Will they turn to Europe after Ukraine? That is still an open question. But the more Kubilius we get, the more likely the answer becomes yes.…
Gosh, I truly hope so, I’m sick to death of these miserable mealy mouthed weasels, this speech by this deranged politician underscores why, happy to mouth off, throw the barbs, but hey, others can die, have their nations, economies destroyed completely, not in part, but totally and Kallas, Van der Leyer, Pistorious, Mehrts, Starmer, the French groomed one, the fool from Rome… all puppets, together their Brussels sycophants will continue to mouth offensive obscenities toward a nation that is so much better than the entire poxy lot of them combined while letting the real fight be undertaken the more gullible… promises, promises, what a weapon, but I hope in order sanity comes back to this world that these demented fools and clowns get their come uppance, completely, destroyed, annihilated the Baltics and more aggressive amongst them perhaps need taken back into Russias direct control and sphere… clearly they are not equipped on so many levels to manage the opportunity granted them with the breakup of the USSR… they are not complying the terms of what was agreed in any way, shape or form with what the Supreme Soviet granted … read the preambles… time for Russia to act.. just saying..then watch the cowards and bloviators in Chief in Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, London all run and hide… shitzening themselves they’ll be next if they dare continue… except Russia, not for all the money in the World would want or should have anything to do with them… such a miserable lot, better to shoot Oreshniks, and let their populaces sort them out… wishful thinking indeed … just saying
Interesting insights. I do believe empowered individuals will naturally push back against wars and overseas alliances. Keeping alliances regional is better than a unipolar or bipolar world.
I have been writing on multiple platforms for around 15 years regarding the Brilliant expose’ shown on TV roughly 20 to 25 years ago it is horrifyingly accurate about us not addressing this problem 86 years ago. The Documentary was titled The Nazis A Warning From History it was telling us the story of what transpired between 1933- 1950 so us Boomers and the following Generations could try and understand what happened because weak kneed politicians Who were terrified of upsetting Hitler sat on their Fat arses and yak yak yakity yacked their way into the Second World War. While our ancestors believed their Political Elite Peace in our Time Propaganda crap the Nazis raped and plundered their way through Poland France Belgium and Holland then Russia, Britain and the Wonderful Commonwealth Soldiers just as they did during The Great Slaughter stood beside us Again Shoulder to Shoulder in the dark early days. Now it is happening again only the Maniac is not in Germany well in a recent political shift he might be along with the most horrendous POTUS ever, the Worst UK PM in History and this is bad considering this twats competition, I’m not even starting on the EU. The Persecuted the European Jews who suffered a Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis Are Actually with the Backing of all the aforementioned Western Leaders carrying out a Holocaust upon the People from The Country of Palestine beginning in 1948 when they first invaded and it is every bit as Vile and Evil as the Nazis carried out on the Jews. The Hubris and Insanity of the Leaders People elect on the strength of what the MSM the Titled and Entitled People and the Billionaires tell us is very distressing. Why is it after 2025 Years and we consider ourselves an advanced SOCIETY when in fact we are still Barbarians who Murder Children Women Man and slaughter animals all in the Name of a God who is supposed to be all seeing and compassionate a kind Gentle God. For all the Years BC our ancestors were Killing each other in the name of Many Gods Then in AD They were Killing each other in the name of Christ and ONE GOD. I reckon this One God is sitting looking up and thinking mmm yep Time for another Bigger Motherfucking Boulder And start again I think I’ll put the Cats in charge.
Grazie per l'articolo. La multipolarità alla fine prevarrà perché le grandi potenze dovranno arrivare al punto di rispettarsi vicendevolmente altrimenti l'umanità si troverà a fare i conti con una guerra planetaria .
IT is really sad to recognice what " European Leadership" means to European people. It's a nightmare of stupid affirmations. Russian people should never think that this crime like
following of Bidens amoralic intentions
,with all its sophisticatet and all pervading communication Order to drive thé people into hatred could bé a real stand of European citicens. IT will never work.
