So Trump isn't going into debates, which is a wise choice. And now Nikki isn't either, because Trump isn't.

Yes, why on Earth would you have candidates debating in the first place? :wink:

Wonder if this will continue forward, when it's Biden vs Trump: why even give the respect for the other candidate by debating him face to face?

Perhaps both old men would like it that way.

That is not the way everyone in the US views it. — Relativist

Official US views it so. Bi-partisan support! And with that, in the tow many other Western countries issue something like that or then simply want to keep silent (simply as not to anger the Americans, but also not to anger their own voters either). It seems that you really have to be neutral like the Irish...

Yet I think times are changing. You don't rule the public discourse by fear, which seems to be the case.

Bibi and the far right in Israel are with eager determination marching Israel to the position of White South Africa. (But then of course, White South Africa endured on for many decades...)

Yesterday, I received a disturbing email from my Senator (the less crazy of two from Texas): — Relativist

That is the way the US views this. So no wonder Bibi is extremely confident that his military operation will go through and achieve it's objectives.

"Occupied territories" is itself a misnomer. It implies the palestinians are entitled to 100% of the west bank which is a ridiculous idea. — BitconnectCarlos

Incorrect.

Let's start with the most obvious: Syria and Israel has never signed a peace-agreement, thus Syria hasn't OK'd the annexation of the Golan Heights. Golan Heights is rather similar to Crimea. No other country has recognized the annexation of the Golan Heights than Trumpistan!

(Trump Heights, YEAH!)


For example the EU has declared that it doesn't recognize the Golan Heights to be part of Israel.

Then let's look at the West Bank (and Gaza).

First of all, Israel has basically (both de facto and de jure) annexed only Jerusalem. Israel hasn't actually annexed Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Bibi naturally is very eager to do this, but it's been a bit difficult since the US isn't yet back to being Trumpistan again and Saudi-Arabia wouldn't be so eager to normalize the ties if Israel annexed the West Bank. And of course the Israelis know that there is the UN Security Council 242, so it wouldn't be a hugely popular move.

First let's take go through prior history:

Turkey did not legally surrender its sovereignty until 1923 when the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. Such detachment was primarily de facto and was a consequence of the British military occupation of Palestine and became de jure in 1923. The British military occupation did not bestow sovereignty to the United Kingdom, furthermore the military occupation did not affect any claim to sovereignty of the inhabitants.

Hence the reference to Mandatory Palestine. The British obtained this from the League of Nations to administer areas of the defunct Ottoman Empire "until such time as they are able to stand alone". Hence here already the Palestinians, then meaning both the Jewish and the Arabs living there, had a more legal grounds for the land than the "administrator", United Kingdom. Hence Palestine was never a British colony.

Then the UK gave up the land with the quarreling people and Israel declared independence and we had the UN partition plan. And we had the 1948 war and it's armstice.

From the UN site THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE WEST BANK AND GAZA

In 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria that followed the 1948 war meant territorial changes in Palestine. Israel secured control of all the territory allotted them in the Partition Plan and gained substantial additional portions in the West Bank area. The Gaza Strip was held by Egypt and the West Bank was united with Transjordan with no prejudice to the final settlement of its just cause within the framework of national aspirations.

These are the pre-1967 borders.

Do note that the Gaza Strip was first All-Palestine Protectorate and only was from 1959 annexed to be part of Egypt, but de facto was a military occupation area of Egypt. The people of Gaza couldn't for example move freely into Egypt.

What is called the West Bank is the area that Trans-Jordania occupied in the 1948 war, which by UN Resolution 181 was intended to be the Arab state alongside the Jewish part. In December 1948 in the Jericho conference Palestinian notables accepted Jordanian rule and recognized king Abdullah as their ruler. The Palestinians in the West Bank got Jordanian nationality and full citizenship rights. So how did Jordan view the Palestinians? Let's say they got over losing the West Bank to Israel quite quickly and saw the people being Palestinians, not Jordanians. King Hussein said the following in the UN in 1979:

“On 24 April 1950, the joint Jordanian Parliament, in taking its historic decision on unity, did not neglect to record Jordan’s unwavering stand towards the historic rights of the Palestinians and the support of Arab Palestinian rights in any future settlement in accordance with national aspirations and international justice. Thus when we speak today of the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people we do so because it is something we have always believed in and have always attempted to bring about within the framework of a just and comprehensive settlement.

And anyway, Jordan lost the West Bank and finally in 1988 Jordan shed all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank it claimed, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. So from 1988, nobody claimed that the people of the West Bank were Jordanians. This actually is important, because many Israeli politicians have simply hoped that Palestinians in the West Bank would move to Jordania.

Then how about the peace deals with Egypt and with later Jordan?

