2/2010. My recovery during the 2005-6 wasn't a success on the surface and I didn't have all the extra knowledge I have now, and I was thinking I could get Italy happen faster and was feeling my age about 38 so old and in a hurry, and was motivated by the ESFP and did not have the nf-mode nor the increased understanding of it. 2006-2009, too much mental was needed, and took too much time and then when there was the time, the nf took a stronger impact on me in 11-12/2009 - soon after I had fixed my move to Italy in 2011 or so though I also didn't understand I needed to spend more time recovering first - and it put me on this nf-path again. The statistics are against me healing fast, and so it has been put just as an extra possibility, my focus now being on recovery - the loads rate to go down, and that's what I am primarily after and if the body doesn't follow fully, then it doesn't and I am not going to make it a major problem but be happy to the further decreased load and then there is nothing wrong in the system itself and I don't rate to be in the L4-problem as the center of my personality, that might still suffer of the nf-lacks. The related nf got in stronger in 11/2009, messing my personality from what was a clear go to Italy; the personality though was the one that didn't well enough understand to recover further first, something that wasn't understood well enough even between 1998 and 2009, that was the major mistake of my life. My SF/sf personality has more dominant sf-views, delights, personality, and additionally I have an EP personality part, and those definitely pick Italy and feel sad about the UK, though it's also about the connected nf - that's sad as it should be, things not being well there. So, 11/2009 again I faced the bad nf-heart situation, and then I was put there to L3 when in balance (one has more tolerance then, and is happier then, but when in-between the action and the clear balance, that's where the nf-problems are the most clear) and unloading further, I have the L3, and even L2 seems to come more there when one continues, and in balance one feels pretty good, and has hopes of recovery, and that overall is the perfect path for me that I must continue on the nf-issue, it demanding it and it's right, and it's my F-meaning, on that path I am in the F-meaning and could do no better, and that is my nf-people meaning, on my path and needs, and at that path things are as good as they can be and I could do no better and I feel content, it being like home and Divine in a way, being the right thing, the right place, and so it might be that even time and age stop being an issue, as basically no depression though it's a true fact of the heart, a reality, but on that path there is happiness for/to it, it being for the heart here and it has a reason to be happy at least about that, additionally being in balance and unloading being the happy state, or/and the non-balance will freak the heart as it knows how bad it's for it, though it's not freaking out in too much action but when it sees it after, and any such drops and whatever the heart sees bad in one's life at any time, is hard for it, and are based both on facts and on not all facts, as stuffs can be understood better and one more or less has a possibility of getting rid of those additional pains, the heart not being the logic, it just taking it from what it sees the head seeing and understanding. It seems, I am mainly left with the nf-people as my limiting life problem as the nf-meaning as universal is not the same problem anymore and I am not in the Emptiness and the related depressing of the heart as people lacks, when I am in the L3, I am just fine there and things can get even better (like the L2) when one continues on that only path for me as far as the heart goes.
The relative big picture seeing also, not too much focus on the depressing factors, as being more positive thinking, that too was a good thing. But I am not expecting to get over the heart itself, its depression about the lacks on the nf-life area, as they figure to be facts, though not necessarily exactly as they are, while I might not be dealing with the heart problems any more as long as I stay at the L3 or so and continue on the perfect path, that's here and now and as on the perfect path one is not worried about doing something wrong as long as one stays on that path, and so one is free of lots of problems, as long as one stays on that path. So, it's basically just between my too much load (and the nf-depressions because of it) and the perfect path, there being nothing else for me at this time but stay on that path - and as long as I do, things will more or less improve, and if I will be at the L3, I might not be depressed either but could actually keep feeling good, in spite of the bad nf-situation, that might be happy enough that things are being taken care of, that it's not being ignored. Though my increasing age and the lack of results in the coming years will be another reason for being depressed and it's the major thing here until I stay on the perfect path and it more or less accepts it and doesn't care about my age but keeps living whatever it has. If there would be no getting older, I wouldn't have much of a worry and I could take 20 years for it and no problem, but I am not happy with the situation of not being okay and being older, and such factors, the factors of what one would like to be vs. what is the case, are the factors that make one unhappy and if that would change as a factor for me, it could not cause me unhappiness, at least not as much, it being then just between the heart mode (where the more I am, the more I am in pain - so it's a fact that needs correcting though one does not necessarily need to live there more than one can handle without pain) and my situation that couldn't be happy there, and as long as I am not in the heart mode, there would be basically no unhappiness, not on the surface, as long as I stay on the perfect path. The lesson from that part there being that what's now is more dominant in importance than what one would want, the state of being, when good, and what one has now, is enough and anything more to that is just an extra good, not something to be unhappy about of not having. Though I am not saying that one is going to be happy about a