Thé European people are just afraid of insane Performance on théir political Platforms.
I wish Pax Americana was withdrawing from Europe. I don’t see that happening. Currently within the U.S. Administration, the neocons are winning.
I lived in Western Europe during the later years of the Soviet Union. The “Russophobia” is infinitely more intense now than it was then. In those days, communism was seen as mistaken, not evil. This is in contrast to the perceived nationalism of current Russia and the MAGA movement. Any kind of nationalism and preservation of a the nation-state is seen as an existential threat to the world government that is the end goal of liberalism and the “New International World Order”.
Simply the confirmation of their sins. The West need to be isolated economically, an Iron curtain should be applied to the NATO states and their immediately supporters.
The text under examination is a densely constructed ideological polemic that purports to analyze a speech by Andrius Kubilius at the Tocqueville Conversations forum, but in fact functions more as an emotive reaction to perceived geopolitical shifts. Its tone is aggressively adversarial, relying heavily on rhetorical saturation and binary oppositions. The usage of highly provocative language such as “liberal Nazism,” “Forest Brother Kubilius,” and “Russophobic clichés” reveals a text not concerned with balanced interpretation or philosophical critique, but with mobilizing affective allegiance through linguistic aggression. The result is not an invitation to critical reflection, but an imposition of a stark dichotomy: liberal-globalist Europe as villain, and nationalist Russia (alongside MAGA America) as a moral corrective.
This effect is heightened through terminological instability and conceptual overload. The term “liberal Nazism,” for instance, is a deliberate oxymoron combining two diametrically opposed traditions: liberalism, which historically upholds individual rights and pluralist institutions; and Nazism, which is founded on racial supremacy, authoritarianism, and militarized totalitarianism. Such a rhetorical maneuver functions not analytically, but polemically. It is designed to provoke cognitive dissonance and emotional reaction rather than to clarify or critique. The same can be said for the author’s deployment of terms like “Pax Americana,” “Pax Europea,” and “Pax Russica.” These terms adopt the imperial connotations of the Roman Pax Romana but twist their meanings to suggest that each geopolitical bloc operates as a kind of civilizational pole peaceful in rhetoric, yet militant in fact. In doing so, the author participates in a conceptual inflation that obscures rather than illuminates the internal contradictions within each so-called “Pax.”
The text mocks Kubilius’s reference to a loss of democratic spirit in MAGA America, and dismisses his invocation of individualism as misguided. Yet the alternative offered that MAGA represents a new kind of collective solidarity is philosophically naïve or at best deeply strategic in its misreading. The MAGA movement is built on rhetorical nationalism, anti-globalism, and a symbolic appeal to “forgotten” Americans, but it is also rooted in a libertarian-inflected hyper-individualism. Its discourse valorizes deregulation, national sovereignty, and cultural nostalgia elements that are difficult to reconcile with Tocqueville’s notion of participatory democracy based on shared civic responsibility and local institutions. Tocqueville feared the tyranny of the majority, not liberal pluralism. By rebranding MAGA as a Tocquevillian force of democracy, the text engages in a form of philosophical sleight of hand: it evacuates Tocqueville of historical context and reinserts him as a nationalist icon.
Historical revisions and moral equivalence play a crucial role in the text’s broader strategy. The invocation of the “Forest Brothers” as Nazi collaborators is used to discredit Kubilius by proxy. While it is true that some anti-Soviet partisans in the Baltics cooperated with Nazi forces during World War II, to paint all such figures as fascists is intellectually dishonest. This move reveals the text’s central tactic: to equate any form of anti-Russian sentiment whether in post-Soviet Europe or modern liberal democracies with fascism. This is an inversion of the Cold War binary in which the Soviet Union stood for anti-fascism. But here, Russia inherits that role, while the EU is re-coded as fascist, despite its deep structural commitments to democratic norms, rights, and international law.
