TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE
Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything
An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber
Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).
Check out more of these AI-generated essays
Aleksandr Dugin and his Influence on Russia's Foreign Policy
Frank Visser / ChatGPT
Me to ChatGPT:
Aleksandr Dugin, a prominent Russian political theorist and geopolitical strategist, has played a significant role in shaping Russia's foreign policy discourse. Known for his controversial ideas and the development of Eurasianism, Dugin's influence on Russia's foreign policy has been a subject of debate and scrutiny. This essay aims to examine Dugin's ideas and their impact on Russia's foreign policy during the past decades.
I. Dugin's Intellectual Background and Ideological Framework
Aleksandr Dugin's intellectual background is rooted in traditionalism, geopolitics, and neo-Eurasianism. Drawing inspiration from philosophers such as Julius Evola and Carl Schmitt, Dugin developed a unique ideological framework that called for a revival of Russia's geopolitical influence and the establishment of a multipolar world order. Central to Dugin's ideas is the concept of Eurasianism, which advocates for a strategic alliance between Russia and other countries of the Eurasian landmass to counter the dominance of Western liberalism.
II. The Influence of Dugin's Ideas on Russia's Foreign Policy
Dugin's influence on Russia's foreign policy can be observed through the following key aspects:
Dugin's geopolitical thinking, which emphasizes the importance of Russia's geopolitical interests and its status as a Eurasian power, has resonated with certain factions within the Russian political establishment. This thinking has influenced Russia's approach to regional conflicts, such as the conflicts in Ukraine and Georgia, where Russia has asserted its influence in what it considers its traditional sphere of influence.
Eurasian Economic Integration:
Dugin's advocacy for Eurasian economic integration has played a role in shaping Russia's foreign policy objectives. The creation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) in 2015, comprising Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan, reflects Dugin's vision of closer economic cooperation and integration among Eurasian nations.
Opposition to Western Liberalism:
Dugin's ideological framework opposes Western liberalism and emphasizes the need for Russia to assert its own cultural and civilizational identity. This opposition has manifested in Russia's more confrontational stance towards Western institutions and its support for populist and nationalist movements in Europe. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and Russia's involvement in Syria can be seen as examples of Russia challenging Western dominance and asserting its own geopolitical agenda.
III. Critiques and Limitations
Dugin's ideas and their influence on Russia's foreign policy have attracted criticism and skepticism, both domestically and internationally. Critics argue that his ideological framework promotes an exclusionary and aggressive vision of Russian nationalism, potentially undermining regional stability and exacerbating tensions with the West. Moreover, some view Dugin's theories as overly simplistic and lacking a nuanced understanding of geopolitical realities and the complexities of international relations.
Furthermore, while Dugin's ideas have gained traction within certain circles in Russia, they do not represent a consensus among policymakers or the broader public. Russia's foreign policy is influenced by a range of factors, including pragmatic considerations, economic interests, and the influence of other influential figures within the political establishment. Dugin's influence should be understood within this broader context.
Aleksandr Dugin has undeniably had an impact on Russia's foreign policy discourse. His ideas, rooted in traditionalism and Eurasianism, have resonated with certain factions within the Russian political establishment. While his influence is evident in certain policy decisions and narratives, it is important to recognize that foreign policy decisions are the result of a complex interplay of various factors. Understanding Dugin's influence requires careful analysis of his ideas within the broader context of Russia's foreign policy objectives and the geopolitical realities it faces. As Russia's foreign policy evolves, it will continue to be shaped by a range of factors, and Dugin's ideas will likely remain an influential force in the ongoing discussions about Russia's role on the global stage.
Please elaborate on Dugin's opinions about Western civilization and liberalism.
Aleksandr Dugin's opinions about Western civilization and liberalism are central to his ideological framework. Dugin is highly critical of Western civilization and sees it as a threat to the traditional values and cultural identity of Russia and other non-Western nations. His critique extends beyond mere geopolitical rivalry and delves into philosophical and civilizational realms.
