. I don't know whether there's ever been a foreign power that tried to wipe out your people, but perhaps if there was we'd see a little more eye to eye. — BitconnectCarlos

Guess then you've never heard of Finnish history.

We faced totally alone a massive Soviet attack in 1939, when our population was only 3,9 million people. We can clearly see what would have been our fate from the Baltic States if we wouldn't have successfully resisted. Our intelligentsia and people considered "politically dangerous" would have been killed, large segments of the population would have been sent to Gulag, Finnish women and girls would have been raped and a large amount of Russians would have been moved in Finland. The Baltic States just show to us this. In 1944 a possible option would have been to become part of satellite states. In both occasions a likely savage and brutal insurgency would have prevailed for some time. Hence Finns know they are very expendable, and can be destroyed and nobody would give a fuck it that would happen, because there are so few of us.

I guess had the Germans won you'd have been absorbed into the Third Reich. — BitconnectCarlos

How far Hitler would have continued his World conquering policies is totally in the realm of alternative history.

Yet Finland, just as Spain, Sweden and Switzerland and it's allies went totally OK with Germany (when Germany was winnig). Hitler wasn't upset with Finns as allies as he was with many other of his allies. Until we gave him the Dolchstoss in 1944. That Finland declined to give it's tiny Jewish population to be exterminated and had Jewish serving in the military didn't upset much Germany. When we then started to fight the German forces, those forces didn't commit attrocities in Northern Finland and did let the civilian population in the North (not many) to flee to Sweden. Germans just methodically destroyed everything on their way when they withdrew to Norway with German Pünktlichkeit. Here you can see, just like the actions of Germany as an occupier in Norway and Denmark, that Nazi Germany treated differently the people of the "Northern Race" as they did the Slavs. For example in Denmark the Germans simply hinted to the Danish authorities that they ought do something at the "Jewish problem" and the Danish government whisked the Jews quickly to Sweden. How the occupation was handled in areas where the population where "subhumans" in Nazi ideology was quite different.

If I were a typical Finn I'd probably have more Nazi sympathies or at least prefer them over the Soviets. I would have feared the Soviets more. — BitconnectCarlos

Actually there wasn't much of sympathy of Nazism in Finland and the democratic institutions held quite well in the 1920's and 1930's. It's telling that the Social Democratic party, which basically had started the Civil war / War of Independence in 1918, was accepted back to the political system. I think the reason is basically that Finns themselves were looked down upon by the Swedish speaking minority, who earlier had formed the elite of the country. Yet the ethnic tensions weren't so bitter as like in Estonia with the Estonians and the German speaking elite.

Had Americans been subject to such an ordeal, I suspect the response would have been even more outrage. — BitconnectCarlos

Americans have difficulties understanding the mindset of a small nation is faced with a threat that it could face extinction. Large parts of the country have never, ever faced war. Only the South has experienced a total war, and what losing a war feels like. Even that has happened in history. Hence it's very difficult for Americans to understand the mindset of Israelis, or even the mindset of Europeans facing Russia. And of course, many simply don't care. Because ask yourself, how can you see in American life that the country lost it's longest war in Afghanistan. It was a tiny fraction of the country that were the servicemen and women who fought the "War on Terror".

With Israel, there's also the addition factor of the hostages. — BitconnectCarlos

Not just that. You have had missiles raining down on the country terrorist groups and from a country that is developing it's own nuclear deterrent. You have a large segment of population that has been evacuated from their homes and perhaps only now moving back. You do have a society at war.

And that makes it so different and difficult to understand as Americans have never experienced this. And hence at this time mistakes can be done. Hezbollah is defeated, Iran has lost it's ally of Syria. Syria is now in chaos. US President is coming to power that has a place named after himself at the Golan Heights. At this moment, it's possible to do mistakes, to over extend and not care about consequences of the actions.

Something worrying is what Israel is now doing in Syria proper, destroying water infrastructure to obviously force Syrians living to move away somewhere else:



How far the IDF establishes it's reach in Syria might easily plant the seeds of the next conflict.

Just don't take the idiotic road of Germany: that you simply have an administration that takes off critical base load energy production and assumes that renewables will do the issue.

So closing all the coal plants and relying purely on renewables, because the "battery problem" will be resolved in a few months, is the road to disaster. Because when those coal plants are demolished and the personnel has retired or gotten jobs somewhere else, you cannot simply backtrack the situation when you face multiple times higher energy costs and perhaps rolling blackouts. Germany doesn't have rolling blackouts because of the integrated nature of electricity production in the EU. Also note that Germany is severely losing it's competitiveness because of high energy prices. The UK is another example of high energy prices that to lousy and inefficient investment on energy production.

I'm sure that's not just corporate propaganda. — Wayfarer

The problem of base load power isn't just corporate propaganda. Look at prices in Germany.
In Finland we have prices of megawatt hour of 55 euros to a little bit over 100 euros. Germany had price spikes of +900 euros megawatt hour, when the sun isn't shining and there's no wind.

But of course, if energy prices don't matter, then I guess it's corporate propaganda. And nuclear power is one smart way to have that base load power. It doesn't have to be coal power plants.

Notice that there already was a thread discussing this topic from two years ago. Would be useful to combine them and not start again, because otherwise something can be missed and everything has to be repeated. See UFOs.

Just a suggestion for the admin.

I think it's quite different when you have obvious drones flying around and the F/A-18 pilots tracking objects that basically defy our current flight envelopes of traditional aircraft. There's even a thread I think about the UFOs in PF that was started earlier than your thread: see UFOs, which already discussed these topics two years ago after the Congressional testimonies. What is notable was also the interviews with the Navy pilots as previously pilots didn't dare to speak openly about the encounters from fear of being labelled as being nuts.

I wouldn't group the two discussions together. But that's just my viewpoint.

Ok, get out your tin foil hats.

What are these increased drone sightings across the world about? Russia, China, US? — schopenhauer1

My guess is that the US itself is training the use of mass drone attacks and also looking at how it's crucial airspace around places like Norfolk could be attacked. Because they don't want to say "We are training our mass drone attack -system", then they opt this kind of "secrecy". Major US installations are great training ground for major Chinese installations. Add there the evident bureaucracy in the US defence system and you can indeed have the thing that the bases themselves haven't been informed about them. When it's then "back to normal", then it's the most likely reason.

- Drone warfare, as can be seen in Ukraine, has become mainstream.
- Coordinated drone attacks have been done Saudi Oil installations and also against Israel.
- In the US, Posse Comitatus act makes the shooting down of just loitering civilan drones questionable.
- People do fly drones around.
- now that you can get a news story about drone sightings, you get news stories about drone sightings. Just like you can get now news stories of Russian military aircraft flying over the Baltic Sea here.

That's my five cents on the matter.

