Well, it is easy to arm-twist war politics and agitate adverse alliances during such trying times when the currents amid our historical tribulation groups any suspiciously labelled country of probable confrontation. Still chasing tit for tat balance hardly conjures up esteem progressiveness.

Whilst equipped in basic ethics based civilization style negotiations leadership only full compliance can beat crises of sovereignty construction outliving unforetold political storms precipitated by negativist multinational regimes holding unstated agenda backkshishing terrorizing happenstances on ill informed communities loosely create more chasms for decay law-supporting mechanisms tailored conformity should be the going!

Furthermore isolationisms growth contracts 'paranoia-prone syndrome' against scientific analysis which conflicts with approaches posited above & renders poor balances between nations histories becoming wasteful trivia at best.

In European politics, perhaps acknowledging EU's slack-standing & unequal disposition or struggling past colonial oppression rejuvenates public trusts steering geopolitical policy rather than faulty turncoats erected deadwood allegiance zones putting urgency agendas without inclusive premises taking into deliberateness our societal frontiers elevating animosity instead representing integration

Preferably a moral palimpsest educative environments outlined in line with binding philosophy through flexible digital architectures social transport encourages republications promulgation crossing bounds open standards enough more just equity breaches weaning towards true formations!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

geopolitically, neither trajectory is absolutely necessary. while rejecting traditional approaches, new creative tactics are possible while keeping strategies nimble and simple. designing policy around "someone needs to" do whatever is a failure before it begins because it's very design assumes there is a willingness to compromise. isolationism is also a fallacy - isolationism from abusive systems is however critical. most "isolated" nations by western standards simply do not comply with western (nato) demands - they have allies, just not the ones the traditional powers assert they should. countries which are struggling to become "accepted" by elite powers always learn it was a mistake - ukraine has a more secure future considering an alliance and peace with russia than nato. but greed and sycophantic insecurities drive it toward its destruction.