Opposition to Western Liberalism:
Dugin vehemently opposes Western liberalism, which he views as the dominant ideology of the modern world. He argues that Western liberalism, with its emphasis on individualism, materialism, and universal values, has eroded the cultural and spiritual uniqueness of non-Western societies. He sees liberalism as a homogenizing force that seeks to impose its values and institutions on the rest of the world.
Rejection of Universalism:
Dugin rejects the universalist claims of Western liberalism and argues for the importance of cultural and civilizational diversity. He believes that each civilization should be able to define its own values and norms, rather than conforming to a Western-centric worldview. According to Dugin, the imposition of Western values under the guise of universal human rights and democracy undermines the cultural autonomy of non-Western societies.
Critique of Materialism and Consumerism:
Dugin also critiques the materialistic and consumeristic aspects of Western civilization. He argues that the pursuit of material wealth and comfort has led to a loss of spiritual and moral foundations. He advocates for a return to traditional values, spirituality, and a focus on collective well-being over individualistic pursuits.
Emphasis on Traditionalism and Communitarianism:
Dugin promotes traditionalism as an alternative to the liberal paradigm. He values the preservation of traditional social structures, hierarchies, and cultural practices, which he sees as integral to the identity and stability of societies. Dugin's vision emphasizes the importance of collective identity, communitarian values, and a rejection of the individualism promoted by Western liberalism.
Geopolitical Opposition to the West:
Dugin's critique of Western civilization and liberalism is not limited to philosophical and cultural aspects but extends to the geopolitical realm. He argues that Western liberalism and its global institutions, such as NATO and the European Union, aim to maintain Western hegemony and undermine the influence of other powers, including Russia. Dugin advocates for the establishment of a multipolar world order in which non-Western civilizations, particularly the Eurasian landmass, regain their geopolitical influence.
It is important to note that while Dugin's ideas have found resonance within certain circles in Russia, they are not universally accepted or embraced by all policymakers or the wider population. Russia's foreign policy decisions are influenced by a range of factors, including pragmatic considerations, economic interests, and the influence of other influential figures within the political establishment. Dugin's ideas represent one strand of thought among many in the complex landscape of Russian foreign policy.
What can you tell me about Dugin's opinion about Ukraine and the Ukrainians?
Aleksandr Dugin's opinions about Ukraine and the Ukrainians are complex and have evolved over time. It is important to note that Dugin's views do not represent a consensus within the Russian political establishment, and there are differing perspectives on Ukraine within Russia.
Historical and Cultural Connections:
Dugin acknowledges the historical and cultural connections between Russia and Ukraine. He considers Ukraine to be an integral part of the broader Russian civilization and sees Ukrainians as a fraternal Slavic people. Dugin emphasizes the shared language, religion, and historical ties between the two nations.
Opposition to Ukrainian Nationalism:
Dugin has been critical of Ukrainian nationalism, particularly the rise of ethno-nationalist sentiments that emerged after Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union. He sees Ukrainian nationalism as a threat to Russian influence and a tool used by the West to undermine Russian interests in the region.
Dugin has advocated for closer integration between Russia and Ukraine within the framework of his Eurasianist ideology. He has argued for the creation of a Eurasian Union that includes Ukraine, among other countries, as a means to counterbalance Western influence and build a multipolar world order.
Support for Russian Interests in Ukraine:
Dugin supports Russia's strategic interests in Ukraine, particularly in relation to the Crimean Peninsula and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. He has been a vocal advocate for Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, viewing it as a necessary step to protect Russian-speaking populations and asserting Russian influence in the region.
Critique of Ukrainian Statehood and Western Influence:
Dugin has expressed skepticism and critique towards the legitimacy and viability of an independent Ukrainian state. He argues that Ukraine's political and cultural identity has been artificially constructed and manipulated by external forces, primarily Western powers. He sees Ukraine as being under the influence of Western liberalism and views it as a battleground in the larger geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West.
It is crucial to note that Dugin's views on Ukraine have drawn criticism from many quarters, both within and outside Russia. Critics argue that his ideas contribute to the destabilization of Ukraine and exacerbate tensions between Russia and its neighbor. Moreover, his views do not represent a consensus within Russian political circles, and other perspectives exist within Russia's complex political landscape regarding Ukraine and its relationship with Russia.