It's not deceptive. Huge Increases in carbon emissions happen because of rapid economic growth. Income and prosperity hasn't at all so much in the West as it has in China. Let's remember that in the start of the 1990's China's GDP was equivalent to or even smaller than the Netherlands.

You can literally see the reasons:
Then:

Now:

Besides, it's not US who burn the coal... we just sell it to China and India. It't them you should blame... — Banno

Yep, That's the inconvenient truth:




The idea of making fossil fuels artificially expensive and renewables artificially cheap doesn't work. In the end when something is far more cheaper, then change happens.

1) Now Chechnya is in fact an independent state — Linkey

I would really not use the term independent here. Chechnya vassal state run by one man with dictatorial powers, I would say. Here Russia followed the well known way to win an insurgency: put former insurgents as leaders of the country (like UK did with the Boers of South Africa).

If I am not mistaken, firtly Eltsin planed to support another man, Stepashin, but then choosed Putin because Stepashin did something wrong. — Linkey

Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis happened, when Chechen fighters ordered to destroy a helicopter base didn't make it there and preferred to take a hospital instead. Stepashin btw had been also a director of the FSB, just like Putin. Both are siloviki.

But yes, there are a lot of similarities with the Putin and Assad governments. Putin's regime can collapse too. Just remember where his allies where when Wagner staged their run for Moscow. Nowhere to be seen, just waiting to see who is on top when the dust settles.

Sounds like a Western energy policy to me. :lol:

It's interesting that usually all Western countries really underperform in energy policy so badly, that one can question if there really is a true long term energy policy. Usually there isn't.

Australians are one of the biggest countries for carbon emissions, per capita your rank is 16th with 15 tonnes of CO2 emissions per capita, which is the highest emissions in OECD countries, or Western democracies. Yes, it's higher than the drilling loving Americans, Canadians or Russians. France has 4,6 tonnes per capita and my country has 6,7 tonnes. So... should we, the other members of the PF, have this Greta Thunberg moment and shame you and Australia?

@Banno, HOW DARE U!


After that hypocritical moment of gaslighting (pun intended), let's continue.

Your country is of course famous for it's mining industry, but just like with modern farming, mining doesn't employ people as it used to do. But I guess it's important for your exports and tax income.

Typical of large scale investment here. — Banno

When first things that pops up from that link are terms like "World's largest solar plant" with "World's largest submarine power cable", you know there's the possibility later in hindsight the "failure" and "boondoggle". And oh wait, further reading it seems it's not the World's largest solar plant. 6 gigawatt production is basically six small old nuclear power plants. Still something! :up:

Yet typical Western energy policy. This is universal, really. :smile:

Well, you have sunshine, Europe doesn't always have it. Hence you have the case of Germany that closed all of it's nuclear stations and now is paying literally the price for it and has to turn to fossil fuels. And not only Germany, but also other countries suffer too from stupid German decisions. This just a reminder that energy policy is something that effects the economy along other matters, not just an ecological issue. Unfortunately energy policy isn't usually done with long term planning and usually isn't done in the realm of reality, but with hopeful optimism and well sounding principles. Or then is something equivalent of the US shouting match where one side is yelling: "Drill, baby, Drill!!!"



Of course, you have your own Continent and even Indonesia and other smaller island nations are so far away that might as well forget it. But anyway, how is Aussie energy policy going?

For aliens that have such technology, I assume we would be like the people of North Sentinel Island, violent and should be left alone. Any kind of contact ought to be made with extreme caution and with time. We are the most violent and dangerous species to ever inhabit this World. Our closest relatives are the Chimps, that ought to tell us just how murderous bigots we are. :wink:

Obviously many people simply don't follow what you say they must follow.

Well, I am sure that is already illegal. But, what does it have to do with the teaching of history? — Questioner

Please read the actual bill, not just the comments against it. As many bills, it simply is a hodgepodge of different issues packed into one confusing bill.

A lot of those issues stated there are simply common sense issues. The basic objective is to portray "a woke agenda" that argues something on these lines. And hence there "has to be" this anti-woke bill. This is the that the so-called culture war is fought: by portraying the other side to be for something that it isn't and exacerbate the issues at hand. Hidden agendas, dog whistles etc.

Well, I am sure that is already illegal. But, what does it have to do with the teaching of history? — Questioner

That's the way to portray something like DEI in this light. The bill basically say that you shouldn't do this or that bizarre thing and then makes things what ought to be educated, things from slavery and the holocaust to saluting the flag.

Nevertheless, the stop-WOKE law has specifically infringed on free speech. — Questioner

Where? Honestly, please show where the law specifically infringes on free speech.

Your analogy misrepresents and diminishes the goals of progressive policy, which in part seek to address systemic racism. — Questioner

Lol. It's not an analogy of anything that the utter stupidity of that kind of thinking. The point of my example is how easy it is to fire people in America. It's hugely different in Europe. In the US, if you are layed off, you'll get at worst few hours to clean your belongings and go out. For example in Finland it's far difficult to fire people.

At US firms, fired employees typically have short meetings with their employer or HR manager on why they've been fired. They usually only have hours or days to pack their belongings and leave, Meyer said.

Part of the reason for this is the country's "at-will" employment contracts between workers and their companies. "At-will" contracts are those that allow employers to fire subordinates for any reason at any time, so long as it's not discriminatory.

When you can be fired for any reason at any time, this creates an environment where these kind of issues raise really fears as basically it's so easy for people to loose their jobs. And then some kind of training can be portrayed to be this awful thing. For one segment of the population it's DEI, for another segment of the voters it is patriotic values. Oh, the horror!

Persons must pursue truth, knowledge, honesty, open-mindness, justice, impartiality, objectivity, etc. in order to fulfill their rational telos. — Bob Ross

Do they?

In my view the most successful political ideologies have been those that have made what the Catholic church considered a sin to a virtue. Capitalism has made greed to be a virtue and socialism has made envy to be a virtue, something that is justified. We have moral relativity and we are finding even objective truth to be somehow problematic and start to use truth as a talking point, subjective

The fact is that these trends are part of the Western culture, as are other far positive aspects. Marxism-Leninism is part of the Western heritage. So is the woke ideology too is part of this Western culture. The Iranian revolution isn't doing so good, the young people of Iran don't embrace the ageing theocracy so well. The ideology that Al Qaeda and the Islamic State preach isn't Western, but we aren't following those. The idea that the Ummah has to be unified under a new Caliphate and the detrimental effects of the West should be erased isn't what the majority of the muslim people adhere to.

It is racist to think that values like democracy and human rights aren't universal today in the World. People only admit to authoritarian rule when that rule lavishly gives them prosperity and free services, which are usually rentier states. The Gulf States, Monaco or Brunei can be undemocratic monarchies as people are prosperous and in those small countries people can go to the monarch with their troubles. Saudi-Arabia shows the tensions that happen when the society is too large.