The Egyptian-Isreali peace treaty normalized the relations between the two countries, gave Sinai back (partly demilitarized), provided Israel free passage in the Suez canal and also the straights of Tiran and in the Gulf of Aqaba, but also called for an end to Israeli military rule over the Israeli-occupied territories and the establishment of full autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories.

That's in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. So obviously that didn't give any leeway for Israel to annex the Occupied territories.

How about the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of 1994?

Here we should remember that already in 1988 Jordan had relinquished any claims it had towards the West Bank and stated that the Palestinians lead by the PLO had the rightful claim.

Still, Here's the main principles of that peace treaty:

1) Borders: The international boundary between Israel and Jordan follows the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers, the Dead Sea, the Emek Ha'Arava/Wadi Araba, and the Gulf of Aqaba. The section of the line that separated Jordan from the West Bank was stipulated as "without prejudice to the status of [that] territory."
2) Diplomatic relations and co-operation: The Parties agreed to establish full diplomatic and consular relations and to exchange resident embassies, grant tourists visas, open air travel and seaports, establish a free trade zone and an industrial park in the Arava. The agreement prohibits hostile propaganda.
3) Security and defense: Each country promised respect for the sovereignty and territory of each side, to not enter the other's territory without permission, and to cooperate against terrorism. This included thwarting border attacks, smuggling, preventing any hostile attack against the other and not cooperating with any terrorist organization against the other.
4) Jerusalem: Article 9 links the Peace Treaty to the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. Israel recognized the special role of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem and committed itself to give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines in negotiations on the permanent status.
5) Water: Israel agreed to give Jordan 50,000,000 cubic metres (1.8×109 cu ft) of water each year and for Jordan to own 75% of the water from the Yarmouk River. Both countries could develop other water resources and reservoirs and agreed to help each other survive droughts. Israel also agreed to help Jordan use desalination technology in order to find additional water.
6) Palestinian refugees: Israel and Jordan agreed to cooperate to help the refugees, including a four-way committee (Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians) to try to work towards solutions.

So here not only Israel recognized Jordan's claims on the muslim holy shrines in Jerusalem, but notice also the last part.

Various people/groups have considered what might come to pass in case the Kremlin prevails — jorndoe

Well, Ukraine is preparing it's own defensive lines, so the likely outcome is a war like the Iran - Iraq war: a kind of WW1 stalement, until one or the other gets enough materiel and resources for an operational assault.

The GOP have the opposite problem which is that they let the MAGA supporters dictate everything. And that is why we have Trump v. Biden again. — Mr Bee

Basically Trumpism saved in a way the Republican party: it reinforced the idea that somehow the two political parties themselves can be changed through the primaries. The leadership didn't want Trump, but he was elected. So hooray for democracy!

As I said (perhaps on another thread), there indeed are many traditional conservatives in the GOP, but Trumpism simply silences these voices.

That's the problem with populism: it can take over a traditional political actually both either on the left of on the right.

One could argue that Boris Johnson was a somewhat similar populist politician that overtook a traditional party, even if Johnson is quite different from Trump. Yet we see now just how the Conservative party in the UK has changed.

He was, and the funny thing is that I think alot of the current polls show a generic democrat leading by the same amount that Biden did in 2020. — Mr Bee

Don't envy the Americans when they are having to choose between Trump and Biden... and an option of a middle finger vote with voting somebody else.

Well, a generic democrat would have done better against Trump than Hillary Clinton. But the democrats simply ignored how annoying and hated Hillary was among the Republicans. And how disliked the Clintons in general were.

Wasn't it then finally her time, right?

Israel has a diversity of parties in its Parliament and has Arab muslims represented on its judiciary as well. Israel has a considerable minority arab muslim population as well as christians and druze. — BitconnectCarlos

...and then has the occupied territories, where non-Jewish people are have different laws (military law) to the Jewish people there. In addition to that, it has laws like the 'Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law', which prohibits inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip ineligible for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits that are usually available through marriage to an Israeli citizen (i.e., family reunification).

But South Africa was too a democracy under the Apartheid era... to the whites.

And this is where Ukraine clearly just doesn't have the resources to pull that off. — boethius

Nonsense. What Ukraine lacked is simply the political will. If a dirt-poor North Korea can create a nuclear deterrent, obviously Ukraine could have done that far more easily with already existing material and know how.

OK, let's start with the basics:

1) Ukraine does have uranium mines (Smolinskaya).
2) Ukraine did and does have the know how.
3) Ukraine had the weapons, even if it basically would have had to create and maintain new weapon systems.

In hindsight, if / when preserving that nuclear deterrence would likely had deterred Russia, then naturally any kind of nuclear weapons program would surely had been worth it compared to how costly this war has been for Ukraine. But this idea can only be seen in hindsight. The only one then making the assumption that without nukes, Russia would invade Ukraine, was John Mearsheimer.