If Ukraine would choose a more Western course, aiming at a membership of the EU and NATO, what would Russia's response have to be according to Dugin?
According to Aleksandr Dugin, if Ukraine were to choose a more Western course, aiming for membership in the European Union (EU) and NATO, his response would likely be one of opposition and resistance. Dugin's views on this matter reflect his broader geopolitical and ideological framework, which emphasizes the importance of Russia's influence in its perceived sphere of interest.
Dugin views Ukraine as an essential part of Russia's historical, cultural, and geopolitical sphere. He sees Ukraine's alignment with the West as a threat to Russia's strategic interests and its influence in the region. Therefore, he would likely advocate for countering Ukraine's Western integration, seeking to prevent it from joining the EU and NATO.
Support for Separatist Movements:
In the case of Ukraine moving towards the West, Dugin may support and encourage separatist movements within Ukraine, particularly in regions with a significant Russian-speaking population. He has previously expressed support for self-proclaimed separatist entities like the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR), considering them as allies against Ukraine's pro-Western orientation.
Assertion of Russia's Interests:
Dugin would likely argue for a firm stance from Russia to protect its perceived interests in Ukraine. This could involve diplomatic pressure, economic measures, or even military intervention if he deems it necessary to safeguard Russian-speaking populations or to prevent what he perceives as Western encroachment in Ukraine.
Promoting a Multipolar World Order:
In response to Ukraine's Western orientation, Dugin may emphasize the need for a multipolar world order, where non-Western powers, including Russia, assert their influence. He would likely advocate for strengthening alliances and partnerships with other countries in the Eurasian region to counterbalance Western dominance.
Opposition to NATO Expansion:
Dugin has consistently expressed opposition to NATO expansion, particularly in Russia's immediate neighborhood. He sees NATO's enlargement as a direct threat to Russia's security and believes it undermines the balance of power in Europe. Therefore, he would likely advocate for Russia to take measures to counteract NATO's influence, including diplomatic and military strategies.
It is essential to note that Dugin's views represent a particular perspective and are not universally accepted within the Russian political establishment. Russia's response to Ukraine's Western aspirations would involve a range of factors, including the calculations of policymakers, the dynamics of international relations, and the broader geopolitical context. Other influential voices within Russia may have different perspectives on how to respond to Ukraine's pro-Western direction.
Regarding the expansion of NATO, does it not make a difference that former Sovjet and Warschaw Pact countries voluntarily joined this organization, instead of being annexed?
Yes, it does make a difference that former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries voluntarily joined NATO rather than being annexed. The expansion of NATO has been a voluntary process based on the sovereign decisions of individual countries seeking to align themselves with the alliance. It is crucial to acknowledge that these countries had the agency to choose their own path and determine their own security arrangements.
The decision of countries in Eastern Europe to join NATO was driven by several factors, including historical experiences, geopolitical considerations, and the desire for enhanced security and stability. These nations saw NATO membership as a means to ensure their sovereignty, protect against potential aggression, and integrate into the Euro-Atlantic community of nations.
From a legal and political standpoint, the voluntary nature of NATO enlargement distinguishes it from the annexation or forcible incorporation of territories into another state, as was the case with Russia's annexation of Crimea or its military intervention in parts of eastern Ukraine.
It is important to note that while NATO expansion has been welcomed by the countries joining the alliance, it has also generated concerns and objections from Russia. Russian officials and scholars, including Aleksandr Dugin, view NATO enlargement as a geopolitical encroachment into what they consider Russia's traditional sphere of influence. They argue that the expansion of NATO undermines Russia's security and stability by bringing Western military infrastructure closer to its borders.
However, the voluntary nature of NATO enlargement, with countries making independent decisions based on their own national interests and aspirations, distinguishes it from actions such as annexation or the use of military force. The decision of these countries to join NATO reflects their desire for closer ties with the West and their pursuit of collective security within an established international organization.
Is thinking in terms of spheres of influence not an outdated form of foreigh policy?
The concept of spheres of influence has indeed been subject to debate and evolving perspectives in the realm of foreign policy. While some argue that it is an outdated approach, others maintain that it continues to hold relevance in certain contexts. It is essential to consider the different viewpoints and understand the complexities involved.