Yet otherwise people in generally want things that the West stands for. A good example is that the new rulers of Syria have shed away from radical Islamism (and hence ISIS has declared the HTS to be heretics) and seek to build stronger institutions and at least try to unite a country where the last tyrannical regime put the ethnic and religious groups against each other. It just shows how the radical ideology of Al Qaeda/IS has failed.

It's telling in any case, that however grotesque WWII was, at least on the Allied side there was no policy of torture. It happened but these were low level decisions and it wasn't systematic. — Benkei

Well, not on the side Western allies, at least. But in the case of Stalin's Soviet Union, remember that Russian soldiers were fed propaganda that only the dogs and the unborn in Germany were innocent. The whole mass rape is a collective effort in acting revenge on the civilian populace. Remember that the German military and Nazi Germany treated totally differently the Dutch compared to the subhumans like Russians and the war attrocities in the Eastern front were on a totally different level. And the Soviet security apparatus used extensively and systematically torture.

Yet this idea that torture is effective, that it's only the bleeding heart liberal left who oppose it makes the whole thing so worrisome. War on Terror has left a stain on the West. It wasn't the intelligence services themselves that demanded secret prisons, special courts or detention centers like GITMO. It was the politicians, because they saw what the people wanted. The people wanted that "the gloves were taken off". People just don't see the ludicrous insanity of not dealing with terrorists with the normal justice system that you have (like with the terrorists that attempted to blow up the WTC the first time). That somehow it would be dangerous to have in the ordinary legal system and prisons deal with Al Qaeda terrorists shows how delusional the discourse gets.

When people want revenge and want the "gloves to come off", you won't treat terrorists that have committed mass murder or attempted it as being similar to ordinary mass murdering psychopaths that still have rights in the justice system. Norway could handle Breivik through a normal legal process. Many country have been able to combat terrorism through their legal system.

Israel's actions are the next worrisome example as Israel has been part of the West. This thread was started well before the Hamas attack and the current wars, and like you have been critical at where Israel is going. I do also understand that someone like @BitconnectCarlos, being Jewish himself, wants to defend Israel. In this world it seems that we cannot be both critical and supportive at the same time. However if a democracy ought to work, that should be how ought to be.

For example I do support my country and the Finnish government and support things they do, but at the same time I can be critical about some actions it does. That should be what citizens of a democracy should be like in my view: both critical and supportive.

If their rationale was just NATOphobia, then what would the land grabbing accomplish anyway? — jorndoe

Exactly, this shows the hypocrisy of those who promote the Pro-Russian stance.

If it would be just about NATO enlargement, there would be no annexations of territory. And this is what many simply don't understand from Russia: it is an empire and it is fixated on it's territories that it owns. It is simply classical imperialism. And again, I'm not saying that NATO enlargement wouldn't be a reason, it surely is one reason. Yet to understand Russia and to understand how it operates, you simply cannot ignore the actions it does and how it operates: territorial annexations, Russification of areas it has conquered, establishing frozen conflicts. This is basically a Russian reconquista.

Those leading Russia see Russian imperialism as the sole idea of Russia. Russia cannot be anything else. For them Russia cannot be a post-imperial multiethnic country, like let's say the UK is. Hence the fixation on Ukraine and it's near abroad and the attempt to influence other countries, as we see today.

That it's all going wrong should be obvious to anybody. The collapse of Syria was the last humiliating failure, but that the Ukraine war wasn't a successful "special military operation" as was the annexation of Crimea is also such a failure.

But that captured nuclear bomb hasn't happened, but the torture has. And anyway, that line IS the Hollywood line. Oh! There's a nuclear bomb, and we have to get it! And how to get it is by torture. Sorry, but the Hollywood line isn't the line in reality. With torture, you'll have anybody saying anything in the end. It's not as effective as you think.

There's a very eye opening reported exchange between Jim Mattis and Donald Trump, which Trump himself told to the press. When Trump asked "Mad Dog Mattis" about his views about the effectiveness of torture, Mattis responded that a can of beer and cigarette pack works better than torture. Trump answered that maybe, but as the American people think that torture works, then he is for torture. Yep, Trump has always been for his base.

And there is a lot of truth to this.

Just as American want their legal system to be punitive and some Americans are offended of a "liberal" penal system that tries to assist the criminal away from a criminal lifestyle, so do they have this love affair about torture and ideas that torture, if not moral, is still so effective. If it's so effective, then Assad's Syria shouldn't have collapsed? It tortured a lot of people, so that should be so effective.

Now we can see what kind of regime Assad lead from the mass graves now coming to light...


But of course, there's North Korea! Hence torture works, I guess.

Well you seem to have just disproven your own point then since if Russia foreign policy depends on domestic political support, which you claim the Russian state doesn't have, then obviously the foreign policy of waging war in Ukraine would have collapsed by now due to depending on domestic political support which is insufficient to support the policy. — boethius

Never said such thing. In the end even the most ruthless dictatorship has to have a "domestic support", namely of the security apparatus. Putin has his followers, just as Trump has his followers. But likely not everybody is in Russia happy about Putin's adventures, but who are they to say it, when you can be sent to jail for speaking out.

Well feel free to produce this evidence. — boethius

We've actually discussed this a year ago, I put the evidence there, starting from the information given by the migrants themselves. And now when Russia did the same, authorities in Finland weren't so clueless what to do as in 2016. So look it up.

Not sure you're aware of this — boethius

In the older PF I was saying this before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that there seem to be no WMD in Iraq. Naturally everybody understanding the situation then understood there's no link between Saddam and OBL.

You argue that Russia had zero reason to invade Ukraine as the US (and also NATO) declaring it's intention that Ukraine would join NATO doesn't matter ... but also that it is in fact Russia that was threatening Ukraine (and also Finland) all along and therefore Ukraine joining NATO (which you also argue can't actually happen because of Hungary) was a reasonable response to Russian aggressive language. — boethius

Again wrong. It's really difficult to explain in more simple terms:

For Russia to keep Ukraine out of NATO it wasn't necessary to invade Ukraine. A show of force on the border would have done that.

Yet for Russia to gain the territories of Novorossiya, to annex Crimea and the Donbas, it was necessary to attack Ukraine.

That's it. That's the line that you should understand. But for you it's The US/NATO made Russia to do it, as "offence is the best defence", and thus legitimizing imperialism.

It's you who aren't making any sense:

Is Russia counter strategy optimal?

Well obviously not optimal as nothing is, but it is a rational response of basically a good defence is a good offence. — boethius

So a good defence is to invade and annex parts of neighboring states that Russia has first recognized to be independent sovereign states and recognized their borders. That's the "good defence"? It's this idea that makes your argumentation a crazy. Yet understandable when you want fo defend Putin.

