And the famous Finland schools with no homework.

Maybe there is something there: being forced to do homework in authoritarian school system have somehow closed the minds of President Putin and President Zelenskyy to look at authoritarian measures, to use force for what should be accomplished through natural devotion to duty? Maybe that is what the powers that be want. — FreeEmotion

In continuing to be annoying on this thread, I have to disagree and make a correction:

Finnish schools do have homework.

(What they lack is nationwide standardized testing as only in the Gymnasium there is one standardized test for graduation.)

I guess a good 4 million has fled, and some are now returning, including children. — jorndoe

Yet notice that even the Ukrainian government has urged people to leave eastern Ukraine now, and with the reality of what denazification looks like on the ground emerging, people likely will move. This works fine to Putin's objectives as the last thing he would want in the Novorossiya he is looking for to have a large hostile population of Ukrainians.

What is positive is that Belarus seems to have escaped (for now) the war as Putin hasn't demanded that they would join the special military operation. With Russians withdrawing from the Northern front around Kyiv this looks likely to continue.

In continuing to be annoying on this thread, I have to disagree and make a correction: — ssu

I don't think you are clear on the concept of being annoying but that is fine. I got that data from a documentary.

This one documentary may be more accurate: the least number of schooling hours per week, and well trained teachers, and what looks like group work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYHWpRR4yc

You can disagree with it but that's the position Russia will take. — Benkei

The Mearsheimer line that Chomsky is echoing is the typical US focused view, which totally disregards the other totally obvious agenda that Russia has for Ukraine. This should be obvious from what Putin and Russian leaders say. It's should be obvious from the fact that the Russian regime has echoed the line of the artificiality of the Ukrainian state, which has nothing to do with NATO enlargement.

But that doesn't matter at all, as you have pointed out that you don't care about Russian politics. So keep on insisting that the only issue here is NATO enlargement and the actions of the West. Yes, that's one point. But the world isn't monocausal.

Without NATO enlargement, the Russians likely would have military bases in the Baltic states again.

Your elements are meagre. Economies are interconnected and derivatives are a small market. One could mount a reverse argument that New York is controlled by Paris because of all the French cheese they eat there.... It's just blah. The US and the UK are sinking into mass stupidity, while the EU keeps developing. .

That's a load of crap and you know it.

We see a huge consistency across the board for decades in what Russian governments have said for decades, the promises made in the 90s to Russia (not one inch to the East after German reunification) and how its interpretation of the Minsk II agreement is fully consistent with reaching this goal (eg. influence foreign policy via Donetsk and Luhansk).

On the other hand we have every military scholar telling you that Russian control of Ukraine is impossible. It would be another Afghanistan. So whatever is said about the artificiality of Ukraine is irrelevant because it's not a realistic goal.

It has always been and will continue to be the implied threat of NATO encirclement of Russia. That's the driver of conflict in this region and Russia has warned about it for decades.

Without NATO enlargement, the Russians likely would have military bases in the Baltic states again. — ssu

Aside from this being crystal ball theories I don't care to pursue I don't get why you're still under the impression that living within the imperial reach of one empire is better than another. It's obviously worse when two contest such reach in a given region as we seen now in Ukraine.

There is an anthropological fact ... Nationality is one way we understand our social identity. — neomac

That's not an anthropological fact, it's an anthropological theory.

> The working class in both societies have more common interest against the ruling classes of both societies than the entire population of one has against the entire population of another.

Common in what sense? What are the evidences to support your claim? — neomac

So now I'm to provide 'evidence' yet you get to simply declare things to be 'anthropological fact' without a shred of it? Why the double standard?

As to the first question. What they have in common is oppression. Something I though you were all in favour of fighting against. It is an economic fact that the working class are oppressed by the elite classes, but apparently, that oppression doesn't qualify for you support. Not enough 'anthropological facts' behind it perhaps?

to talk about responsibility you need agency. And with your analysis you should still prove Zelensky’s responsibility from “Ukrainian children are killed by Russian soldiers” and not from “Ukrainian children die”, if you want to make sense to me. — neomac

It's pretty simple. If someone orders (or even supports) continued fighting, they bear some moral responsibility for all the foreseeable consequences of that decision. One of the foreseeable consequences is that more Ukrainian children will die. I don't understand what's so hard about that.