bad situation, but even in such there are life factors - though one is mostly looking into the future then (when the now is not good). In many cases, one has a life even with less, and that less expands to the whole area that so is getting bigger as one drops other things and so, and it opens/limits a new type of life, if that is done by dropping mental doings to maximum enough possibility. Decreasing my remaining problem, as long as I keep doing that, I could not do any better, though not that I am happy about the lacks it has as doings, taking my life away from many parts, but that's what I have to do and there is no other way of doing the right thing here, and the heart being depressed otherwise, has a good reason to be so. The perfect path has the Path in it, that's much the same as the nf-meaning too, and might cover the nf-people too, though these are on the L3 mode. So, one can improve on the views one has when one is depressed, and one can move on the perfect path, and then there are some ways to deal with the situation when one is on the heart mode. When one is in balance then also the desires will be less, the lack of L6 and the energy balanced making it so, and overall things will be looking like the L3, even if one wasn't there before, there one is just existing (clearer, more S, more being, more x-good), and the existence has happiness in it, though it looks pretty much the opposite when someone moves from doings to non-doings (that though can be done less radically, especially when going still deeper rather than just x-balance the body so to say). It's about balance from most parts, but one must work a lot to stay so and keep unloading, if that's what one needs or should do. The energy fields are the life around us that we see and experience and they are coming from us (and in Nirvana they are not expanded and so we are in Emptiness, as for lesser degree when dropping doings, it taking time for the gap between the doing world and the undoing or so worlds to disappear, the new world opening, where one is then in balance and so lives such a more silent and happy life from those and the energy fields).
9/2010. The S/surface living; it's the S/sensoric type of living, similar and also in the Eternity. One lives moment to moment (S, surface), that being the life, though there are worries if one looks into the next life (and to one's problems in this life) where one more or less has no knowledge, but having covered that with Enlightenments (and mind conditionings), one lives the unloading type of non-mental life, on the surface, that's the perfect health, the same also when having no significant loads; just under it are the old loads. There is a sort of no hope nor hopelessness, about the meaninglessness basically; one lives the best life possible, and preferably with the Enlightenments and preferably at the place where one is better to die at, so there are good things to have and future worries, but having covered those as much as one can/has and being on the right path to recovery and living on the surface and unloading and doing whatever one can, that's all life there is and being on the surface and in unload but not deep in depression, either being beyond it or enough in action or having one's nf-things on a better shape. "Surface" here doesn't mean there is no meaning as what one should achieve, that being a part of our psychological needs, like there are physical needs, and it's not that the Dharma, E/ethics is not a part of our psychology, as is the Karma. So, this is not a philosophy but just a Place to live a good and happy life at, additionally for it being the H/health and the path to still a deeper unload health and a Place where the S/sensors live at. One aims to get rid of as much of pains as possible, coming from the physical and the psychological. It's living not really without a meaning but more like beyond it, as a healthy, balanced, S/sensoric state of being, the meaning being a psychological health, balance issue, about no pains and more natural happiness and balance because of it, it not being a philosophical problem but a psychological one. The meaning later, when not blind and on the perfect/S/sensoric path, a sort of taking care of itself, it also sort of being the meaning, one taking care of the things one can and should, on the perfect path and with the S/sensoric life-views. That surface - U/unloaded and H/healthy - living is basically the message here, it showing the clear things here.
Even the death is not much different from living in the S/sensoric, something Gautama Buddha might have called the "Nirvana," it being a more depth-low view as like giving up and living in the eternity like Nirvana or nothingness like a mortal and when having nothing, being in nothing, what does the death matter, nothing much to lose (basically, the sensors see or should see it more or less like that), rather than at the more surface-high Eternity - that's more of a happy (like nf-EP-happy that's the heart too but not the nf-people heart that's the one that gets depressed about the lacks there, including the lack of doings as the lack of life in life so death or hell in itself as nf though as it's not there in NT nor in SF) and an extroverted thing than something closer to sadness and introverted (it's not the introvert itself that's sadness - near the people-nf - but it's more like depth, steady and calm when more there and not on the way there, and when there, there is more surface also) - that's also more calm than the extrovert here not being as steady or it can easily not be and not be good for recovery though the surface is the good for recovery but not necessarily with that much as an extrovert. Not a one liner to understand. But both, the Nirvana and the Eternity, have the same aspect of the S/sensoric, from where the E/emptiness also a sort of comes, or with the introvert thing it tends to - and with any if in-between (showing the emotional lacks, more strongly) the action and non-action other than when resting a bit - but not on the more surface so much, and it's just the Sensoric world suddenly lacking the Intuitive world (and that's then also where the no-meaning - also as nf[-people] - and the death a sort of are) though there is some more to the E/emptiness, but it seems to me that's about it.