But as Ukraine, or it's leadership at least, clearly believed in the promises from Russia (and from the Western states) in the Budapest memorandum, creating an own nuclear deterrent was out of the question. Not only would it have deeply angered Russia, the US would have been extremely angry too!

Not an ideal policy for Ukraine in the 1990's. Especially when Russia wasn't considered to be a threat, but a country that could fight it's way out of a paper bag (after the first Chechen war).

Latest polls on the general election:

Biden 44% Trump 43% (yougove, 10th Jan)
Biden 41% Trump 43% (morning consult, 14th Jan)
Biden 37% Trump 45% (The Atlanta Journal)

I think Biden was way ahead in the polls prior to the last elections, wasn't he?

Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians; Hamas will consider all Israelis legitimate targets for violence/death/kidnapping/rape. — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed, they don't bomb the West Bank as much as Gaza.

But if we just look at Gaza, it's another thing. Have you looked at the amounts of bombs used and the amount of buildings destroyed? Quite comparable to WW2 terror bombings.

(AP) Jan 11th 2024, The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history.

In just over two months, researchers say the offensive has wreaked more destruction than the razing of Syria’s Aleppo between 2012 and 2016, Ukraine’s Mariupol or, proportionally, the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II. It has killed more civilians than the U.S.-led coalition did in its three-year campaign against the Islamic State group.

You simply cannot talk of an attempt to avoid civilian casualties. And after all, when the Gazan's elected Hamas years ago, aren't they as one Israeli politician put it, all are culpable? Or as another put it, It's the evil city.

And let's remember what the Israeli Defense minister said:

“We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly,” Gallant said.

While it appears that Gallant was specifically referring to Hamas fighters in that comment, the rest of the minister’s remarks called for further oppression of all people in Gaza by denying them basic human needs.

“We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza,” Gallant said. “There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed.”

Seems indeed that the Israelis are true to their word.

It's also interesting how when I ask Asians, Africans or South Americans about this conflict it all of a sudden really isn't that complicated. At least to them. It really is a "Western" problem that this conflict is not getting closer to getting resolved. — Benkei

Indeed.

It's not complicated. It's simply hard if not impossible to peacefully solve. Partly (and only partly) because of the West.

Namibia has criticised Germany’s “shocking decision” to support Israel in the genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) brought by South Africa, as Israel’s war on Gaza entered its 100th day.

“Germany has chosen to defend in the ICJ the genocidal and gruesome acts of the Israeli government against innocent civilians in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian Territories,” the president of Namibia, Hage Geingob, said in a statement on X on Saturday.

- - -

The statement by the Namibian presidency added that Berlin was ignoring Israel’s killing of more than 23,000 Palestinians in Gaza and various United Nations reports disturbingly highlighting the internal displacement of 85 percent of the besieged enclave’s 2.3 million people amid acute shortages of food and essential services.

The Namibian president expressed “deep concern” over “the shocking decision” communicated by the government of Germany on Friday, in which “it rejected the morally upright indictment” brought forward by South Africa.

“No peace-loving human being can ignore the carnage waged against Palestinians in Gaza,” it said.

Ukraine's play was "keep thing ambiguous and hopefully jump into NATO one day". The play didn't work. You can argue Ukraine had a right to make such a play. Sure whatever. You can also argue that the play was the best move but unfortunately hasn't worked out so good; sometimes to the best move is foiled by bad luck. — boethius

How bad was it for Ukraine to hand over the nuclear deterrent to Russia? And believe that Russia would keep up it's promises made several times?

John Mearsheimer got that thing right in the 1990's. But nobody listened: the threat was "loose nukes". In fact, because of similar fears, man portable SAMs were bought from Ukraine and destroyed.

Which now would have been extremely important...

It's a steel-hulled sailing ship from 1958, you could have probably build a new ship to the same specifications for a fraction of the cost. — Echarmion

That's the biggest outcry now, that why nobody thought of that in the first place. I assume with less than 100 million or even less you could have made a training ship.

But anyway, there are other difficulties: for example when a contract is granted to one company for a weapon system, it's competitors can take it to court. This can hold up for a long time weapons procurement. The other issue is that military readiness has taken a huge fall. I think this has been the result of not taking care of adequate supplies, which leads at worst case to cannibalization. But shrinking the defense budget usually does this: first you cancel large exercises, limit flying hours, limit live firing of munitions. Then you start to save from supplies. And what do you know, in the end you have an Air Force that doesn't train much and which large part of the aircraft fleet are not air worthy.

Then there's the bureacracy: As Germany is a federal state, the bureaucracy makes public spending not something that would quickly react to new situations.