Children don’t get a saying in anything because they are children. — neomac

Not getting a literal 'say' is not the same as not having their interests considered.

So you wanted to suggest a third strategy opposing Russian and American expansionism and now you want Zelensky gone — neomac

What? Where did I write anything even remotely related to deposing Zelensky?

the flaw in your reasoning lies in the fact that your moral claims do not take into account what Ukrainians value, as I do. For example, if I were Ukrainian... — neomac

Are you serious? Your evidence for you taking Ukrainian values into account and me not is that you've thought about what you would do if you were a Ukrainian? Do you not realise how ludicrous that sounds?

There are unavoidable evidences and compelling reasons for mistrust. — neomac

Yes. I know. As there are in every single negotiation ever. So I was asking you how you measured the degree of mistrust on this occasion to be 'too much' mistrust.

> I'm not talking about Russia and Ukraine, I'm talking about all parties. That should include the US and Europe who are funding the war. they can't pretend to be innocent bystanders. Notwithstanding that, whether negotiations are taking place is not the question. Whether you support them is the question.

OK what do you mean by “support”? Show me how you would apply it to your position. — neomac

America and Europe entering into negotiations with Russia.

> Again, whether they 'try to help' is what's in question.
> Does a supply of weapons help?

Well Zelensky is asking for military assistance to the West, and the West is supplying it. And it’s primarily up to the Ukrainians to assess if they get enough help. — neomac

You've not answered the question. Does supplying weapons help?

> Is there any evidence that that's even the intention?

That’s irrelevant. I’m talking about moral reasons to help — neomac

So intention has nothing to do with morality? If I intend to murder someone, but end up accidentally helping them, that's exactly the same, morally, as if I intended to help them all along?

> You seem pretty clear that Putin's tactic (a gross brutish bombs-and-guns approach) is morally worse than, say America's (a more sophisticated economic domination causing death by famines, ill-health, and 'collateral damage' in their proxy wars).

Quote where I said that. Or show me how you could possibly infer such a claim from what I said. — neomac

from a more concrete and personal point of view there is a big difference in how this influence is deployed: e.g. Isis might want to put their flag in our decapitated head, while the US might want to put their flag on the sandwich we are eating. Do you see the difference? Because if you don’t, I do and I value it. — neomac

I took that to be a claim that you value the economic dominance of the US over the territorial dominance of ISIS (a more extreme example you used in our discussion about Russian tactics).

Bombing hospitals, civilians and children is not morally defensible, giving stingers and javelins to Ukrainians that want to continue to fight against Russia also with stingers and javelins is morally defensible. — neomac

Why? If not the death and destruction these actions cause, then what is the moral force?

I was referring only to these parts: — neomac

The parts that support your statement - not the parts that don't. Cherry-picking, in other words.

If we are talking about a negotiation between 2 parties, a third strategy that is opposing both should take into account what both parties demand, which you didn’t. — neomac

I assume Ukraine demand that the invasion stops.

since accepting Putin’s demands (as they are) will empower Putin, then there would be more risks against the West, this is what needs to be opposed. — neomac

Putin is currently consolidating his power. So should we stop sanctions on those grounds? You seem to be just appealing to whatever notions happen to support your already chosen course of action. There's no reason at all to assume that agreeing to terms would increase Putin's power any more than not agreeing and losing the war. Or not agreeing and having NATO have to step in and win the war - both of which might end up increasing Putin's power, cementing his alliance with China and worsening the global political balance of power.

Your method to decide which expansionism to support is based on counting deaths, directly or indirectly provoked by expansionist activities (whatever they are). So since the US has indirectly provoked more deaths in Yemen than Russia has directly provoked in Ukraine, then we should side with Russia.
If that is in short your line of reasoning, then let me stress once more that, from your own way of framing things, you are not opposing 2 expansionisms, you are supporting Russian expansionism — neomac

You're assuming war is the only way to oppose expansionism. I disagree with the US using war to oppose Russian expansionism. I don't disagree with it being opposed in other senses.