The surface stuff is also a part of Buddhism as are the inner and the depths too. The full picture and the more complete personality needs the outer and the surface too, and here it's the place for one to live at, and one will not be lacking the inner either, especially not as a witnessing & consciousness - it takes care of itself, as will more or less the surface when one gets a habit of being there and living without the mind so to say, especially without the iNtuitive mind, though one can use it if one wants, as one can use the sensoric thinking, but not as the dominant habit as it makes the recovery and staying so more difficult, if not impossible, and being an S-semi-blind is not my view of what one better be and the S gives the S/sensoric wisdom, similar to the Brahma Awareness that one figures not to have in one's next life. The N will be weaker once suppressed, something to the direction it's with the sensors, though without one being a full sensor until one insists as the old will remain as an old addiction and one needs a further step and stay there permanently if one wants to be at the complete sensor, that though sort of doesn't look like mandatory - to push it that far and stay there - and one might think there being this kind of a bit by bit way also, connecting to the surface story here, that's the exact issue here, living on the surface, and for more reason if one needs or wants major or whatever recovery.
1/2011. Note on Italian and similar languages. It's a bit difficult language to learn as it's pronounced one way and written in an another way often enough (normally and not normally weighted vowels) and one needs to know if it's f/m. Then when e.g. speaking, additionally to those, one needs to put more or less every word, including adjectives, articles, prepositions and other things, in at least two to four different forms (English has only one), and there are like a hundred (of) different verb forms of a single word when English has only about one. The order of the words is also different and varies at times and one reads sentences all the time that might be a bit strange and at least till learning the language real well it's also slower to read, speak, understand. English is grammatically easy compared to Italian, and only the difference in pronunciation is a problem. So, for one reason or the other, both languages waste energy and are unnecessarily difficult.
I looked into the logic of English (not sure how much the books teach). And saw three main points; the ö-rule (Oxford English) where the last inside vowel tends to become an ö (i, maybe with some combination like -[ti]on. And the -e- [and -i-] often will not become ö and in cases it's semi-optional -ment [e=e/ö/e+ö. One might think/use, right or not, the same idea of "ö" with many other vowels too, e.g. o+ö, u+ö, and so the ends and so might make a bit more sense - maybe French has it something like that with their nose sounds], like -ful ends f(ö)l/fUl. a, [e, i, y] (o), (u)). -c(e ends) becomes "s" and -s(e ends) "z", though not all the time. -a ends as ö it seems. -rate [-late etc.] ends "röt" but as verbs "reit" like with the -e rules, though in English not every word follows the rules but there is often some reason possibly even if it's just about how it sounds (like)), similarly to Italian long vowel at that same point. Then there are the r-rules where ar often but not often becomes an aar, and 'or' an oor, while the xr figures to become ö(:)r, and the r is not pronounced if it's not followed by a vowel (British English); those r-rules figure to be there together with the vowels rules, that's the third main to learn (ö, r and vowels), though maybe not made all clear as there are two different letters; the a and a, the e (e) and e (i/ii), etc. The other pronounced as Finnish, and the other as English, and I (and others) saw that if the word or so ends in e (maybe some other too), the earlier vowel tends to be pronounced as English, e.g. hope is houp, and those are especially clear in four letter words (not: move, love, none etc. Generally, v might have more magic than n has but even v doesn't change the rules every time) and also something of elsewhere, more or less generally too, and vowels together are more or less so that the first part is taken form e.g. a="e" and the later part from the i="i" e.g. -ai- being "ei," and in this case it's in the official rules also, though that's like a "four letter" rule too, just that the vowels are together (if they are not, but there is one but not two non-vowels in between - there might be a lesser possibility that the vowel is pronounced as "English," as "soft," except in about the -e end case, and one needs to rate them as "hard" ones if one doesn't find any rule more or less pointing to the other possibility and they more or less generally are hard ones), and the 'a' in this combination case is all that is needed for the "ei," like in 'load' it's "löUd"/"loud." Then the soft c and soft g are similar to Italian (and other latin languages), and the h is also similar (not pronounced in British English until it's with some known combination or the word starts with it). The base a seems to be ä, the base u an a. a has many forms but the ä and ei are the bases - though at least when the word starts with an a (or with