The argument further devolves into geopolitical determinism and paranoia. According to the author, the EU is not only preparing for war, it is ideologically committed to it. Ukraine is portrayed as the central instrument of European militarism a pawn, not an agent. NATO is said to be fading due to the rise of MAGA isolationism, and Europe must now forge its own militarized identity under the banner of Pax Europea. This interpretation is not supported by credible analysis of policy or institutional decision-making. While it is true that the EU is undergoing a reorientation in light of the war in Ukraine, and that discussions about European defense autonomy are ongoing, there is no serious institutional movement toward unprovoked military aggression against Russia. The text projects its own fantasy of a rising Eurasian civilizational bloc onto its enemies, as if liberal democracies cannot act in self-defense without becoming totalitarian in the process.
In terms of structure and persuasive strategy, the text is teleological. It begins by discrediting Kubilius’s rhetorical competence and political philosophy. It then repositions MAGA as a redemptive movement. It constructs a fictional Europe ruled by authoritarian liberalism and ends by arguing that only Russia, through final victory in Ukraine, can restore global order. The logic of this structure is not cumulative but predetermined. Each step is shaped to support the conclusion that war is necessary, inevitable, and morally justified. This is not analysis but narrative construction: a geopolitical mythos, not an argument.
The most ethically troubling element in the entire piece is its glorification of war and denial of agency to smaller nations. Ukraine is reduced to a tool a battlefield where Russia must win to save civilization. The suggestion that Russia has “no choice” but to fight until “final victory” is a justification for endless conflict under the guise of cultural preservation. It also reveals a deep contempt for Ukrainian sovereignty, framing the country not as a nation with political will but as an arena of contest between empires. This form of thinking is not only dehumanizing; it mirrors the very imperialism the author accuses Europe of engaging in.
Curiously, the text ends by embracing the very logic it earlier seems to disdain: multipolarity. The author, despite aligning against “liberal globalists,” concedes that global politics is now arranged in poles: Pax Americana, Pax Russica, Pax Sinica, and Pax Europea. Yet only Pax Russica is presented as legitimate. This undermines the coherence of the argument. If the goal is to affirm multipolarity as a global condition, then demonizing three of the four poles reintroduces the problem of hegemony by another name. The multipolarity here is not true balance but merely a rebranding of unipolar ambition through another civilizational idiom.
In the end, this text fails as a geopolitical analysis, misfires as a philosophical critique, and misleads as a historical argument. It succeeds only as a manifesto of a certain ideological worldview—one that sees the world in terms of collapse, resistance, and final struggle. It is not a critique of Kubilius or the EU so much as it is a mirror reflecting the anxieties and mythologies of its own authorial position. It is less interested in truth than in allegiance, less interested in facts than in symbolism, and less interested in peace than in total victory.
I recommend watching the analyst Brian Berletic, He is far more cynical and realistic regarding the West and its aims.
Out of interest, what part of "Liberalism" is left in Western Europe?
Free speech is gone.
Free assembly is gone.
There is still Freedom of Conscience (Religion), but you hate that, as you wish to impose Fascist Christianity - same as MAGA.
Free Markets are gone, replaced by private monopolies and 'sanctions regimes'.
There is no 'Liberal Democracy' left; all elections are now so heavily rigged directly, let alone the information space being pure Pravda.
So where oh where is all this "Liberalism" in Europe you rail against so much?
The thin veneer of Gay Rights? The even thinner veneer of Trans-rights? That people are still free to follow their own religious path?
Is that it? And you call yourself a Political Philosopher?
The West is now simply Nazi - nothing "Liberal" about it whatsoever.
If you weren't so devoted to your own anti-liberal hobbyhorse you'd see it immediately.
Feel free to have your own prejudices. But at least call a spade a spade, don't try to call it a "Liberal Kalashnikov" just so you can try to attack liberalism at the same time.