I don’t even get why your moral assessment of competing great powers should be limited to the number deaths or misery provoked in proxy wars and not also in the standard of life and prosperity within their established sphere of influence. Why aren’t these metrics worth taking into account for moral considerations? — neomac

I think they are. What standard of living to anticipate Ukrainians having after the US has finished drafting the terms of its loan agreements? Cuts to welfare spending, opening up markets to US competitors. You think those policies are going to benefit the poor in Ukraine?

If expansionism is a causal reaction to threats, since there are always direct and indirect multi-causal links between competing powers’ perceived security threats and reactions then all powers in competition are potentially causally accountable of not some but all current deaths provoked by power struggles, so there is no reason to side with one or the other based on death counts. You could still claim that it's not matter of taking side anyways, just matter of supporting whatever it takes to end the war in the shortest term, but then would you support as well Palestinians submitting to whatever Israeli demands are and Yemeni submitting to whatever Saudi Arabian demands to end hostilities as soon as possible? — neomac

Why would I ignore what the terms are? I've never even mentioned "whatever it takes". The terms here just so happen to be the de facto state of affairs. fighting over them is a waste of human life. Fighting over other terms might not be as they may be more immiserating than the war.

> Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.

So what? — neomac

What kind of answer is that. It was a simple question. Do we have free reign to oppose Putin's expansionism by any means possible. IF torture would stop Putin's expansionism could we torture? If not, then the moral opposition becomes irrelevant whilst we're discussing methods, because the morality of the method is primary.

> Where have you 'taken into account' the fact that the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths too?

Nowhere obviously, because I’m talking about the war between Ukraine and Russia. — neomac

The war is financed, given military and strategic support, and politically influenced by the US and Europe. You can't just bracket them out as if they had no relevance.

This should be obvious... — ssu

More of that agree with ssu common sense we've been hearing about I suppose? Funny how you seem to be so utterly unfailing in your application of this universal human trait, yet dozens of expert foreign policy advisors, Security chiefs and military experts seem to not see what is so ssu's opinion obvious.

I'm vaguely reminded of ... — jorndoe

I'm not surprised. Most here seem to think this crisis is an episode of Star Wars.

Chomsky

Yes the the geopolitical tensions between the US and Russia continue to play out. Following the fall of the USSR this point was always going to be reached, the difference being just where the dividing lines will be on the map. It’s looking like a new iron curtain will divide east Ukraine. If NATO hadn’t expanded, a newly moneyed Russia would have.

What brought this to a head was the vast oil and gas revenues given to Russia. Have you noticed hundreds of super yachts turning up in exotic hideaways over recent weeks. Putin has a trillion $ war chest just sitting there in front of him. He has spent two years in covid isolation. This is not a surprise.

This could be the beginning of a new stable Cold War period. Although there is a much bigger demon looming over the horizon. Climate change.

I can already see the rich and powerful scurrying around before they get ready to abandon ship. In the U.K. we look on as our country is asset stripped by unsavoury characters. A smash and grab raid before the sh*t really hits the fan.

Going forward, which hegemony would you prefer, US, Russia, or China?

I know which one I will chose. I have a friend who was on the Greenpeace ship that was captured by Russia a few years back. Three months in a concrete cell in Murmansk in winter woke him up. He would probably still be there if it wasn’t the run up to the Russian Winter Olympics, when Putin pardoned them as a goodwill gesture.

I would prefer European hegemony in Europe without foreign military presence and maybe finally some equity and fairness across the world.

Don't ask me to eat shit and express a preference. ;-)

Which system got us the climate crisis?

EDIT: Or, how many millions were ground to death on the altar of capitalism and how many more?

But that doesn't matter at all, as you have pointed out that you don't care about Russian politics. — ssu

Also just to point out that what I said is that I don't give a shit about internal Russian politics when concerned about war, which is about international relations and foreign policy.

It's also funny how we managed to deal with Stalin, a veritable madman, and had him ally with us and how we should thank the diplomats and politicians they did or we'd be speaking German and sieg heiling when walking to work. But then Putin all of a sudden is so horrible that it's "we can never have peace when this butcher is in power". It's just amazing the shit people believe nowadays and how entire segments just uncritically go along with it. "yeah, yeah, he's a horrible criminal. Can't have peace. Regime change. We're the best, no blood on our hands." Fuck Europe for the pansy pussies they are and the US for being a warmongering genocidal empire.