some other vowel), it tends to follow the vowel rules and the double consonant rules (or at least the words starting with an e- won't as they don't follow but about the double vowel rules perhaps) though it's a double opposite with the a-words as it should be then the ä that it perhaps is but it's usually the ö then [as an alternative to the ä and ei], like with the vowel rules it's usually the ö, while when the a- word is something else it just somewhat figures to be the -ä (it can be -ö, o: etc. too and it makes in cases sense). The double same consonant figures to make the "four letter" rule the opposite, e.g. "letter," and in cases it's already the opposite but that double makes it a double opposite. If there is no rule (two vowels together [or somewhat with mostly one consonant between them while when two consonants in between then the rule is mainly a clear hard case], -e end, magic) pointing the vowel to be pronounced in some other way than it is in Finnish (hard), then it more or less rates to be pronounced as in Finnish. The double words and the pieces of them are more or less different words. Many dictionaries do not give the exact really British official pronunciation, e.g. the book is not only "buk" but a "bUk;" cool or not. The letters in English are often not the usual letters as pronounced but some mixture of the written and pronounced forms, e.g. you, do and to all seem to be perhaps like o+y+u, though not that it's bad to have variety nor there is necessarily an improvement to make them separate letters (like vowels having dots or so above or so them, and that could also be used - at least in dictionaries - e.g. when the vowel doesn't follow any rules, or maybe even then. Then it should look clearer) and it's not the only way English is pronounced. But it makes the difference between vowels smaller and so more difficult or muddy though it might not matter in many cases like at the end parts of the words as it might not make any difference on how one pronounces it and that can be more or less true also on the early parts of the words and if the pronunciation is then easier (should it be?) or more smooth, it might not be bad though at points the vowels will not have a clear indentity though could be a variety though it might be a rather constant factor. But the written rules should be clearer. Personally, I figure to use the Oxford English, that's more plain, e.g. no öU but ou, and much of the music too just might be like that. And there already figure(s) to be too many ö's.
About the country. Italy could also be with some smaller place on the beach,
perhaps 0.25 km or more of it, preferably good window(s) and enough light in too, and preferably no major cockroach and similar problems - maybe they have less room to spread on some island (on the first floor) and so are more there - but here too one might have to think about the floor and live in a high building if one has to, though often they have major problems with the noises of the other "family" numbers of the same building (Finnish people might be more silent).
A death in Italy and one is counting (on) a rebirth in Italy and on the other sides of its oceans and up and down, then being okay with more or less of those (north Africa could be maybe 1/3, and it's not all bad a place, maybe not that good for women, and one can possibly move, if one has money. In theory whites could be up to a minority in the EU. And next we figure to be more or less brown), while a death in the UK, especially in south England, has the London area there, that figures to improve chances further if one dies there but it's pretty covered to die in the south there, and there is France, Germany (to a lesser degree perhaps) and so, possibly even the USA but the sea distance should make it less so as felt. Though, being an NT, or any, all open wombs are not open. And that's if one gets a birth through a base human. English might take seven full years of one to learn and even then it wouldn't be the mother tongue, and it perhaps seems one does not need to study languages in England. From England one could move in Australia (one hardly gets a rebirth there, when one dies there, though 20M sort of, and what about their genes? I am not aware there are much problems and I know it's not a poor place. Just 20M, though it could be 200M) or Canada (to die in Canada after having lived there, one figures to be reborn like 20-50-100% in the USA) if one has enough points for it, and possibly spend time in Malta (or Gibraltar?) and up to India and even the USA. To die in Finland, one figures to be reborn in Scandinavia and up, Russians, and down to Poland or so, and maybe in 1/3 of the cases in Russians, from where I could easily move only to Italy (it would need Italian learning and possibly English), as far as the EU goes, as I know my current preferences. Australia - isolated and on the other side of the world and small and the (sub)tropical part has most need for skilled workers that they might need (that one just might have) and its sea is most likely to kill - and Canada (might need a different profession) and as it takes the same or so points to get there than in the UK. My preferences might change as priorities, and I have like 55 years to see before I need to try to figure it out in the next life.