What then becomes the problem is try to make a direction change: once the professional people are gone, the mechanics, the technicians, you don't easily just snap your fingers and they would emerge from thin air to a stack of money. Sweden actually learnt this the hard way as it

The shambolic state of the Bundeswehr's affairs has long been known in military circles. Stories of dysfunctional tanks and helicopters, rifles that fail in hot weather and soldiers having to train in the cold without thermal underwear have been sidelined for years.

Many of the German military’s problems don't always stem from lack of funding, but also from unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in procurement and poor planning. The thermal underwear shortage stems from the latter.

In 2015, a German broadcaster quoting a confidential military report said that German soldiers tried to hide the lack of arms by replacing heavy machine guns with broomsticks during a NATO exercise in 2014. After painting the wooden sticks black, the German soldiers swiftly attached them to the top of armoured vehicles.

In short, the war in Ukraine has shone a disturbing light on the German military's critical unpreparedness.

What has happened is a lot of talk. The problems still persist. This has been seen in the assistance to the war in Ukraine: Russia got 1 million artillery rounds from North Korea. Ukraine didn't get the similar promised rounds, but only half of it from Europe.

Now, it appears like many people believe that the capacity to predict is the goal. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is the problem.

Hence you can have people working in science who say they don't care at all about philosophy.

If it's highly theoretical physics, then it might be so. But what works, it usually has some hang of the model. Yes, that might not be correct in general: hence if we would have stuck with Newtonian physics, I guess our GPS systems wouldn't be as accurate.

And I wouldn't say that a model/theory in physics is correct of false. It's usually either better or poorer.

More easy to say it than for Germans actually to do it!

For example, what is the most costly naval vessel that the German navy has? What has been the most expensive in the long run? It might surprise you, but it has been the Gorch Fock. Which is the ship below:

"Severe" mismanagement within the German navy and Defense Ministry led to massive cost overruns in restoration work on a naval training ship, according to a confidential report seen by Der Spiegel magazine.

Repair estimates on the Gorch Fock were originally priced at under €10 million ($11.5 million), but skyrocketed to €135 million last year, the 39-page report from the National Audit Office found.

The agency blamed military officers for inadequately examining the sailing ship's deficiencies, ignoring information vital for the repair work and failing to fully inform Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen.

Work on the ship's hull and renewal of its upper and middle deck began in 2015 without an economic feasibility study, and without considering the case for constructing a new ship, auditors said.

A Defense Ministry spokesperson said the ministry would submit a formal reply to the Federal Audit Office's accusations by April.

It has taking German navy nine years to rehaul the training ship. So this just tells how bad Germany has it when we are talking about Defense. I think that the French defense budget is smaller, yet they have a) a nuclear deterrent and b) an aircraft carrier along with a larger defense industry.

This all before the problems that remarked above.

A very good OP.

You present those obstacles that are present.

The answer is relatively simple: a machine will never be able to develop consciousness, because life — and thus consciousness — is based on the autocatalytic principle, and silicon is not capable of that. In addition, every machine lacks an endocrine system that makes experience possible in the first place. Also, the use of biohybrid techniques will not create consciousness, since life only functions as a whole in such a way that consciousness can arise. — Wolfgang

In short, the "computers" should start from having DNA as their building blocks or what?

Actually the famous Turing test itself shows how clueless we are. After all, all the test says is that the computer can fool humans into believing that they are talking to humans. There's absolutely nothing on the "how" and "why" in the test. no philosophy behind it. So where are now then?

Well, I'm sure that here @Wolfgang isn't AI or a bot.

At least... yet.

Because the way computer science and technology has gone with it iyos simply basically by brute force. You don't have to have an underlying understanding, you simply start with basic programming and build up from there. Or have millions of humans picking millions of times the picture where there is a lamp-post, and then use that to "teach" programs to notice lamp posts.

One possibility would be to use a dynamically system-theoretical approach as metatheory and sketch the maximum of structural density with causal force as an analogue to what is described in psychology as consciousness. — Wolfgang

I think are basics are still not complete. It usually goes to even more fundamental issues than we first think it goes. The actual culprits might even lurk in our understanding of math and logic.

Well, if Trump goes really with what he possibly said, then we'll get in no time this debate to start in earnest.

BRUSSELS — One of Europe's most senior politicians recounted how former U.S. President Donald Trump privately warned that America would not come to the EU's aid if it was attacked militarily.

"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you," Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, according to French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was also present at a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

"By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO," Trump also said, according to Breton. "And he added, ‘and by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you didn’t pay, you Germans, what you had to pay for defense,'" Breton said about the tense meeting, where the EU's then-trade chief Phil Hogan was also present.

If something is very useful or practical in Physics, then I assume the math to be sound.

I suspect that it's less the actual military staffs that are worried about nuclear escalation, and more the politicians that worry about the fears of their voters. — Echarmion

I agree. Military people can understand escalation. The public doesn't. Indeed, the politicians are more afraid than the military.