That's a load of crap and you know it. — Benkei

Bullshit Benkei!

Crimea is part of Russia now, Russia, not a proxy state but part of it. Part of holy Russian motherland. And a lot more would have been part of it (or as satellite states) in 2014 if Putin would had his way. Now we have the second try taking place.

To be incapable of seeing that Russia has far more interests in Ukraine and it's near abroad than just keeping NATO out is simply a sign of denial in your behalf. And shows bit of this intellectual hubris where everything revolves around the West and the US and it's bad intentions. Nothing else seems to matter.

On the other hand we have every military scholar telling you that Russian control of Ukraine is impossible. — Benkei

Now. After 8 years of extensive NATO training and aid to a country that has already been fighting a limited war for 8 years. In 2014 the Russians waltzed into Crimea without nearly a shot fired. Then the Ukrainian armed forces was capable to deploy only 6 000 men to the field in it's entirety. So weak they were then.

the promises made in the 90s to Russia — Benkei

The promises made to the Soviet Union, actually, which Ukraine was a part of. But don't let the little details bother your case against the US and in the defense of victim Russia, which was "forced" to act this way. There was no other way, of course.

I don't get why you're still under the impression that living within the imperial reach of one empire is better than another. — Benkei

Oh you don't get it? The political prisoners that number now more than during the end of Soviet Union doesn't tell anything to you? The imperialist right-wing demagoguery coming from Russia doesn't mean anything to you? Seems like it's totally similar choices for you either to be under "Bidenland" or "Putinland".

How has it been for you to live "under one empire"? Because me and @Christopher haven't been living under it, but our countries seem to be willing to join now on side. For me the happiness of Finlandization is all too clear as I've grown up during the Cold War so I remember it.

Fuck Europe for the pansy pussies they are and the US for being a warmongering genocidal empire. — Benkei

Fuck those who are only against the wrongdoings of the US, who not only fall silent of other similar wrongdoings, but become actively apologists and defenders of those actions because they are perpetrated by those who oppose the US. Talk about accepting willingly the thinking that the enemies of my enemies being my friends. The inability to condemn both sides when they do bad things is so surprising and so telling.

Oh, I missed out EU hegemony, I must have been distracted by something. Yes I’d opt for that all day long, of course.

I’m not sure the alternative to capitalism would have been any better.

Fuck Europe for the pansy pussies they are and the US for being a warmongering genocidal empire. — Benkei

And fuck the bear suckers.

And least we forget, the bear suckers are not content with barely sucking bears. They also suck the American extreme right.

False and conspiratorial narratives pushed by some American conservative politicians and media figures about Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine have bolstered and created synergies with the Kremlin’s legendary disinformation machine, experts on information manipulation say.

But even though Russia has embraced and promoted American disinformation, as well as the Kremlin’s own much larger stock of Ukraine war falsehoods, both brands have been widely debunked by experts and most media outlets, underscoring Moscow’s setbacks in the information war.

Led by Tucker Carlson at Fox News, a few Republican rightwingers in Congress, and some conservative activists, a spate of comments that have disparaged Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and echoed other Russian war disinformation have been recycled by Moscow, say experts.

A feedback loop between the Kremlin and parts of the American right has been palpable since the war’s start in February, which Moscow falsely labeled as a “special military operation” aimed at stopping “genocide” of Russians in Ukraine and “denazification” – two patently bogus charges that drew widespread international criticism.

Still, the influential figure of Carlson has pushed several false narratives to millions of Fox News viewers that have been eagerly embraced and recycled by Moscow and parts of the American right. Last month, for example, Carlson touted rightwing conspiracies that attempted to link Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, to a discredited allegation that the US financed bioweapons labs in Ukraine.

On a separate front, two Republican congressional conservatives, Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene, delighted Moscow last month by condemning Zelenskiy without evidence in conspiracy-ridden terms that sparked some bipartisan criticism. Cawthorn called Zelenskiy a “thug” and his government “incredibly corrupt”, while Greene similarly charged that Zelenskiy was “corrupt”.

