any political and military situation. Like people, countries have a history, and without knowledge of that, you can't understand their present actions.

Britain was the largest world empire in the history of mankind, and it didn't become that through philanthropic activities, but by force of arms and by defeating, conquering, and enslaving other nations. Don't forget how they treated the Boers and how they put them in concentration camps just because they dared to defend their own territory against British greed.

The Boers' farms and fields were burned to the ground, their livestock killed, the men deported overseas, women and children put in concentration camps where many thousands died from lack of shelter and hygiene, malnutrition and disease. In short, a deliberate policy of physical extermination.

And War Secretary St John Brodrick had the impudence to claim in parliament that the concentration camps were "purely voluntary" and that the inmates were "contented and comfortable"!

Second Boer War concentration camps - Wikipedia

That's a nice example of British lies and propaganda for you, right there. And there are many more, enough to fill volumes. Don't forget the British government's political and psychological warfare department during the world wars, and the special operations. Britain may have lost its empire, but the propaganda goes on. And the same goes for America.

In addition to ignoring US-UK-EU actions that may have contributed to the situation, some on here seem to be unable (or unwilling) to honestly answer a simple question: What would they do if they were in Russia's shoes, and why?

The Western Intelligence community is extremely ideological, though they pretend to be "neutral". — Manuel

Yep, "neutral" my left foot! Shamelessly (and clumsily) fabricating "evidence" of Iraqi WMD's is sooo incredibly "neutral" that only idiots can swallow it without getting sick. :smile:

And why do they do it? To manipulate public opinion, obviously! But, oh no, the West couldn't possibly ever tell lies, could it now? It's only evil "subhuman species" like Russians, Germans, and Japs that tell lies, so they need to be taught a lesson that they will never forget!

Things aren't as easy for them since the Iraq intel fiasco. — Manuel

Correct. Isn't it strange that the pro-NATO camp keeps conveniently forgetting the West's own psyops and false-flag operations? :smile:

US national security adviser Jake Sullivan has said that “In the situation in Iraq, intelligence was used and deployed from this very podium to start a war. We are trying to stop a war, to prevent a war, to avert a war". Whether starting or "preventing" war, it amounts to an admission that "intelligence is being used" to shape the narrative and manipulate public opinion!

Of course the Russians themselves are doing this, but why shouldn't they given that the US-UK are at it as well?

Plus, the UK has deployed troops to Ukraine, ostensibly to "train" Ukrainian forces. But the truth of the matter is that all such deployments are a cover for special operation forces and other elements who have a specific task on the ground, including reconnaissance, intelligence, sabotage, etc.

And there is no doubt that they are playing on people's emotions by suggesting that the Russians are indiscriminately murdering old women and children.

Remember they did the same in Yugoslavia in 1998-1999 when they claimed that the Serbs had committed "genocide" on Albanians in Kosovo when in reality they had simply fled over the border to Albania because there was a war going on!

In the end, they got caught out when the UN ruled that there had been no genocide!

Kosovo assault 'was not genocide' - BBC

A United Nations court has ruled that Serbian troops did not carry out genocide against ethnic Albanians during Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of aggression in Kosovo from 1998 to 1999.

So, Iraq, Kosovo, and all the way to WW1 and "German atrocities in Belgium" when in reality it was all about Britain wanting to keep Africa and Europe for itself!

I am seeking to start a critical discussion about the nature of mindfulness as a state of awareness. To what extent is the idea helpful as a basis for coping with stress or as a philosophy for finding balance in life? — Jack Cummins

Good idea. But I think we must be careful not to view the practice of mindfulness as an exclusively "Buddhist" or "Eastern" phenomenon.

Techniques involving the observation of one's thoughts, emotions, and sense-perceptions have been employed in Western traditions as much as in Eastern ones. For example, the practice of stilling and centering the mind through watchfulness or watchful attention (nepsis) and interior prayer (proseuche) leading to a state of stillness or hesychia, hence the term "Hesychasm", has been central to Christianity for many centuries.

Obviously, in psychological terms, observing mental processes in a detached or "impersonal" manner automatically leads to a state of enhanced emotional calm and mental clarity, as it represents the opposite of personal identification with those processes leading to one's conscious self being overwhelmed by emotions and thoughts causing stress.

Similarly, Plato, Plotinus, and other Western philosophers emphasize the importance of detaching oneself from the physical body and mental states, and observing things with one's pure, unaffected consciousness or awareness.

Essentially, it is a question of self-identification. Human consciousness has the capacity to self-identify with different aspects or layers of experience, resulting in different degrees of involvement or detachment, and this can be mastered through regular practice and quite independently of religion and culture ....