Luckily Putin's gambling has made huge mistakes. The Syrian campaign which looked to be so brilliant few years ago has ended up in a humiliating defeat. And just how murderous the Assad regimes is now shown to have been, perhaps we should look at your remarks about Syria.

What you wrote three years ago:

Completely familiar ... but even more familiar is the exact same script in Syria:

1. Russian army is incompetent, hahahahah
2. "Resistance" is winning the information war, so many videos of "resistance" victories online!
3. Gains Russian army are making mean nothing
4. The people Russia are fighting are freedom fighters, not a single fanatical extremist among them
5. We need to pour arms into the situation to give Russia their Afghanistan! Hurrah!!!
6. Russia is winning ... but playing unfair!!! Boohoohooo
7. Chemical attack is going to happen
8. Anyday now, chemical attack since Russia is winning on the ground, but Putin and Assad are so evil they'll use chemical warfare when their wining! (obviously if they were actually losing we'd just let that play out into a failed state).
9. Chemical attack is coming ... it's coming ... Assad and Putin are just that crazy, and they know we'll be upset about a surprise chemical attack!!! And they know we'll easily find out!! And it will isolate Russia on the world stage and totally backfire!! But nothing can stop their evil machinations!!!
10. Chemical attack! Chemical attack!

We're on step 9 of this play. — boethius

So how much is Russia winning now and which step are we on?

What about it being bad for limiting speech? For instance: is the idea that some problems cannot be solved with boilerplate language about colorblindness so dangerous and meritless that it ought to be illegal? — ToothyMaw

The above is quote is from the actual bill proposal. Does what it says limit speech? Employment practice and free speech are bit different issues.

In Finland there's a saying of "like the Devil reading the Bible" meaning that you try to interpret everything in the worst possible way. Now, just ask yourself, if your employer has some DEI lecture for employees, will it consist of the above ideas? I've listened to a few lectures to grasp what's it really about, and a lot isn't like Ibram X Kendi preaching anti-racism.

But subjective truth is true. — Questioner

For the subject, yes, and this subject can easily understand that it isn't the objective truth.

It might look good on paper, but in practice it is having a very chilling effect on education and freedom of speech. Teachers are being intimidated. — Questioner

It doesn't look good on paper, it simply looks absurd. You don't need a law to say it's NOT OK to say " Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex". How about a law that says that it's NOT OK to educate children that pedophiles have the right to sexually molest children?

And intimidation? Look, American workplace has a lot of intimidation going around already. You might be fired really the most absurd things. It is really astonishing how little job security there is in the American workplace (thanks to non existent labour unions). That's the real vulnerability. Otherwise it's just political sides accusing the other side of intimidation.

Yet there's something wrong in the US work culture. If similarly there would be a movement for "happiness" in the workplace, meaning that workplaces should better for everybody and motivated friendly, happy employees are more productive than unhappy ones, then in the US model a fucking executive "Happiness Director" would be put to be a mandatory position in the executive branch. And to improve workplace happiness, this person would go around firing people that make others unhappy. The Kafkaesque idea of this should be obvious to everybody, but for American corporate culture, I'm not so sure. Just imagine that someone has made a complaint about you that you haven't been friendly, perhaps not said hello, and have made them feel sad. And thus you need to seek counseling or commit to course or you will be fired. So, will the threat of being fired make you be more nice and happy?

But coming back to education. As I said, politicians just love interfering in education content and what they emphasize to be something important, which their opponents try to portray in the worst possible light. And it's simply absolute nonsense that politicians make laws about what the curriculum should have or shouldn't have. Talk about useless micromanagement.

And we should remember that one of the greatest achievements, a true milestone of American legislation has been the Indiana pi bill, that by legal framework and acting a law, made it possible to square the circle! Done 15 years after Lindemann had proved this impossible.

We definitely need to repell celebrations of that type — Alonsoaceves

How? The only one's truly promoting festivities and celebrations are those who are selling something for the occasion.

In the US, the First Amendment protects free speech, and it was used to strike down Florida’s Stop WOKE Act’s prohibition against certain workplace Inclusion, Equity and Diversion trainings and teachings - as a violation of free speech. — Questioner

Was that a Freudian slip? Diversity, not diversion.

Such as in the case of Florida’s Stop WOKE Act – which is based on this premise: This is our truth, and it is the truth that matters, and your truth doesn’t matter, so shut up. — Questioner

Objective truth isn't relative.

What's so wrong about Florida Bill? It states that:

the following concepts constitutes an unlawful employment practice or unlawful discrimination:

- Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
- A person's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.
- Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
- Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.

I think that's the anti-woke stuff above, other parts are references mainly to teaching history the Republican way, including things like flag education, including proper flag display and flag salute and issues like encouraging patriotism. Perhaps the micromanagement of the educational curriculum ought to be the thing opposed (which surely is similar with the other side too as politicians just love to make the curriculum for teachers).

I'd say that above would be an improvement, if Republicans would follow to the letter of this act in their treating of muslims and the muslim population in the US. Islamophobia is quite rampant in the US. After all, just being a sikh and hence wearing a turban was after 9/11 too much for many Americans.

The first victim of a revenge killing after the September 11, 2001, attacks was not a Muslim but a Sikh. Balbir Singh Sodhi was gunned down at the gas station he managed in Mesa, Arizona, by a man who wanted to kill "towel heads".

I hope the operation goes as humanely as possible. Nor am I under any delusions when it comes to what Israel/Jews are capable of. The Irgun were terrifying. Jews are just as capable of terror as anyone else.

Here's the thing though- Just as the Russians could kill and rape their way to Berlin and remain the "good guys", so the IDF can engage in questionable practices (clearly far more civil than the Russians) and still remain the "good guys." It's one of those funny things about war. We could imagine e.g. a Red Army battalion where every one of its soldiers had engaged in war crimes and deserves a hanging at Nuremberg, yet as long as they are pushing towards Berlin and wearing that uniform they are "good." — BitconnectCarlos

For Finns WW2 was finding themselves as a democracy between two bloodthirsty dictators that had divided to each other countries like Finland and in the end our country had to fight them both. And we were lucky not to be "liberated" from ourselves. For us WW2 never been about "the good guys" or the "bad guys", it has always been simply of survival as a country, as a people. That is the moral justification that we have. And for the Jews that founded Israel, it was that too in the wars of the 20th Century, with more populous neighbors that were armed by the other Superpower wanting to erase the nation out and with the US starting to back Israel in earnest only after the Six Day War.