Further, the former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, last month attempted to soften and spin Putin’s onerous crackdown on independent media in Russia, where reporters and other citizens now can face prison terms of 15 years for not toeing the Kremlin’s Orwellian war line and for spreading what Moscow deems “fake” news about its Ukraine invasion. Gabbard made the wild claim that “what we’re seeing happening here [in America] is not so different from what we’re seeing happening in Russia”. — the Guardian

Doesn't that rhetoric sound familiar? We can read the exact same kind of crap here, written by the likes of @Benkei, @Isaac or mage @boethius.

Guilt by Association Fallacy

Fuck those who are only against the wrongdoings of the US, who not only fall silent of other similar wrongdoings, but become actively apologists and defenders of those actions because they are perpetrated by those who oppose the US. Talk about accepting willingly the thinking that the enemies of my enemies being my friends. The inability to condemn both sides when they do bad things is so surprising and so telling. — ssu

I don't think that fairly represents @Benkei's position. But he can speak for himself. Before I get tarred with the same brush, I suppose I should emphasize again, the invasion of Ukraine has been brutal, unjustified, and I unequivocally condemn it. That doesn't mean I can't criticize NATO too. But the extent of Russia's apparent war crimes is the more pressing issue now as it's the dominant narrative and it makes any settlement favourable to Russia much harder to reach and therefore a deescalation much harder to achieve. So, I'm much less confident of a solution in the forseeable future and also less confident about how the issue should be approached. On the one hand, ideally, the war just needs to stop even if that means concessions to Russia. On the other hand, the brutality meted out to Ukranian civilians can't go unanswered.

I agree, but let's not limit ourselves to one form of government. Let's look at all forms of government. Do they teach effective criticism of government? Do they teach about money at all — FreeEmotion

I agree. That argument was more focused on the effect of education for people who don't have access to it or are in some ways not allowed by their government, for the obvious reasons of keeping the propaganda narrative intact. But my take on epistemic responsibility is that schools should include media literacy and critical thinking as part of the curriculum of foundational skills like reading, writing, and math. Education cannot use the same idea about how individuals navigate through life today as it was before the internet, before media became part of the internet, and bot-algorithmic manipulation of the truth happens at millisecond speed.

Teach them to ask this question in schools, for a change:

Is “democracy” really America’s cause? Is “autocracy” really America’s great adversary in the battle for the future?

Not all autocrats, after all, are our enemies, nor are all democrats our reliable friends. — FreeEmotion

Questions are part of critical thinking, also fine-tuning a number of sequential questions in order to deconstruct a concept. Like, asking those questions can lead to questions about why some nations fail at democracy, why some autocracies work, but not others.

The problem is generally that teachers aren't educated in how to manage such lectures, how to give students the creative freedom of such investigations while making sure they always stay on track with not getting into bias or making faulty arguments. In essence work in a Socratic way.

I don't buy for a second the US narrative of spreading democracy and peace. They have massive interests and by playing chess with the world with clever wording, they can make sure such interests are made.

Education, in my perspective, is a key part in making sure future generations stand up against anything that isn't good for all of humanity. Indoctrination is the enemy of the world, inventing narratives for people to be biased towards so they won't criticize what is actually going on, as well as making sure conspiracy theories won't blind people from real issues. Governments of the world must be somewhat glad about the extreme spread of conspiracy theories because they know those groups won't ever have enough power, but also that they get all the attention of the media and social media so that real issues and agendas become easier to hide.

But all of this needs a heavy load of responsibility, epistemic responsibility. Nothing is black and white and it's easy to march against the problems of the world and be wrapped up in further bias through that. Like how many are unable to criticize Russia enough for their actions in Ukraine, always moving into whataboutism because they've been critics of the US for so many years they've forgotten about Russia, even stood by Russia because they oppose the US. Epistemic responsibility works in every direction.

epistemic responsibility — Christoffer

Funny how the advocates of 'epistemic responsibility' are always the most dogmatic about their own beliefs. We've heard the notion before on this very site. It translates roughly as "reach the same conclusion I reach!"

Guilt by Association Fallacy — Baden

Isn't guilt by association about making the connection to such a group first and then go into the argument or avoiding criticism? Didn't Oliver connect the rhetoric similarities, not the people, in order to show how the rhetoric, their actual arguments, and opinions share similarities? I'm not sure that's a guilt association fallacy?