London has some like 10 to 32 boroughs to pick from/of(f), all of them being up to like 0.2(5)M cities, meaning not necessarily a point to pick some other city. Plus the other cities (boroughs) of such and the center of London is there, and around that 7M there is another 7M(+) instantly outside of London as it's on the map. So, there is much to pick from/of/about, though many of them can be rather similar (many are up to very different and one will find some more fitting than the other(s), though it's also about the costs) and they are not like living in the city centre, at least not when compared to bigger cities of 0.5-1M - Helsinki is 0.5M but there is everywhere people from the 1M area, and so the city centre there just might be like in a clear 1M city, and so a clear 0.5M city might feel smaller and more so a 0.25M city, that's very small if one is used to a 1M city and likes it, though I might feel it better on e.g. Sundays when it's possibly emptier and less noisy, though it often doesn't all look like so, still noisy until it's like morning up to some 8 am when shops are close but sun is already up though there might be noisy cleaning machines. In a big city one has different kind of places to pick from from a variety of distances around the centre in any city. London metro costs maybe £100 at the zones 1-4, maybe same for 2-6, and more for 1-6, plus the like double costs for the centre perhaps, especially during busy hours. In the south the metro goes through the south gangs I suppose, and then there is the north (about Islington and Camden are Z2 and likely - just maybe not all Islington - some more expensive [so one might live just e.g. above them [Haringey ("primarily residential") looks silent (and comfortable like the other not the most edge places figure to be like, though the gangs seem to form at that kind of places, just to make it less comfortable, though the gangs are a black thing - and they happen to be at those zones - and if the place does not have enough black people, it might be less comfortable for them to form gangs there) - though the east half (above Hackney) is possibly up to half black - at least they might have bigger dicks -- one can then go in Italy being up/down to beautifully brown and/or having a bigger than average dick -- while the Indian(s) at/on the west - up to north - have very small dicks - then one goes in Italy as brown and with a small dick (Back in India, China or live alone. Most skin colors are pretty cool and I might not have a problem with them. Being of some shades - outer persona will have its part in it - or fully black can have practical problems or limitations, and they can have some other looks too than just the color, and not sure about the odor compatibility). Barnet - seems pretty white - is and isn't an on the edge place - they are all empty just that some of them have closer places and some might have bigger shopping centers and other stuff and that/those one might be looking for if one picks some on the edge place] - also the metro goes above the zone 1 there and it's easier to go anywhere from north, though in theory on the south too and the metro seems to go through it too, if one picks a safer path]. They have more or less city life. Hackney seems to be somewhat "black" and it seems it has a bad reputation - Islington has only some and I don't know about the rest of north other than there wasn't that much information about it and all do not think that some areas, e.g. Islington would not be good, and personally, I have lived 15 years in an area with a somewhat bad reputation and there were no more problems than anywhere else. In some places one figures to get more trouble especially if one is seeking for it) and the west (possibly the more central spot to die at though who else lives there. E.g. Ealing (50-60% seem white, many figure to be non-white rather than black, depending of e.g. the exact spot there e.g. Ealing has some eight areas. The same goes for any e.g. edge place too when it's closer the center perhaps where it might be more black and have gangs - any such e.g. south place is more risky) seems good as maybe city or semi-city, maybe Z3 (some Z2). Brent is plenty "black" and seemed - from pictures - to have no city life and has one of the highest crime rates though not that it's no good to live near the wanted areas), as good areas (and about 3-5 clock as Greenwich, Bexley, Bromley - they are green areas e.g. Greenwich is just a place to live at, just the flat and around it's just green and other flats houses very side by side, older houses figures, like about anywhere in London), though very near the centre is generally fine anywhere (and when one knows more specificly), as well as the very sides (figures rather empty and possibly lonely and more travel costs and at least a bit more time) of London and beyond, and the north seems reasonable, and the west mainly good perhaps but nearer they are more or less less white - means at least more noise though also the prices might be lower there then though just a guess - though that might not be a problem and one can see stats, pictures and visit, and the metro goes more or less anywhere in the west and maybe north and even east and east west (anywhere and if not there is a train that might be just the same). North East has Tower Hamlet (more or less Bangladesh: 10-60% the map says, though hard to believe that central, or it's not all that central but when it is, figures to cost too much), Newham (black) and Barking-Dagenham (more or less black, at