Yet now it's different, especially when the Assad regime has collapsed and Iran has been dealt a severe blow. Iran and Israel have already had their tit-for-tat. Israel's situation isn't so perilous is it was before and the criticism of people like Moshe Yaalon should be noticed. Yaalon was the former Chief of Staff when the IDF was quelling the Second Intifada and later a defense minister under Netanuyahu, hence we aren't talking about a "bleeding heart liberal pacifist".

What is happening in Israel is alarming, because Israel has been a Western country with Western values. With religious fanaticism and radicalism there is a strive to use this moment for dramatic solutions and have total disregard of the "liberal" values as international agreements and future relations. There really are more than one way to handle terrorism and an insurgents.

In a similar way this response happened already with 9/11 in the US and the global war on terror. Somehow the laws that have governed covert actions and things like the attitude towards torture changed. It was like Hollywood had taken over: the hero had to be the cutting "the red tape" of legal norms and just beating the shit out of the bad guy, because somehow that made him tell where next attack was to happen. In real life it doesn't go that way, but who cares, when people want revenge. In the end you had Intelligence Services like the CIA, which were fully aware of their legal framework, then asking from the politicians "jail free cards", that the politicians would take the blame.

I'll reply on the other thread on this, as this is more about Israel than Ukraine.

If the Axis had won, Churchill and Roosevelt would have been hanged for war crimes, so what the Axis would have done to Allied leaders is neither here nor there. — RogueAI

Likely the time that the UK came to the nearest to peace terms with Germany would have meant that Churchill wouldn't have become prime minister. By the way, Edouard Daladier and Paul Reynard, the politicians that lead France against Germany were prisoned, but not hanged. Both survived German prison camps and could later oppose later de Gaulle in French politics. Hence it's not so certain that this would have happened. Yet Soviet Union did put Finnish leadership on trial, but even they were not hanged.

If your opponent is gleefully committing war crimes, like raping women to death, they're going to reap the whirlwind. — RogueAI

Or hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. Yes, 19 terrorists whom none were from Afghanistan lead the US to have it's longest war that it in the end humiliatingly lost. This is result of when war isn't politics by other means or with a goal, but an emotional response needed to serve the craving for revenge by the masses. And this emotional response is abused so well at the present. Even Putin had his obscure Moscow neighborhood bombings to ramp up support for restarting a war.

Yet the western allies and especially the US put aside these emotional responses after Germany and Japan surrendered. And the US won the peace.

Except UK and Argentina on remote islands on the South Atlantic where there likely is more sheep than people. But yes, we have gone back very much from the times of 19th Century in many ways.

And when it came to WW2, people like "Bomber" Harris well knew that he would be facing war crimes tribunal if the allies lost.

I would draw the line at when commanders order warcrimes to be done, when it's the planned strategy, not when at the heat of the battle a soldier kills an enemy soldier that is wounded or would surrender. Far too often I hear these arguments "we weren't innocent either" and just framing the argument of both sideism. Yet there is a huge difference on just how armed forces behave, or if they even are willing to think about war crimes, human rights. Just look at the huge difference in civilian casualties when Soviet Union fought the few years in Afghanistan and how few compared to that were killed in the longest war the US has ever fought. In the 21 year war roughly 70 000 Afghan civilians were killed. In the Soviet war about 1 to 2 million civilians died in the nine years of fighting and 5 million were made refugees outside Afghanistan. 70 000 to two million is a big difference.

And this continues even to this day. The massacres in Bucha in 2022 are quite similar to the scenes in the first and second Chechen wars. The fact was that Ukraine rapidly took over the areas and could see the evidence of war crimes.

Bucha 2022:


Chechnya 2000, during the first war:

More than a quarter of the Chechen population was killed, including 40,000 children who were maimed or injured. Every single family, aside from the collaborators, was devastated. Torture and repressions continue to this day. Under the leadership of Ramzan Kadyrov, Putin’s sycophant and head of the Russian occupying regime, torture, and repression continue to this day.

Checnya makes it clear why you have to oppose Russia, why for Ukraine it's not an option to give up and live under Putin's control.

This is the problem with Trump's theory of economic change which is that it completely ignores the role of big business in getting us where we are. It's not just the dirty immigrants who make stuff cheaper. — Mr Bee

This is the problem? Trump is just hot air of populism, basically anti-elitism, that the present elites are evil and screwing the ordinary people and he will solve everything. That's the Trump line. Anything else is just opportunistic tweets that Trump thinks his base will like. Otherwise it's simply the same old GOP agenda now fitted in the new "Project 2025" mold from the Heritage Foundation, which likely is the real "theory of economic change". A continuation of the agenda the Heritage Foundation has pushed for decades just now put into the Trumpist mold of talking about the deep state. Above all, the Heritage Foundation is for big business. Of course they are against a corporations that have given money to the democrats, but otherwise it still is for big business, the guys who support them.

It's still true that free trade and undocumented labor are two ways American labor is undermined. — frank

I agree. Yet trade wars and less trade won't make us more prosperous. Or just you. If you think that less goods with higher prices makes your life better, then let's follow the trade policies of the 1930's. And those undocumented workers? Well, would you like to go and pick berries in California for a living? And on what salary? But you can close the border. We closed our border to Russia. Places that my family could shop for quality stuff at the border went bankrupt and the little municipality is really struggling because the border is closed, but that was a price I guess we had to pay (and I'm Ok with that, because Putin is a murderous thug).

But back to trade. The issue is not about trade itself, it's about the income distribution, who gets the wealth. That's the real issue here. Is it few billionaires who reap the profits or a billion people with billionaires not being so abundantly rich? I think a far better way would simply be to demand universal workers rights, which would not only increase the costs of the corporations using sweat shops, but also force improving the prosperity of workers abroad. Now high tariffs will simply will be circumvented with some middlemen gaining the income and many having it worse. How a sales tax is worshipped as a blessing is beyond my understanding. But please think that the American industries are so fragile and non-existent, that you need these trade barriers to defend your own manufacturing. Africa as a continent is a great example where this thinking leads to.

Naturally the Simpson's again had an insight to this:

Yet if a place is about to be bombed people will typically leave. Israel will typically inform the population. — BitconnectCarlos

Up to a point, when they don't anymore.

Population transfer occurs naturally in wartime as people flee to safety. If Israel were to e.g. forcibly load them onto trucks or trains and send them somewhere that would be a war crime. But yes, Israel will assist in evacuation efforts if an area is about to be subject to bombardment -- that's humanitarian. — BitconnectCarlos

So what is your view then about Israel simply declaring every living person being a terrorist or their supporters and a valid target after a certain time? There is still 400 000 people in Northern Gaza.

(23rd Oct.2023) The Israeli army declared Saturday that anyone choosing to stay in the northern Gaza Strip and not go to the south under a previous evacuation order will be considered a partner of "terrorists.” The Israeli aircraft dropped "urgent warning" flyers into the besieged enclave, urging Palestinians in northern Gaza to move south.

