The most effective way of resolving them is for Pakistan to candidly address the first four in parallel with committing itself to a legally binding series of strategic resource deals with Russia.
I tolerate pretty much anything other than ethno-national slurs and personal attacks, whether against others or especially against myself. When it comes to me, this also includes innuendo about my motives. Such comments toxify the conversation and violators risk being blocked.
With all due respect to Russians, who I sincerely love and consider to be some of the nicest people that I've ever met, they can sometimes be very naive.
Part of this is due to the complacency that pervades society as derived from the role that "avos" ("fatalism") has historically played therein:
Once they get used to doing something a certain way or relying on something, they only rarely on their own switch to another way or thing by force of habit and "fatalism".
Look at the first few months of the SMO when they continued sending column upon column down country roads despite all the ambushes that kept occurring.
To paraphrase Bismarck, "Russians saddle slow but ride fast", meaning in this context that they take a while to adapt/change, but swiftly do so once the decision is made top-down.
And that's the thing, a lot of what observers might consider to be policy shortcomings derived from "avos" are due in no small part from decisions made from above.
Therefore, reforms almost always must come from above (remember, feedback is rarely solicited from below and unsolicited feedback here is almost always rejected outright).
It's very dangerous. If an enemy is agile and fast, he can understand that and always play before Russians react. And it seems that's exactly what Anglo-Saxons are doing, playing fast and without honor like a bunch of hyenas against a lion.
Thanks to you, I finally understand the fundamental difference between russian and western civilisation.
Russians are deeply fatalistic.
Western civilisation has inherited at least one thing fron Romans:
We can't stand fatalism. Fatalisme is almost a crime for a leader. Fatalisme is perceived like a terrible weakness and only deserves disdain. It's almost horrible that submission. Almost.
Like Romans, Westerners always look after a solution and never accept things "because they are".
And in western Europe, this point make the difference between leaders, indépendants and sheeps or serf.
For exemple, western Europe tried five time to fight Russia. Two times it succeeded lightly ( Crimée 1853, WW1 1917) but three time it was the worst three defeats know by Europe since the end of eastern roman empire. Swedish, French, Germans, not only lost their wars but lost everything in these war.
Do you think that they will stop?
No, like Romans, they will keep on and keep on and keep on till something works.
And seemingly, they understood something:.
1: never walk on Moscow.
2: You can defeat Russia in being agile and fast and if you must not invade it, you can harass it till it let you take what is in its plate.
COMMUNITY RULES
I tolerate pretty much anything other than ethno-national slurs and personal attacks, whether against others or especially against myself. When it comes to me, this also includes innuendo about my motives. Such comments toxify the conversation and violators risk being blocked.
please think again, you are lucky to have pretty moderate followers, and the fact that they miss one or two doesn't change this.
What???
Russia could suspect Pakistan of double-deal???
Could?
No shit?
Are they stupid, weak or desperate?
Those last months, I must admit that Russia surprise me. And not for the best.
Astonished, I've learn yesterday that russian army, for its tactical communications on front, relied on... starlink...
When I've read that, I though first it was a joke or an hoax. Can we imagine a NATO country relying in Glonas?
Relying on Starlink means that they have no good enough system.
That means too that sometimes Russians seem little naive.
Dismaying.
With all due respect to Russians, who I sincerely love and consider to be some of the nicest people that I've ever met, they can sometimes be very naive.
Part of this is due to the complacency that pervades society as derived from the role that "avos" ("fatalism") has historically played therein:
https://www.rbth.com/education/332624-russian-avos
Once they get used to doing something a certain way or relying on something, they only rarely on their own switch to another way or thing by force of habit and "fatalism".
Look at the first few months of the SMO when they continued sending column upon column down country roads despite all the ambushes that kept occurring.
To paraphrase Bismarck, "Russians saddle slow but ride fast", meaning in this context that they take a while to adapt/change, but swiftly do so once the decision is made top-down.
And that's the thing, a lot of what observers might consider to be policy shortcomings derived from "avos" are due in no small part from decisions made from above.
Therefore, reforms almost always must come from above (remember, feedback is rarely solicited from below and unsolicited feedback here is almost always rejected outright).
It's very dangerous. If an enemy is agile and fast, he can understand that and always play before Russians react. And it seems that's exactly what Anglo-Saxons are doing, playing fast and without honor like a bunch of hyenas against a lion.
Thanks to you, I finally understand the fundamental difference between russian and western civilisation.
Russians are deeply fatalistic.
Western civilisation has inherited at least one thing fron Romans:
We can't stand fatalism. Fatalisme is almost a crime for a leader. Fatalisme is perceived like a terrible weakness and only deserves disdain. It's almost horrible that submission. Almost.
Like Romans, Westerners always look after a solution and never accept things "because they are".
And in western Europe, this point make the difference between leaders, indépendants and sheeps or serf.
For exemple, western Europe tried five time to fight Russia. Two times it succeeded lightly ( Crimée 1853, WW1 1917) but three time it was the worst three defeats know by Europe since the end of eastern roman empire. Swedish, French, Germans, not only lost their wars but lost everything in these war.
Do you think that they will stop?
No, like Romans, they will keep on and keep on and keep on till something works.
And seemingly, they understood something:.
1: never walk on Moscow.
2: You can defeat Russia in being agile and fast and if you must not invade it, you can harass it till it let you take what is in its plate.
*Yawn* some minor American functionary will snap his fingers and Pakistan will scurry back.
The last time a Pakistani leader travelled to Russia he was promptly deposed for his "aggressive neutrality" towards the US. Imran Khan 2022.
The only army in the world which has a country is Pakistan.
The only thing we in India expect from Pakistan is chaos and disruption.
This is a long discussion and potentially very disruptive. Our host may not like it.
https://spectator.com/article/how-pakistans-rape-culture-led-to-the-uk-grooming-gangs/
I don't speak about racism.
I just want to understand. Except religion, what are the fundamental difference?
Seemingly, you're Indian. I don't know your two peoples.
But can you explain why, in UK, Pakistaneses have a rate of criminality three time more than Indians?
Thank you