Will they turn to Europe after Ukraine? That is still an open question. But the more Kubilius we get, the more likely the answer becomes yes.…
Gosh, I truly hope so, I’m sick to death of these miserable mealy mouthed weasels, this speech by this deranged politician underscores why, happy to mouth off, throw the barbs, but hey, others can die, have their nations, economies destroyed completely, not in part, but totally and Kallas, Van der Leyer, Pistorious, Mehrts, Starmer, the French groomed one, the fool from Rome… all puppets, together their Brussels sycophants will continue to mouth offensive obscenities toward a nation that is so much better than the entire poxy lot of them combined while letting the real fight be undertaken the more gullible… promises, promises, what a weapon, but I hope in order sanity comes back to this world that these demented fools and clowns get their come uppance, completely, destroyed, annihilated the Baltics and more aggressive amongst them perhaps need taken back into Russias direct control and sphere… clearly they are not equipped on so many levels to manage the opportunity granted them with the breakup of the USSR… they are not complying the terms of what was agreed in any way, shape or form with what the Supreme Soviet granted … read the preambles… time for Russia to act.. just saying..then watch the cowards and bloviators in Chief in Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, London all run and hide… shitzening themselves they’ll be next if they dare continue… except Russia, not for all the money in the World would want or should have anything to do with them… such a miserable lot, better to shoot Oreshniks, and let their populaces sort them out… wishful thinking indeed … just saying
Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand
I find it shocking how ignorant and delusional European “leaders” are. What parasite ate their brains?
The parasite is called M O N E Y !!!
Switches-off all synapses instantly when smelling/hearing the bundles being waved in front of them ...
Guess who waves them ...
Interesting insights. I do believe empowered individuals will naturally push back against wars and overseas alliances. Keeping alliances regional is better than a unipolar or bipolar world.
I have been writing on multiple platforms for around 15 years regarding the Brilliant expose’ shown on TV roughly 20 to 25 years ago it is horrifyingly accurate about us not addressing this problem 86 years ago. The Documentary was titled The Nazis A Warning From History it was telling us the story of what transpired between 1933- 1950 so us Boomers and the following Generations could try and understand what happened because weak kneed politicians Who were terrified of upsetting Hitler sat on their Fat arses and yak yak yakity yacked their way into the Second World War. While our ancestors believed their Political Elite Peace in our Time Propaganda crap the Nazis raped and plundered their way through Poland France Belgium and Holland then Russia, Britain and the Wonderful Commonwealth Soldiers just as they did during The Great Slaughter stood beside us Again Shoulder to Shoulder in the dark early days. Now it is happening again only the Maniac is not in Germany well in a recent political shift he might be along with the most horrendous POTUS ever, the Worst UK PM in History and this is bad considering this twats competition, I’m not even starting on the EU. The Persecuted the European Jews who suffered a Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis Are Actually with the Backing of all the aforementioned Western Leaders carrying out a Holocaust upon the People from The Country of Palestine beginning in 1948 when they first invaded and it is every bit as Vile and Evil as the Nazis carried out on the Jews. The Hubris and Insanity of the Leaders People elect on the strength of what the MSM the Titled and Entitled People and the Billionaires tell us is very distressing. Why is it after 2025 Years and we consider ourselves an advanced SOCIETY when in fact we are still Barbarians who Murder Children Women Man and slaughter animals all in the Name of a God who is supposed to be all seeing and compassionate a kind Gentle God. For all the Years BC our ancestors were Killing each other in the name of Many Gods Then in AD They were Killing each other in the name of Christ and ONE GOD. I reckon this One God is sitting looking up and thinking mmm yep Time for another Bigger Motherfucking Boulder And start again I think I’ll put the Cats in charge.
Grazie per l'articolo. La multipolarità alla fine prevarrà perché le grandi potenze dovranno arrivare al punto di rispettarsi vicendevolmente altrimenti l'umanità si troverà a fare i conti con una guerra planetaria .
Soltanto l'emisfera nord ...
Per fortuna !!!
IT is really sad to recognice what " European Leadership" means to European people. It's a nightmare of stupid affirmations. Russian people should never think that this crime like
following of Bidens amoralic intentions
,with all its sophisticatet and all pervading communication Order to drive thé people into hatred could bé a real stand of European citicens. IT will never work.