Arguments against spheres of influence:
Sovereignty and Self-Determination:
Critics argue that the concept of spheres of influence infringes on the principles of sovereignty and self-determination. It implies a division of the world into exclusive zones, limiting the autonomy of countries to make their own choices and determine their foreign policies.
Non-Zero-Sum International Relations:
The idea of spheres of influence assumes a zero-sum game, where one country's gain comes at the expense of another. However, many argue that modern international relations should be based on cooperation, mutual benefit, and shared security rather than the dominance of particular powers.
In an increasingly interconnected world, where economic, political, and social systems transcend national boundaries, the concept of rigid spheres of influence may not fully capture the complexities and interdependencies of contemporary global dynamics.
Arguments for spheres of influence:
Proponents argue that spheres of influence have long been a feature of international relations throughout history. They claim that recognizing and respecting such spheres can contribute to stability, minimize conflicts, and provide a framework for managing regional dynamics.
Strategic Interests and Security:
Supporters assert that nations have legitimate security concerns within their immediate geographic vicinity. Spheres of influence can provide a means to safeguard those interests and establish a buffer zone against potential threats.
Advocates contend that acknowledging and managing spheres of influence can contribute to regional stability by recognizing the historical, cultural, and geopolitical realities that shape a particular region. This can involve accommodating regional powers and taking their interests into account.
In some cases, considering spheres of influence may offer a pragmatic approach to managing complex and overlapping interests in areas where multiple powers have historical, economic, or security stakes.
It is important to note that the concept of spheres of influence exists on a spectrum, and its interpretation and application can vary. In contemporary foreign policy, the focus has shifted towards a more nuanced understanding that balances the principles of sovereignty, self-determination, and cooperative international relations. While the notion of rigid and exclusive spheres of influence may be less relevant, acknowledging and managing regional interests and concerns remains an ongoing aspect of foreign policy discussions.
Has the West neglected Russia's "security concerns" by expanding NATO and supporting Ukraine, or is this a pretext for Russian military expansion, annexing the Crimea and the Donbas (and further)?
The question of whether the West has neglected Russia's security concerns or if it is a pretext for Russian military expansion is a highly debated and complex issue. Different perspectives exist, and the answer involves examining multiple factors and historical context. It is crucial to provide a balanced analysis:
Russian Security Concerns:
From Russia's perspective, the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the support for Ukraine's pro-Western orientation are viewed as direct threats to its security. Russia has expressed concerns about the potential deployment of NATO forces and missile defense systems close to its borders, which it perceives as encroachment and a violation of previous agreements.
Perception of Western Encirclement:
Russia, historically wary of foreign invasions, particularly from the West, feels a sense of encirclement as NATO expanded towards its borders. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a significant shift in the geopolitical landscape, and some Russian officials and analysts believe that the West took advantage of Russia's weakened state during the 1990s.
Annexation of Crimea and Conflict in Donbas:
Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its involvement in the conflict in eastern Ukraine are controversial actions that have drawn widespread international condemnation. Russia has justified these actions by citing the need to protect Russian-speaking populations and asserting its geopolitical interests. However, these moves have been seen by the West and Ukraine as violations of international law and territorial integrity.
From a Western perspective, the expansion of NATO is viewed as a natural outcome of the end of the Cold War and the freedom of Central and Eastern European countries to choose their security arrangements. The support for Ukraine is seen as backing the country's right to sovereignty and self-determination.
Misperceptions and Misunderstandings:
Misperceptions and misunderstandings on both sides have contributed to the escalation of tensions. Communication gaps, historical grievances, and differing interpretations of events have further complicated the situation, making it challenging to find common ground.
It is essential to recognize that narratives surrounding this issue are shaped by geopolitical interests, historical grievances, and differing interpretations of events. Both sides have legitimate concerns and perspectives. Finding a resolution requires open dialogue, diplomacy, and efforts to address the underlying security concerns of all parties involved.
Overall, the question of neglect or pretext is complex, and the answer lies within the broader context of historical developments, geopolitical rivalries, and the need for constructive engagement to address the underlying concerns and build mutual trust.