least near Newham and what's further might be unnecessarily far away and one travels through them and their gangs) and one or more of them just might be okay (and more or less have city/high buildings. The old one's were bombed down, though it doesn't mean they are better then. But why call it the old London then, but it's known as less clean too, so no know), though figures somewhat poorer, somewhat more dirty and have somewhat more gangs, and more or less they are black or so, in case there is not much point taking any one of them for just some reduced price until there is some reason, though Tower Hamlet is what looks like Z1-Z2 and at least it and Newham (black) has industry (in case one works there) (though all London more or less has industry), but it seems a white person might better ignore all three of these for the start though one might be working there just perhaps and later just perhaps live there too. Then there is Hounslow (and maybe at least Wandsworth [plenty white and has industry], though one is then possibly somewhat going to travel through the south, though this seems about Z2(-3) [that though doesn't make things there any easier], that Merton [2/3 are white] [not all empty, not an edge place but Z4-3. If I am not mistaken, that I might be, from some pictures, it has the same a bit darker/less clean [Z2 partly reason?] feel that also Wandsworth has, compared to Ealing, but other than that things seemed to be more or less fine] more or less isn't, though some metro line might go under the gangs) under Ealing (and Hammersmith-Fulham [Z2!?] if the cost is not too high - even the very near Z1 places do not necessarily cost more than Z2-Z3 places, while I guess the edge places figure to cost the least, like one room flat might be around 650 as Z2-Z3+ [if/as euros are pounds one lives with the same cost in the centre of Helsinki] but just possibly all the way down to 500 [the edge of Helsinki goes down to some 400] + travel costs on the edge places). That's about it then of London. The work, where it is, but one might also aim sooner or later to pick it from where one lives rather than the other way around - London and beyond is not really a city but many cities but they don't figure to have as much work action as a similar size of a city would have - though there are reasonable areas anywhere (if including the far south and beyond too, and the far north east - far east north and beyond. Though not that is necessarily has enough bases even in the middle south that one couldn't live there, though it's not necessarily a good idea to go out during the dark hours then, but if that's the only place one gets a place rented for the start, then one might pick it for the start as long as they are not all black). But, possibly mainly one will be giving up of the city centre living at 0.5M+ cities when picking London, though not really if one works in the centre (or lives in about such/so close); and it figures so full there during busy hours on the ordinary streets that one might not like to be there then. The lack of deeper winter (economics, general well being, universality of the language, all stuffs like that producing happiness and making it feel like a more solid place) figures to make the difference (though sunshine hours are low), making the UK a more solid place as it has that continue thing (not cut by the winter) though the long spring/autumn is a rather pale thing but doesn't cut the continue thing.
To die in Finland, the problems might or might not be the language and the weather (I think the winter half of the year in itself is enough reason to move to another country - if one starts thinking about one's life during that time compared to even some UK winter that's pretty good in comparison, more so to my unloaded L6, then me being that much hotter and the winter that much less cold, while the 29C+ would be that much more hot, too hot, and so taking the UK winters instead of the Mediterranean heats is better for me even as the weather itself, not to mention the other goods. Possible global warming is now at about +2C [40 years] and is figured to continue to +7C possibly already in 2050. There possibly has been similar periods in the past and is possibly connected to the Sun spots). There is the non-EU on the right, perhaps some 10M people to Saint Petersburg and included (5M city) in Russia. And other "russians" below, but that's the most likely spot in Russia and the big city is something positive as an option, and if born elsewhere in Russia, one might move into a big city, though might not be all cheap (the London etc. story), and if one wants to live cheaper, there is a possibility elsewhere in e.g. Russia. And one can move e.g. in Italy if one wants. Russian is a big language, 100-200M perhaps. I figure to end in jail (in Finland also) when not going in the military service, but it might not be a big deal, there always being something wrong in somewhere. Saint Petersburg has the same sea as e.g. Helsinki has, and the weather is the same. At least Finland is not a worse place to die than Italy. And it seems Russia too is Europe and it looks like Russia has two relatively big seas at the south (somewhat Mediterranean level - Baku [close] is like N/north Italy, 7C winters, 30C[+] summers) so all in all Russia could be okay (maybe not economically). Losing the pension years (and the early years of - 30 years? - the next life) in Italy, and the possible Mediterranean or so rebirth, the possible mother tongue. But at least it's mostly safer to die in Finland.