"To the residents of the Gaza Strip," the Israeli army wrote. "Being in the north of the Gaza Valley puts your lives in danger," it said, adding that "anyone who does not go to the south of the Gaza Valley and chooses not to stay in the northern area" will be considered "as an associate of the terrorist organization."

Israeli army spokesperson Avichay Adraee confirmed that the statements written on the flyers belonged to the Israeli army. Earlier on Saturday, the Israeli military ordered the immediate evacuation of the Al-Quds Hospital, "in preparation for bombing."

Twenty hospitals in northern Gaza were also ordered to evacuate on Saturday.

I understand the urge for you to defend the Jewish nation, but the simple fact that it has now truly turned and ugly page in it's history.

But as this is the Ukraine thread, that ugly page has been turned already by Russia. That has had an effect even on Finns too: in exercises medical reservists opt not to wear the red cross in their arms anymore and any tents or ambulances having that red cross is not preferred. Russia has been targeting these crucial people in Ukraine deliberately.

Who we? And you do know that the Geneva Conventions we refer to the agreements of 1949, the current legislation, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The first convention was done in 1864, then in 1906 and later in 1929 before the current agreement. Hence the idea of legislation that has effect on both sides in war is quite new.

(The last war where both sides followed the Geneva conventions was actually the Falklands war. So that's how effective the legislation of war is.)

Do Arabs accept Israel? As a state? (Which / how many do/don't, and how reliable is this?) — jorndoe

Formal recognition has been done:
By Egypt 1979 (a peace treaty)
by Jordan 1994 (a peace treaty)
by Bahrain
Morocco
Sudan
UAE (all with the above normalization of relations)

The obvious one missing is Saudi-Arabia, and of course Lebanon and Syria aren't so warm to Israel's actions. Yet notice also Iraq after regime change hasn't come abroad and Algeria has also opposed Isreal for a long time. Here you can see what countries have embassies or consulates in Israel:



This policy has come from the Khartoum agreement of the Arab League, which has stayed on for a long time and guided the actions of the Arab states.

The 1967 Arab League summit was held on August 29 in Khartoum as the fourth Arab League Summit in the aftermath of the Arab defeat by Israel in the Six-Day War, and is famous for its Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.

Does the "Arab Street" accept Israel's current actions? Guess.

Undocumented labor is one of the ways the government undermines the power of labor in the US. Tariffs plus deportation would lay the groundwork for an economic revolution. — frank

Understand your thinking here, but no. It's not going to go like that.

There is a concentrated effort against trade unions and the labor movement, and this will surely continue during the Trump years. Just look at the billionaires that are the backers of Trump.

Even when the inflation starts again because of Trump's trade wars and deportations, remember the very old lie about what is the reason why inflation happens? It's because labour unions and workers have demanded and gotten too high salary increases, In a wonderful way the cart is put in front of the ox and said it makes the two to move.

The lie works all the time. It's the reason that is taught in school books for inflation. Not things like the Central Bank printing too much money. That is only told in history books, because this time it's different.

I'd put the bar far, far lower. The society puts love on a pedestal and for people that hate themselves, it's difficult. Life is worth that one thing that make's you smile, that one brief OK moment you have, when you forgot how unhappy you are. By ceasing to exist, you won't have even that, hence even those little things makes life worth more than nothing.

And I agree with @T Clark, this doesn't seem as philosophical discussion about the subject. But simply immediately removing the post won't be helpful either. At least I would be sad and pissed if my thread would be simply moved away.

This says everything about you:

Neither is population displacement a war crime but is rather a natural result of warfare itself. — BitconnectCarlos

What Geneva conventions say about warcrimes:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

and also:

the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the transfer of the population of an occupying power into the territory it occupies.

But for you warcrimes aren't actually those warcrimes defined in the Geneva conventions, which 196 countries are party to, including Israel and Russia. For you it's a rhetorical term like everything else, it seems.

Then it's realpolitik. Learn the definitions of the terms you use.

Realpolitik: — BitconnectCarlos

A system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.

Like it's simply human to set out to destroy the perpetrator isn't actually what we call humane, but an emotional response. Yet the real question here is just what you after you have destroyed Hamas, the famous "Then what" question. Just to repeat the same line isn't an answer, it's simply a denial to answer the question.

Because now, it is people like former Israeli defense minister, making the obvious question and commentary:

A former Israeli defense minister has accused his country of committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip, in a rare criticism from Israel’s own security community about military operations in the Palestinian enclave.

Moshe Yaalon said the Israeli government was putting the lives of Israel Defense Forces soldiers in danger and exposing them to lawsuits at the International Criminal Court, in an interview with the Reshet Bet radio station Sunday.

“I speak on behalf of commanders who serve in northern Gaza,” he said. “War crimes are being committed here.”

In a separate interview with Democrat TV on Saturday, he said that the Israeli government was seeking “to conquer, to annex, to carry out ethnic cleansing.”

Hard-liners want to re-establish Jewish settlements in Gaza, he said, including in northern areas where civilians have been urged to leave indefinitely as the Israeli military prepares to move against Hamas fighters who have regrouped.

“What is going on there? There is no Beit Lahiya, no Beit Hanoun, they are operating now in Jabalia and basically cleaning the area of Arabs,” Yaalon said.

But you can continue just to repeat the line of the horrible attack October 7th 2023 and say that Hamas has to be destroyed and disregard criticism just like Yaalon gave here (as if he would be opposing the action against Hamas).

That is simply blind support of every move that the current administration makes.

(And btw @BitconnectCarlos, this ought to be in the Israel thread, not the Ukraine thread)

I don't consider the Gaza war to be Israel engaging in realpolitik. — BitconnectCarlos

So you consider the Gaza war to be more an ideological and moral fight than a practical undertaking, like taking out a threat. :chin:

Well, many of those that criticize Israel agree with you as they see ultra-nationalism and religious extremism behind the objectives of the war, which the Hamas terrorist attack has given an opportunity to carry out.

What happened was that after the Arab League had normalized ties with Syria, Erdogan wanted to normalize the ties with Assad. But Assad declined:

On several occasions, Erdoğan called for a meeting with Assad to discuss normalizing ties, which Ankara severed after the 2011 Syrian war. But, Assad has said such talks could only happen if the neighbors focus on core issues, including the withdrawal of Turkish forces from the north of Syria.

Finally Erdogan got enough of this and let HTS go on the offensive alongside the Turkish sponsored Syrian National Army. And then the house of cards that was the Syrian Arab Army collapsed, even if there was some actual fighting.

Now Israel has made about 500 strikes and the US 75 strikes in Syria. Idea is to destroy everything that is left from the equipment of the Syrian armed forces. It had for example about 3 000 tanks at the start of the war, and likely has lost well over half of that during the war.