And this is why actually the twisted logic of "Escalate to de-escalate" can work: a small tactical weapon can raise absolute panic. If an accident in a nuclear power plant in Japan that didn't kill anybody causes such a huge panic, how much panic will the mushroom cloud bring with it? What we have been taught: nuclear war is utter doom for human kind, nobody can handle it once it's started.

Don't write off Poland. Poland may well be a very important player in the EU of the future. — Echarmion

That is true, good remark!

Poland is basically a large-scale model of my little country: it can put a defense on it's territory and provide assistance close by. But if the crisis would happen let's say in the Mediterranean, there's not much that Poland can give, only something to assist a larger force. I assume if Poles are ready to defend the Suwalki gap and even the Baltics, it might be different issue in the Balkans or in South-West Europe.

And the security threats can happen outside of the primary theatre: the Houthi attacks on the Bab El Mandeb show this clearly.

These nations do not share the same security concerns as the European mainland, so should not be permitted to have this kind of influence over European (mainland) security. — Tzeentch

Depends on just what UK does. Yes, it's likely that if the US under Trump really would leave NATO, then I guess UK would be the first in line to make a bilateral defence treaty with the US.

But you see the negative effects of this already in Far East Asia: US has bilateral defense agreements with Japan, South Korea, Phillipines etc, and then there is the strange AUKUS. But there isn't coordination among these countries. And SEATO simply fell apart as the countries had so little in common.

Hence taking out the UK from an European helps only Russia!

Personally, I think a military alliance structure like NATO, but without the US and the UK, would be perfect. — Tzeentch

What's wrong with the UK? They are good fighters and they have a great armed forces. Also, they are still committed to European safety, even if they are on an Island.

If the US goes home to eat it's apply pie, then they can. But they'll wake up one day to see that the apple pie isn't so great as it used to be with them being the Superpower...

But doesn't the fact that NATO exist in itself cause the EU not to successfully cooperate militarily? There's simply no real need. I think if EU countries could centralise command and simply have all the countries current armies merge into a single force we would easily have an adequate defensive force. France already has the nukes for deterrence. — Benkei

So does the UK, which is still taking part in the defence cooperation.

But good questions, @Benkei.

The membership of one Superpower would make it more easy to coordinate any actions. It's basically that the US proposes an operation and countries either commit or not. Otherwise you would have to have the "Troika" of France, UK and Germany. They should work together, have an unified objective. Otherwise it is improbable that EU will act in coordination. Germany has huge problems in creating and operating an effective armed forces in the current situation. Not only has it difficulties creating that "bang for buck" in defense spending, it has (like Japan) huge sensitivities in using military force. Only France and the UK have capabilities to project power out of the area. They also do have the "can do" spirit of a Great Power. All other nations are basically supportive.

The worst possibility that there's no uniform objective, but the "alliance" simply dissolves. Arab states and Turkey are the best example of this. It would be beneficial for them to really have cooperation even at the level of the Arab League, but this isn't happening. Even the GCC members have been close to having war with each other. Also the Libyan civil war showed clearly that allied countries can support different sides.

And btw, when I gave the example of the Suwalki gap, seems like Germany has thought about a similar situation:

In a recent revelation by the German newspaper Bild, the Bundeswehr, Germany's armed forces, are reportedly gearing up for a possible hybrid attack by Russia on NATO's eastern flank. This anticipated offensive could commence as early as February 2024, as per a classified document from the German Federal Ministry of Defence.

The document, marked "Top Secret – For Official Use Only," outlines a detailed scenario named "Alliance Defence 2025." It predicts a series of events starting in February 2024, where Russia is expected to initiate another wave of mobilization, drafting an additional 200,000 individuals into its army. This move is set to precede a spring offensive against Ukraine, pushing the Ukrainian forces back by June.

The scenario escalates in July with Russia's transition from covert to increasingly overt attacks against Western interests, particularly targeting the Baltic states with cyberattacks and other forms of hybrid warfare. These actions are anticipated to provoke clashes, which Russia could use as a pretext for large-scale military exercises on its territory and in Belarus.

A significant escalation is projected for October when Russia might deploy troops and medium-range missiles to the strategically important region of Kaliningrad. From December 2024 onwards, the scenario foresees an artificially induced "border conflict" and "clashes with numerous casualties" in the vicinity of the Suwałki Gap, a critical corridor between Belarus and Kaliningrad.

In a concerning development, the scenario suggests that Russia, with Belarusian support, could replicate its 2014 invasion tactics used in Ukraine but this time on NATO territory. This is speculated to occur at a time when the United States might be politically vulnerable due to the presidential election transition.

(See German Intelligence Reports: NATO Prepares for War with Russia.)

. And when transfinite theory is incorporated into physics, practitioners take notice. I wonder if that has happened? — jgill

That's one important factor, actually.