"Person A's opinion is bad because he's just part of "that group", is an example of guilt by association. But "Person B's rhetoric and opinions sound exactly like "that group" focuses on the actual argument's similarities with another group's arguments.

From the link:

"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument."

Doesn't that rhetoric sound familiar? We can read the exact same kind of crap here, written by the likes of Benkei, @Isaac or mage @boethius. — Olivier5

QED.

QED — Baden

Yes. But is @Olivier5 trying to smear me, Benkei and boethius by association with Carlson and Taylor Greene, or is he trying to smear Carlson and Taylor Greene by association with me, Benkei and boethius!

That doesn't mean I can't criticize NATO too. — Baden

That's my whole point! It doesn't mean that I wouldn't criticize (or haven't criticized) NATO when it has done stupid things. But dare to say something about Russia's actions or intentions, and obviously you're a NATO jihadist in need of therapy.

Yet to hold the view that this war is solely a result of NATO enlargement and that Russia has been forced to respond with war because of this is biased narrow reasoning. It's simply an apologism. To dismiss totally the actual rhetoric and the actions that Putin's regime, what it has been telling and implementing for years is dishonest.

I’m not sure the alternative to capitalism would have been any better. — Punshhh

I'd consider that a lack of imagination. Medieval peasants worked less than the average American and we're inexorably moving in that direction in Europe as well. By some measures feudalism would be preferable depending on what stage of capitalism you're living in.

Fuck those who are only against the wrongdoings of the US, who not only fall silent of other similar wrongdoings, but become actively apologists and defenders of those actions because they are perpetrated by those who oppose the US. Talk about accepting willingly the thinking that the enemies of my enemies being my friends. The inability to condemn both sides when they do bad things is so surprising and so telling. — ssu

Ah, we're back to the moral judgments again. Boring. I don't need to condemn Russia because 90% of the posters here already do it without any reservation and realisation of the broader picture. I

Crimea never would've become a part of Russia if the US hadn't been meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine for decades already. As warned about by Kissinger, the only way for Ukraine to survive was to pursue neutrality. The US made that impossible.

The hypocrisy is also annoying as if the US wouldn't do the same when China invited Mexico to join a military alliance, which is precisely why it had intervened in almost every southern American country during the cold War and there's still a blockade of Cuba going on.

Basically you're getting your moral panties in a twist for Russia doing the same that the West has done for centuries. How dare those barbarians!

From the link:

"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument."

Doesn't that rhetoric sound familiar? We can read the exact same kind of crap here, written by the likes of Benkei, Isaac or mage @boethius.
— Olivier5

QED. — Baden

:up:

So the correct thing to do is to rather ask the question... Why is their rhetoric similar to "that group"?

But is Olivier5 trying to smear me, Benkei and boethius by association with Carlson and Taylor Greene, or is he trying to smear Carlson and Taylor Greene by association with me, Benkei and boethius! — Isaac

Not smearing, just pointing out that you spit out the same lies as they are. It could simply mean that you all live in the same parallel reality.

LOL

Crimea never would've become a part of Russia if the US hadn't been meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine for decades already. — Benkei

Hypotheticals are difficult as you yourself implied, but simply use your head here, Benkei. I know you have one.

If all of this would because of NATO enlargement and the US, why the annexation of Crimea?

Why is according to Putin Ukraine an artificial state?

Why all the talk of Novorossiya?

Have you ever read what Putin has written about Ukraine?

There's an immediate problem how to stop this current war. I find the atrocities committed by the Russians within the scope of what I expected. It's not fundamentally worse than Fallujah or Haditha and I think it's being exagerrated so the US/NATO can do the "we don't negotiate with war criminals" shtick so as to avoid any meaningful progress towards a ceasefire in the short term.

There's a long term problem that the EU and the US and UK need to negotiate a definitive demarcation with Russia which countries are simply off limits for joining NATO. And that's where you get the useless "sovereignty" worshipers and the "freedom" rhetoric that are the real barriers to a negotiated long term peace. You can't undermine rule-based international relations on the one hand and then demand other countries need to follow the rules you have no problem breaking. That will never result in peace.