Very likely the idea will to make Syria a state like Lebanon or simply keep it as a failed state. Israel has been far too successful now to pause here.

2. It is very much possible that Mearsheimer is picking only the Russian arguments that better support its claims ignoring, omitting, downplaying others which do not add up with his general views, in other words its theory may bias his views . — neomac

Actually, he has stated himself that he only looks at the issue from his own theoretical perspective, which doesn't take into account Russian domestic politics. Hence such things that Russia has annexed Ukrainian territory and Putin has repeatedly made it clear what an integral part Ukraine itself is of Russia is not relevant for Mearsheimer. Which makes it so biased.

And the rest of your comments, spot on! :100: :up:

We should really compare the CSTO to NATO. And CSTO seems really to operate quite in a similar fashion like the Warsaw Pact did. Did Russia come to the aid of Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked it? Of course not, Armenia had made openings towards the West, why would it have? Yet if a country like Kazakhstan has internal protests, does Russia help it. Certainly, root out the "color revolutions" where ever they emerge! CSTO, just like the Warsaw Pact, is a tool for Russian control. NATO on the other seems like a huge pain in the ass with it's "free riders" for the US. I've not yet heard of NATO countries invading a member state to put down internal strife. This of course would go against NATO's article 1.

This is a wildly inaccurate statement. — boethius

Political power, be it democratic or autocratic, is dependent on domestic political support, be that needed support of the voters or the security apparatus. Foreign policy is to serve those goals, just like defense policy or energy police etc.

for example that US foreign policy remains extremely consistent throughout wildly different administrations. — boethius

So does every policy in the US that enjoys the support of both political parties. For example, just where the US spends it's government income has been extremely stable without not much differences between administrations: wealth transfers (welfare and pensions), health care, defense and education (and then the interest on debt). In fact, there isn't anything for politicians to decide as the usually these spending has been announced to be mandatory. What has approval of both parties, doesn't create much debate, as foreign policy does, especially when it's usually the last refuge that US Presidents then try to mingle after their domestic campaign promises have withered away.

This is such a strange line of argument to assert that what people explicitly say, such as "Ukraine will join NATO" — boethius

Just look at the Charter of NATO itself: every country has to be ratified by each member state. For example Hungary has said that it doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. And prior the invasion, member states like Germany opposed this. This is why NATO has often irritates American Presidents as the organization won't go the way as they plan. The really ignorant and naive idea is that the US can push anything through NATO. It cannot. It couldn't do that either in CENTO and SEATO, as these are organizations made up of member states.

Yes, the members can say that Ukraine will be in the future a NATO member, just as the European Union can say that the door is open for Turkey to join the EU.

and there is a bunch of proximate causes, such as there already being a war in the Donbas regularly killing ethnic Russians that ethnic Russians in Russia want and expect something to be done about it. — boethius

This was a war started by the Russian Intelligence services with and controlled by the Kremlin. Even the annexation of Crimea, which The real goal for Russia is to get Ukraine back into Russia as it sees the country as a natural part of Russia, Novorossiya. And with Ukraine it has the what it considers much needed resources. The main objectives are pure imperialism, because Russia is an empire.

But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? — boethius

Just ask yourself, what if Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea, which doesn't bring enormous riches to Russia, but more problematic backward economy. If it hadn't done this, the European countries would have continued to dismantle their defenses, Russia would enjoy large support in Ukraine (and hence have a say) and Ukrainian NATO membership would be one silly thing that some US presidents would have said. Ukraine would seem quite dubious candidate with it's frequent revolutions etc.

Just look at what happened in Central Asia. After 9/11, American had several military bases all around Central Asia, even with Tajikistan holding both an American and a Russian military base. Now...NOTHING. Russia had just to wait for the neocon dream to implode, which it did. Now Russia has a firm grasp on the area, even with countries needing Russia help to put down their demonstrations... without invading anybody.

in defending the idea that NATO in Ukraine is not a threat to Russia your methodology is that nothing anyone explicitly says matter, but then when it comes to Russia threatening Europe you beseech us to take every little word as seriously as possible and also "know what they mean" even if they didn't say anything. — boethius

Russia has nuclear deterrence. Without that nuclear deterrence, it's likely that NATO would have created a "no fly zone" over Ukraine and been one actor in the war, just like it was for example in the Libyan Civil War.

And isn't then also the European Union is also a "threat to Russia"? As we can see from Ukraine and where the revolution of dignity started and now are seeing in Georgia, where the Georgian dream as backtracked it's election promises.

But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? How does that square with symultaniously presenting Russia as this unstoppable force that would roll over all of Eastern Europe, and maybe even Western Europe, if not for NATO and also stopping this unstoppable Russian army with the unmovable might of NATO in Ukraine? — boethius

I'm really confused what you are aiming here for. First, NATO is a security arrangement for Europe and an obvious issue is actually Article 1, that it keeps member states in not having conflicts themselves. NATO membership has at least for now made Turkey and Greece to avoid a war. Then NATO was wholeheartedly seeking for a mission and thus concentrated on "new threats", but Russia's actions has made it to focus in it's original mission, which in the 1990's and 2000's was a relic of the past for many.

For, you will not actually find any of this threatening language before NATO escalated with Russia in pushing into Ukraine ... — boethius

That simply is a lie.

Just against my country, Russia made threats far before this, basically starting from the 1990's, first by Russian generals and Russian politicians. First hybrid attacks of sending migrants of the border into Finland and Norway happened in 2015-2016. The real breach already happened during the Kosovo war. There Russian forces faced British NATO forces and the rhetoric from Yeltsin was already very aggressive. That was before Putin. And of course there's the famous Putin at Munich in 2007 well before the Russo-Georgian war.

Moral relativism and cultural relativism aren't synonyms.

I think you are talking more about moral relativism than cultural relativism.

I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with Mearsheimer's analysis as it paints the one-sided viewpoint of Russia — Benkei

Well, I do.

The criticism is the one-sidedness of Mearsheimer's theory. He doesn't, and he has admitted himself, look at the situation from the Russian domestic political viewpoint. This is the theoretical flaw here. Domestic politics is absolutely essentially in every country: it drives foreign policy in every country. Then there is the idea that this, starting a huge conventional invasion, was a rational decision by Putin to thwart NATO enlargement. Yet the action lead to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the NATO countries increase their spending and NATO getting back to the role that it had during the Cold War. It doesn't make any sense. Especially when just having large scale exercises would have made Ukrainian NATO membership as impossible as EU membership of Turkiye. (But as NATO follows it's charter, it could never say this out loud.) Hence the war cannot be explained only by NATO enlargement, which is now done by those willing to go with Putin's line. And that "only" changes a lot in the actual picture. Yet it make sense if Putin wanted Ukraine irrelevant of NATO.