Usually if we have something in math, it can be used well to model reality for example in physics. For me it tells that at least the math is correct.

That we don't have any use for the larger infinities in physics, at least yet, makes it doubtful that the Cantorian idea of larger and larger infinities is valid. After all, we've stuck with the question about the jump from the natural numbers to the reals.

What does it actually say?

A very interesting open question.

For one, we don't get to vote for the leader of the European Union - in this case Von Der Leyen - or other EU organs like the European Central Bank. There's also virtually zero transparency and control with regards to what these people get up to (and who they're working for). — Tzeentch

That's true, but the union is a de facto confederacy: it is created from independent states, who actually are still quite independent. Furthermore, Central Banksters aren't usually elected in a public election. We don't similarly elect our generals either. Likely that would simply politicize even more the position and make Central Banks even more the "deficit helpers" that they are now.

But I hear you. The problem is that the bureaucratic culture is basically from France and isn't something as open as for example in the US. And with the EU there's one thing that I've learnt to be true: the more you know about how it really operates, the more angry you become.

And how would we vote? Let's see, Germany has the most people in the EU, so you would like it to be a perpetual position for Germans to hold? Even if it sounds crazy, perhaps the way Eurovision song contest works could be an answer: you could only vote for those candidates that don't come from your own country!

But anyway, I'm for a loose union that still gives a lot of power to the individual countries because let's face it: the EU has done a really poor job on creating an universal European identity. Only the English have succeeded in creating an unifying identity with being British. But to be an European, well, it's like being an Asian or African...

Tusk served as president of the European Council and as president of a transnational organisation known as 'the European People's Party' (an ominous name to be sure, though I'm not sure if it sounds commie or fascist - two branches from the same rotten tree anyway). — Tzeentch

Yes, and Poles voted for him. Perhaps the reason is that the Poles got fed up with the former Law and Justice -party, the right-wing populist party. It's quite natural that people want to change their leaders.

Populism, and especially populists in power, paint these ideas where they are against a powerful cabal, be it "Brussels" or the "EU" or whatever, yet the fact is that EU is a confederacy and an assortment of independent states pulling in many directions. Brexit here has shown us actually how beneficial the EU actually is.

But it's the way he is now cleaning house like some dictator, without any criticism from European legislative organs whatsoever, that should be the canary in the coal mine. Clearly this man was given cart blanche to "get Poland back on track." — Tzeentch

Well, if you have some articles or references about this, I would genuinely be interested...

They tried the same in the Netherlands, where now a decidedly anti-EU party has become the largest. — Tzeentch

Who here are "they". It's really important to answer this. Because typically it's actually domestic media and parties that are in opposition that promote the "anti-EU" stance of some parties.

I think Italy is the best example of this. There was a huge uproar about the administration of Giorgia Meloni, but in fact (at least for me) the administration simply looks to be conservative. And the fuss has died down. Just how fascist they truly are is in my view very questionable. But of course, I'm not a specialist about Italian politics, so someone can inform me better.

Meloni’s approach to Europe was centred on the vindication of Italy’s “national interests” but within the framework of European integration and with a self-declared ambition to play a protagonist role. In the run-up to the 2022 election, FdI’s electoral programme jettisoned some populist tones of the past (especially regarding the euro). Instead, the emphasis was placed on the need for Italy to “return as a protagonist in Europe” and to “relaunch the system of European integration, for a Europe of homelands, founded on peoples’ interests”. In a similar vein, in her inaugural address to the Chamber of Deputies, Meloni stressed the desire for Italy to stand “with head high” in Europe and the other international fora, “with a constructive spirit, but without subordination or inferiority complexes”. The emphasis on the “national interest” was accompanied by the acknowledgement of “a common European and Western destiny” – as well as of the importance of a frank dialogue within the European institutions, taking a “pragmatic” approach. As a matter of fact, Meloni’s first mission abroad as Italy’s prime minister was to Brussels.

Never underestimate the huge effect that Brexit had. It showed to all Europeans just what a shit show it would be to leave the EU. We've all seen what a trainwreck disaster that was for the UK. If it was bad for the UK to opt out, it is easy to understand that opting out for other EU members would likely suck far more. Hence for example in Finland we have now in the administration the "True Finns" populists that were anti-EU, but they have shed away their ideas of exiting the EU. (Also the war in Ukraine has had them select their partners it the European Parliament too, as the party enthusiastically support Ukraine.)

Unsurprisingly, it comes from the undemocratic abomination that is the European Union. — Tzeentch

How is it an undemocratic abomination?

Just what do you think is the EU? Who do you think it's leaders are?

This is nothing other than the EU sending out its agents to quell anti-EU movements from taking root, which must now be a growing worry to the Brussels elite. In the Netherlands they tried the same with Frans Timmermans, but they failed. In Poland they succeeded. — Tzeentch

Who sent Tusk?