Thé European people are just afraid of insane Performance on théir political Platforms.
I wish Pax Americana was withdrawing from Europe. I don’t see that happening. Currently within the U.S. Administration, the neocons are winning.
I lived in Western Europe during the later years of the Soviet Union. The “Russophobia” is infinitely more intense now than it was then. In those days, communism was seen as mistaken, not evil. This is in contrast to the perceived nationalism of current Russia and the MAGA movement. Any kind of nationalism and preservation of a the nation-state is seen as an existential threat to the world government that is the end goal of liberalism and the “New International World Order”.
https://youtu.be/yxAEld-inTQ?si=g9H1yhPwjSHs-a6v
Simply the confirmation of their sins. The West need to be isolated economically, an Iron curtain should be applied to the NATO states and their immediately supporters.
The text under examination is a densely constructed ideological polemic that purports to analyze a speech by Andrius Kubilius at the Tocqueville Conversations forum, but in fact functions more as an emotive reaction to perceived geopolitical shifts. Its tone is aggressively adversarial, relying heavily on rhetorical saturation and binary oppositions. The usage of highly provocative language such as “liberal Nazism,” “Forest Brother Kubilius,” and “Russophobic clichés” reveals a text not concerned with balanced interpretation or philosophical critique, but with mobilizing affective allegiance through linguistic aggression. The result is not an invitation to critical reflection, but an imposition of a stark dichotomy: liberal-globalist Europe as villain, and nationalist Russia (alongside MAGA America) as a moral corrective.
This effect is heightened through terminological instability and conceptual overload. The term “liberal Nazism,” for instance, is a deliberate oxymoron combining two diametrically opposed traditions: liberalism, which historically upholds individual rights and pluralist institutions; and Nazism, which is founded on racial supremacy, authoritarianism, and militarized totalitarianism. Such a rhetorical maneuver functions not analytically, but polemically. It is designed to provoke cognitive dissonance and emotional reaction rather than to clarify or critique. The same can be said for the author’s deployment of terms like “Pax Americana,” “Pax Europea,” and “Pax Russica.” These terms adopt the imperial connotations of the Roman Pax Romana but twist their meanings to suggest that each geopolitical bloc operates as a kind of civilizational pole peaceful in rhetoric, yet militant in fact. In doing so, the author participates in a conceptual inflation that obscures rather than illuminates the internal contradictions within each so-called “Pax.”
The text mocks Kubilius’s reference to a loss of democratic spirit in MAGA America, and dismisses his invocation of individualism as misguided. Yet the alternative offered that MAGA represents a new kind of collective solidarity is philosophically naïve or at best deeply strategic in its misreading. The MAGA movement is built on rhetorical nationalism, anti-globalism, and a symbolic appeal to “forgotten” Americans, but it is also rooted in a libertarian-inflected hyper-individualism. Its discourse valorizes deregulation, national sovereignty, and cultural nostalgia elements that are difficult to reconcile with Tocqueville’s notion of participatory democracy based on shared civic responsibility and local institutions. Tocqueville feared the tyranny of the majority, not liberal pluralism. By rebranding MAGA as a Tocquevillian force of democracy, the text engages in a form of philosophical sleight of hand: it evacuates Tocqueville of historical context and reinserts him as a nationalist icon.
Historical revisions and moral equivalence play a crucial role in the text’s broader strategy. The invocation of the “Forest Brothers” as Nazi collaborators is used to discredit Kubilius by proxy. While it is true that some anti-Soviet partisans in the Baltics cooperated with Nazi forces during World War II, to paint all such figures as fascists is intellectually dishonest. This move reveals the text’s central tactic: to equate any form of anti-Russian sentiment whether in post-Soviet Europe or modern liberal democracies with fascism. This is an inversion of the Cold War binary in which the Soviet Union stood for anti-fascism. But here, Russia inherits that role, while the EU is re-coded as fascist, despite its deep structural commitments to democratic norms, rights, and international law.