It's accurate insofar it reflects Russian arguments and thinking and you can think about it what you want but it has been raised repeatedly as a reason. — Benkei

Yet it doesn't reflect accurately EVERYTHING. Yes, Putin says that he is in a war with NATO. So basically he is saying that Russia is also in war with your country, Benkei, and with my country. And I've been the first one here to remind even before the annexation of Crimea, the in the official military doctrine of Russia the first threat was NATO enlargement, when international terrorism (read Al Qaeda) was threat number 14 or so. Yet if you just repeat the Mearsheimer line, the logical system would be not to enlarge NATO or even get rid of NATO. But that wouldn't stop Russia! In fact that would simply make them be even more aggressive. If you think that's just a hypothetical, that also Russia could be totally passive and nice neighbor, that isn't the case when people like Putin run the country. You simply have to listen to what they really say, not just look at the US and the West and think that everything that other people do is just a response to your own actions. It isn't that way. That's the whole point here.

The argument NATO is purely defensive is merely theoretical as Kosovo and Libya have shown but even the treaty changes with respect to, for instance, space warfare. — Benkei

Hold on,
You are missing the biggest one, Afghanistan. Article 5 was actually used in the assistance to the US after 9/11. But this is actually the new NATO as intended[/b], and these were the kinds of operations that NATO intended to do BECAUSE there was no Russian threat. The territorial defense -idea of the Cold War was something antiquated and thrown to the dustbin! Best example of this was that there were no exercises in the Baltic States when the Baltic States got into NATO, not even operational plans to defend them, as that was too aggressive for the new NATO. Because Russia wasn't a threat. Hence when Trump says that NATO is antiquated and respond to new threats, he's repeating the OLD line of post-Cold War NATO.

Does Russia have a right to empire? No, but then no country does. Yet there were empires and there are empires; through military, economic or even cultural influence. Russia has the de facto power to project power in the near abroad as do other large powers (notably the US and China). — Benkei

Russia is an empire.

It acts like an empire and does what it does because it is one. It is inherently imperialistic, irrelevant of NATO enlargement or not. It's not a nation state. The idea of nation state is a threat to it. If part like Poland, Finland and the Baltic States flew out of it, how about the Checnya or Tatarstan? Are they Russia? What would be actual Russia? St Petersburgh and Moscow and surrounding areas? This is the fear that Putin bases his power grab on. You cannot have democracy while that could lead to parts of even the present Russia opting for secession.

Could it be democratic and not totalitarian? Austro-Hungary wasn't a totalitarian, but to be an Empire with truly a multicultural population is difficult.

After all, nobody gives a shit about the strategic relevance of the Netherlands for a reason! — Benkei

Really? I beg to disagree. You are in the heart of Europe. You have the largest port in Europe, which also is the largest one outside Asia. Paris is just 280 km from your border. You are next to the Ruhr region of Germany. An ordinary artillery missile fired from the Netherlands can hit London (just like V2 rockets did in WW2 that were first launched to London from the Hague). You have a lot of strategic relevance!!! It just isn't contested, but you are one of those central countries to any Western alliance.

Some of the responses to Harris' video reflect a moral view of international relations, which simply doesn't mean much in a world where international relations are preponderantly governed by real politk considerations. - The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)". — Benkei

Why oppose having morality in international relations? Aren't there morals that we all should adhere to? Or is everything just realpolitik, shit just happens? Well, what Israel is doing in Gaza is realpolitik too, so why do you anything to complain about that? Or is it that we pick what is realpolitik and what is morally wrong just because of our own likings? I think that's close to the argument that @BitconnectCarlos hurls at others on a constant basis.

I think countries should aspire to have sound moral foreign policies. It's a fairly decent objective and in the confines of even larger countries and a possibility to reach at least with functioning democracies. Will they reach that objective? Not always, but still it's an effort that ought to be made.

And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. — Benkei

Again I have to disagree with you.

The defense that Ukrainians have put up against Russia is the most relevant issue here and the Ukrainians are more relevant here than the aid the West has given. It is very telling here that NOBODY actually believed in Ukraine...except the Ukrainians. What I read was that Ukraine could possibly make a good insurgency battle against the Russian tide, but not stop it in it's tracks in an conventional war. That the US offered Zelensky to flee from Ukraine is very telling how "the most relevant player" thought things would go. Because these European countries don't matter. We Finns know this line. Should we too have been so reasonable as the Baltic States were in 1939? Or behave like Denmark in 1940, put up a discreet but not costly defense of six hours before surrender? After all, Ukrainians could have opted for the stance that the Czechs did in 1968: go to protest against the Russian tanks in the streets of their Capital, but otherwise lay down their arms. And then we would have been like, "Oh, too bad! But what could they have done against the Russian juggernaut?".

It is very fruitful as it doesn't give space to zealots where their arguments are prima facie engaged as if they are rational, reasonable or acceptable when in fact they have no argument. — Benkei

So better leave these "no sound arguments" unchallenged in a Philosophy Forum? Not everyone is a troll and I think trolls do get banned rather quickly.

Especially during the incoming Trump era, this engagement is necessary. The debate can get even more crazy and people will usually just stay in their camps. Yet not everything is disinformation and not everybody is a troll. I remember this during the War on Terror -era. Many came to the forum to defend Bush, and they were sincere in their views. Open discussion about were there actually WMD program in Iraq was useful. I find it good that you then pointed out the errors and didn't go with the crowd. And so it will be now.

Perfect example is the "NATO made Putin to do it"-argument that is typically rationalized by John Mearsheimer's views. Our current President Alexander Stubb, far before he was asked to be a candidate for the Presidency (which he won) was working as a professor in Italy and engaged in John Mearsheimers idea in a good academic way. This is interesting as now this man is in charge of Finnish foreign policy and hence wouldn't speak so openly or discuss Mearsheimer:



This kind of response is beneficial and informational. Stubb doesn't make ad hominem attacks on Mearsheimer. Yet it's important to discuss issues like this. Just last week, A popular Youtuber Johnny Harris put out a video seeking to tell "the other side"-view of the war in Ukraine and hence reurgitating the "NATO made Putin to do it" argument with interviews of a Pro-Russian academic. The video got such a devastating response that in one day he put it down and happily acknowledged his mistakes (see here).

There is the argument that one should not engage in disinformation, that engagement only then promotes the false idea. Perhaps with nonsense like Flat-Earth argument this works, but when people on this forum really think that there's something to it, it's not just disinformation, then the engagement is worth it. Especially Israel is an issue that is close to heart to many people, just as the Palestinian question is to others.

(moved this to the Ukraine thread - seems that threads are getting a bit mixed!)