I think in Poland it was the Polish Parliament that gave Tusk the mandate to form a new government after elections where Tusk's coalition won the most seats.

Maybe if there's a common, increasing clear and present danger...? At least some parts of Europe (like Scandinavia / the Nordics, the Baltics) typically tend to cooperate reasonably well. Not that this by itself will do, though. — jorndoe

The Nordics do cooperate very well. However, in security policy there's always the problem that in the end, "going alone/opting out" can be beneficial. Not to fully commit your country to defend another country. Sweden in the end is the perfect example of this: It did send volunteers and many aircraft to help Finland in the Winter War. It didn't help Denmark or Norway when attacked by Germany. It survived WW2 intact, only with few stray Russians bombers accidentally bombing Stockholm thinking it's Helsinki. It's military deterrence and foreign policy kept it out from the war, not being occupied by either side, just like the Swiss managed to do. Is that a bad thing?

Let's take a hypothetical example:

Let's assume that in the 2030's when the war in Ukraine is behind us and Russia has rearmed itself, Russia simply occupies a corridor to Kaliningrad in the Suwalki gap through Lithuanian territory and declares it will defend this corridor by tactical nuclear weapons and possibly using the full force of it's nuclear arsenal against countries that attack it.


Russia can even show that they are dead serious by detonating a small tactical warhead, a 5 Kt bomb (much smaller than the A-bomb in Hiroshima), in the Lithuanian countyside destroying part of some NATO unit or it's HQ and send Lithuathians to their basements. With a 5 kt detonation, you have quite a good chance to survive unless you are closer than 1km from the center. We would all see in the television or our smartphones multiple images of a nuclear mushroom cloud in the Lithuanian countryside.

Lithuania surely will ask for defense assistance of article 5. The real issue is how treaty members will react to this. How will their populations far from Lithuania respond?

Is this a reason to go to a conflict which can lead to full scale nuclear war?

Or how many will want things to be "just stopped" before an all-out nuclear war? Let them have the fucking corridor, it's not worth for possibly tens of millions to die. So send some iodine pills to Lithuania and something else marginal. Wouldn't that be enough for the article 5 response, if Lithuania is far away and you don't want to escalate things?

The fact is that we are already engaged in this problem: the reason for not giving Ukraine the best weapons there are, has been exactly the worry of escalation to a nuclear war. This has meant, that the aid has been to Ukraine for it to survive, not to push Russia away from Ukrainian territory.

The lure of appeasement and just wanting to the war to end is understandable. Especially when you have no will to fight.

The real question is, how much Europeans have that will to fight in the first place? Because that's where your deterrence starts from.

Though, it is important to stress that even though I believe we should have a credible deterrent, we should not combine an arms build-up with antagonism towards Russia. A deterrent should have as its purpose stable relations between east and west. — Tzeentch

I agree with this.

Yet that credible deterrent can be viewed always by the Kremlin as a threat that is out to get them. It needs an enemy to justify it's authoritarian grip. But this has been very typical to Russia in history: it's imperialist expansionism has always been seen by the Russian rulers themselves as something defensive. The US can relax behind both the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, but geography has given Russia this easy-to-travel steppe, from which the enemy can come, be it the Mongols, the Poles, the French or the Germans. Or the Americans.

It's a difficult issue as Russia really has a identity problem when it comes to Europe and the West: the ideological battle for the idea of Russia between the slavophiles and the westernizers is still something that can be seen even today.

However, there seems to be a divide between the people and the government here, as is the case in most "Western" countries, but how large this gap is between public opinion and the German government specifically, I can't say, haven't seen any polls on the issue. — Manuel

As others have said here, time really seem to be changing. Far away are the times when a tiny Israel faced a collection of Arab country armed to teeth by the Soviet Union, the Israel which likely Biden is thinking about.

And also Israel has changed too: I think it too has become more polarized just as other Western countries, but here decades of low intensity conflict, terrorism has made it worse.

Yes, there limits etc. And then infinity as an axiom.

Yet if there's a Continuum Hypothesis, we clearly don't understand everything about infinity. Besides all the discussions about it that show it's not as obviously clear as some want it (or math) to be.

Careful: The object of the game is to minimize the government AND create a new system that is preferable. — Elysium House

Do not overestimate the changes here. For example in Finland we have had municipalities and districts put together and made larger, but the changes to the bureaucracy isn't as radical as one could anticipate. The basic result often is that some bureaucratic service you need that once was close by, now is somewhere really far away. That's basically what happens from the viewpoint of the citizen.

You can have some reductions. But do not forget that a working government is also beneficial and there usually are those who want to abuse the changes in their own benefit even if it worsens the situation of the people in general: Reducing government is usually one way to benefit the rich.