Each side of a geopolitical conflict will always find justification for its actions, by rewriting history. How to break this dilemma?
Breaking the cycle of justifications and rewriting history in a geopolitical conflict is indeed a complex challenge. However, several steps can contribute to a more constructive approach and help foster dialogue and reconciliation:
Open and Honest Dialogue:
Promote open and honest dialogue between the conflicting parties, allowing them to express their concerns, grievances, and perspectives. Creating safe spaces for meaningful conversations can help bridge understanding and build trust.
Encourage rigorous and objective analysis of historical events and current dynamics by independent scholars, historians, and experts. This can help counter biased narratives and provide a more accurate understanding of the complex historical context.
Engage neutral third-party mediators or international organizations to facilitate negotiations and mediate between conflicting parties. These mediators can help create a conducive environment for dialogue, maintain impartiality, and foster compromise.
Track Two Diplomacy:
Promote people-to-people exchanges, cultural initiatives, and grassroots dialogue programs that bring individuals from conflicting sides together. These informal interactions can foster understanding, challenge stereotypes, and build personal connections that transcend official narratives.
Encourage the implementation of confidence-building measures, such as arms control agreements, transparency measures, and mutual steps to de-escalate tensions. These measures can help create an atmosphere of trust and reduce the likelihood of miscalculations or misunderstandings.
Reconciliation and Historical Truth Commissions:
Consider establishing reconciliation processes and truth commissions to address historical grievances, acknowledge past wrongs, and promote healing. These mechanisms can provide a platform for victims' voices to be heard, facilitate historical truth-seeking, and promote accountability.
Education and Awareness:
Invest in educational programs that promote critical thinking, cross-cultural understanding, and historical accuracy. Foster awareness of different perspectives, encourage empathy, and discourage the perpetuation of divisive narratives.
Recognize that breaking the cycle of justifications and rewriting history is a long-term process that requires sustained commitment from all parties involved. Patience, perseverance, and a willingness to engage in difficult conversations are essential.
While these steps are not exhaustive, they provide a starting point for breaking the cycle of justifications and rewriting history. It is important to remember that progress may be slow and incremental, and the engagement of all stakeholders is crucial to overcoming the dilemma and fostering a more constructive approach to conflict resolution.
Western financial and military support for Ukraine will prolong the war at the cost of many casualties on both sides. Withholding this support will mean the surrender of Ukraine. How to get out of this humanitarian dilemma?
The humanitarian dilemma presented in the context of Western support for Ukraine is indeed challenging. Balancing the desire to prevent further casualties and mitigate the suffering of civilians while seeking a resolution to the conflict requires a multifaceted approach. Here are some considerations:
Intensify diplomatic efforts to facilitate dialogue and negotiation between the conflicting parties. Encourage all sides to engage in meaningful negotiations, explore possible compromises, and work towards a sustainable resolution that respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Ceasefire and De-Escalation:
Advocate for an immediate ceasefire and de-escalation of hostilities. This can provide a window of opportunity to address urgent humanitarian needs and create an environment conducive to negotiations.
Increase humanitarian aid to alleviate the suffering of civilians affected by the conflict. Provide support for essential services, including medical assistance, shelter, food, and water, in coordination with relevant international organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Multilateral Mediation and Peacekeeping:
Explore the involvement of neutral and respected international mediators and peacekeeping forces to help monitor and enforce a ceasefire, protect civilians, and facilitate the implementation of a negotiated settlement.
Encourage the implementation of confidence-building measures between the conflicting parties, such as prisoner exchanges, demilitarized zones, and the removal of heavy weaponry from the frontlines. These steps can help reduce tensions and create an atmosphere conducive to peace negotiations.
Facilitate a comprehensive political settlement that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict, including decentralization, minority rights, and constitutional reforms. Ensure that all parties are included in the negotiation process to enhance inclusivity and legitimacy.
Support for Reconstruction and Development:
Commit to long-term support for post-conflict reconstruction and development in Ukraine. This assistance should prioritize rebuilding infrastructure, revitalizing the economy, and promoting social cohesion to foster stability and sustainable peace.