The argument further devolves into geopolitical determinism and paranoia. According to the author, the EU is not only preparing for war, it is ideologically committed to it. Ukraine is portrayed as the central instrument of European militarism a pawn, not an agent. NATO is said to be fading due to the rise of MAGA isolationism, and Europe must now forge its own militarized identity under the banner of Pax Europea. This interpretation is not supported by credible analysis of policy or institutional decision-making. While it is true that the EU is undergoing a reorientation in light of the war in Ukraine, and that discussions about European defense autonomy are ongoing, there is no serious institutional movement toward unprovoked military aggression against Russia. The text projects its own fantasy of a rising Eurasian civilizational bloc onto its enemies, as if liberal democracies cannot act in self-defense without becoming totalitarian in the process.
In terms of structure and persuasive strategy, the text is teleological. It begins by discrediting Kubilius’s rhetorical competence and political philosophy. It then repositions MAGA as a redemptive movement. It constructs a fictional Europe ruled by authoritarian liberalism and ends by arguing that only Russia, through final victory in Ukraine, can restore global order. The logic of this structure is not cumulative but predetermined. Each step is shaped to support the conclusion that war is necessary, inevitable, and morally justified. This is not analysis but narrative construction: a geopolitical mythos, not an argument.
The most ethically troubling element in the entire piece is its glorification of war and denial of agency to smaller nations. Ukraine is reduced to a tool a battlefield where Russia must win to save civilization. The suggestion that Russia has “no choice” but to fight until “final victory” is a justification for endless conflict under the guise of cultural preservation. It also reveals a deep contempt for Ukrainian sovereignty, framing the country not as a nation with political will but as an arena of contest between empires. This form of thinking is not only dehumanizing; it mirrors the very imperialism the author accuses Europe of engaging in.
Curiously, the text ends by embracing the very logic it earlier seems to disdain: multipolarity. The author, despite aligning against “liberal globalists,” concedes that global politics is now arranged in poles: Pax Americana, Pax Russica, Pax Sinica, and Pax Europea. Yet only Pax Russica is presented as legitimate. This undermines the coherence of the argument. If the goal is to affirm multipolarity as a global condition, then demonizing three of the four poles reintroduces the problem of hegemony by another name. The multipolarity here is not true balance but merely a rebranding of unipolar ambition through another civilizational idiom.
In the end, this text fails as a geopolitical analysis, misfires as a philosophical critique, and misleads as a historical argument. It succeeds only as a manifesto of a certain ideological worldview—one that sees the world in terms of collapse, resistance, and final struggle. It is not a critique of Kubilius or the EU so much as it is a mirror reflecting the anxieties and mythologies of its own authorial position. It is less interested in truth than in allegiance, less interested in facts than in symbolism, and less interested in peace than in total victory.
I recommend watching the analyst Brian Berletic, He is far more cynical and realistic regarding the West and its aims.
Out of interest, what part of "Liberalism" is left in Western Europe?
Free speech is gone.
Free assembly is gone.
There is still Freedom of Conscience (Religion), but you hate that, as you wish to impose Fascist Christianity - same as MAGA.
Free Markets are gone, replaced by private monopolies and 'sanctions regimes'.
There is no 'Liberal Democracy' left; all elections are now so heavily rigged directly, let alone the information space being pure Pravda.
So where oh where is all this "Liberalism" in Europe you rail against so much?
The thin veneer of Gay Rights? The even thinner veneer of Trans-rights? That people are still free to follow their own religious path?
Is that it? And you call yourself a Political Philosopher?
The West is now simply Nazi - nothing "Liberal" about it whatsoever.
If you weren't so devoted to your own anti-liberal hobbyhorse you'd see it immediately.
Feel free to have your own prejudices. But at least call a spade a spade, don't try to call it a "Liberal Kalashnikov" just so you can try to attack liberalism at the same time.