International Pressure and Dialogue:
Engage with international partners and stakeholders to exert diplomatic pressure on all parties involved, emphasizing the importance of a negotiated settlement and the protection of civilians. Encourage dialogue between relevant actors, including Russia, Ukraine, and regional powers, to find a mutually acceptable solution.
It is important to recognize that the resolution of such complex conflicts requires the commitment and collaboration of all stakeholders involved. It is crucial for the international community to demonstrate empathy, prioritize the well-being of civilians, and work towards a sustainable and inclusive resolution that promotes peace, stability, and respect for human rights.
Mention some European political parties that show affinity with Dugin's philosophy.
While Aleksandr Dugin's philosophy has gained attention and some influence, it is important to note that his ideas are generally considered fringe or controversial in mainstream European politics. Nonetheless, there have been instances where certain European political parties or movements have shown some affinity or expressed views that resonate with certain aspects of Dugin's ideology. It is important to highlight that the extent and nature of this affinity can vary among different parties and individuals. Some examples include:
Jobbik, a far-right party in Hungary, has been associated with Dugin's ideas, particularly in terms of their emphasis on nationalism, anti-liberalism, and opposition to Western influence. Jobbik has expressed support for a multipolar world order and has been critical of Western liberalism.
Front National/Rassemblement National (France):
The Front National (now renamed Rassemblement National) in France, under the leadership of Marine Le Pen, has occasionally shown affinity with aspects of Dugin's ideas, such as opposition to Western liberalism, criticism of globalization, and calls for a more multipolar world. However, it is important to note that the party has distanced itself from Dugin and has pursued a more mainstream political platform.
Lega Nord (Italy):
Lega Nord, a right-wing populist party in Italy, has been associated with some aspects of Dugin's ideology. They have expressed skepticism towards the European Union and have advocated for closer ties with Russia. However, it is worth noting that Lega Nord's ideology is primarily shaped by regionalism and anti-immigration sentiments rather than Dugin's geopolitical theories.
Alternative for Germany (AfD):
The Alternative for Germany (AfD), a right-wing populist party, has had some members express views sympathetic to Dugin's ideas. These views include opposition to the European Union, criticism of Western liberalism, and advocating for closer ties with Russia. However, it is important to highlight that not all members of the AfD share these views, and the party is diverse in its ideological orientation.
It is crucial to note that while certain parties or individuals may show some affinity with aspects of Dugin's philosophy, it does not mean they fully endorse or embrace his entire ideological framework. Affinities can vary, and parties may adopt different elements of Dugin's ideas without necessarily adopting his entire worldview. Moreover, these instances should be understood within the broader context of each party's own unique ideological position and political dynamics within their respective countries.
You could add the dutch right-wing political party Forum for Democracy founded by Thierry Baudet, who defends Russia's perspective in the Dutch parliament.
You are correct. The Forum for Democracy (FVD), a right-wing political party in the Netherlands founded by Thierry Baudet, has expressed some viewpoints that align with aspects of Russia's perspective, including being critical of the European Union and advocating for closer ties with Russia. While Baudet and some members of FVD have defended Russia's perspective on certain issues, it is important to note that they do not represent the entire Dutch political landscape or consensus.
Thierry Baudet, the leader of FVD, has expressed skepticism towards the European Union, criticizing what he perceives as excessive centralization of power and loss of national sovereignty. He has also voiced support for a more multipolar world order and has shown affinity towards Russia, particularly in terms of cultural and historical ties between the Netherlands and Russia.
It is worth noting that FVD's stance on Russia has been a subject of controversy and debate in the Dutch political landscape. While Baudet and some members of the party have defended Russia's perspective on issues such as Crimea or the conflict in Ukraine, other political parties and stakeholders in the Netherlands have expressed concerns regarding Russia's actions and have taken a different stance.
It is essential to recognize that FVD's alignment with certain aspects of Russia's perspective is specific to their party's ideology and does not reflect the position of the entire Dutch political spectrum. The political landscape in the Netherlands is diverse, and opinions on Russia and its policies can vary among different political parties and individuals.
Comment Form is loading comments...