Interesting. Of course there's a bit of ironic twist here: In order to have states being put together, meaning that many state employees would lose jobs and many states capitals would lose their position, you need a very strong Federal level. Because who else would make such decisions? The States themselves?

Also what is an interesting question is how much does the state mean to US Citizen? Let's take for example the "South Central" mega-state: How much people in Texas feel as Texans while how many Oklahomans or people from New Mexico think their state is important? Because I assume Texas, with it's different history of even being basically independent for a time means a lot to Texans.

I assume it's far more easier to close and integrate federal departments than to "take away" Texas from the Texans.

If Europe were even to remotely get its act together, there'd be no Russian threat whatsoever. — Tzeentch

YES!

But sorry. I'm an European, I know these people.

The EU is the best we can make. Non-US NATO would be a shadow of the former organization. Or if Russia bombed with cruise missiles EVERY European Capitol, that could make us work together. But that's not going to happen.

The task is simple:  You are in charge of halting the current national trajectory, breaking apart the existing political/governmental structure, and devising a system of localized authorities which can both function as various entities and exist (and flourish) within the current and future global community. — Elysium House

Actually, the US has far too many states. Put them together.

- First of all, fuck Washington DC. That the Capitol is so "important" is pure bullshit. Add it to Maryland, actually make Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey one state for starters.

- The objective could be to have just 20 states that are somewhat equally distributed in population.

- Decrease the number of Federal executive departments and give the control 100% to the states. You need only State, Defense, Interior and Justice departments. Nothing else. So off with the executive departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Urban development, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. And if even the States start to whine about their excessive new work and demand federal level coordination, then simply put them into the department of Interior. It's incredible that you have to have such departments like Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security at the level of a federal executive department.

- Emphasize and empower the county/municipial level.

- reduce the police state.

We're committed finitists here. Heresies are not allowed. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, I think that there's something to Cantor's absolute infinity, and I've had splendid discussion about the topic here. And I've not been ban yet.

I think that there's just many issues in the fundamentals of mathematics that we don't understand yet. One thing is infinity, that set theory takes just as an axiom.

I'm uncertain whether there are any Conservatives left, since Bill Buckley died. Conservatives are against the intrusion of government in our lives. Those called "Conservatives" now seem to relish government control, except perhaps when it comes to the ability to acquire and retain money. — Ciceronianus

Just as with the left, the noisiest (and usually most stupid) prevail in the media and are eagerly picked to be the true representatives by the other side.

I do think that there are the old fashion conservatives, but they are simply muted out by the Trump crowd.

It's no guarantee that SA will win of course, but, it's some tiny bit of light. — Manuel

That's extremely tiny light, yet I think the coverage simply can move attitudes and bring change in the long run.

Of course the most adamant defender of Israel is Germany. For apparent reasons:

Government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said in a statement that Israel was "defending itself" after the "inhuman" attacks by Hamas of October 7.

"In light of German history and the crimes against humanity of the Shoah, the German government is particularly committed to the (UN) Genocide Convention," signed in 1948 in the wake of the Holocaust, Hebestreit said.

He said the Convention marked a "central instrument" under international law to prevent another Holocaust.

For this reason, he said, "we stand firmly against a political instrumentalisation" of the Convention.

Hebestreit acknowledged diverging views in the international community on Israel's military operation in Gaza.

"However the German government decisively and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide brought against Israel before the International Court of Justice," he said.

Regarding Hamas, there is always now going to be an attack force like Hamas and there is always going to be a negotiation with such a force for a peace to be reached, there’s no other way. — Punshhh

Exactly. It's a war that will continue until there's a two state solution.

The problem is that we would still have a war in Ukraine and the risk that Russia will see the American retreat from Europe as an opportunity to become more aggressive, starting with the Baltic States. — neomac

At least, the Baltic States will feel the pressure.

And let's have the facts:

1. Russian armed forces are superior to any European country. Hence Russia is against any kind of European integration or Atlanticism. It is the de facto Greatest power in Europe.

2. Russia is going to a wartime economy. If US and Europe throw in the towel, Russia unlikely won't change course here.

2. Finlandization can be an option for EU countries. Why not be a friend of Russia? Just like Hungary. Why rearm when there are other more important things to finance. Especially if Russia is far away, why not seek better relations and start to understand Putin. Why...he's not so bad actually!

I doubt Israel would survive for long the Samson option.
Qatar has done good work, but I doubt it will change anything. — Punshhh

Qatar is one of biggest helpers of Hamas... that's why the relationship. So you prefer that other countries assist Hamas too???

And Israel has a nuclear deterrence, likely a nuclear triad. Hence it doesn't have to worry about the Arab countries going back to their old habit of attacking Israel itself. They don't have nuclear weapons and conventionally too they might likely lose a conflict. And more likely they are afraid of the wrath that the US. Yet Israel sure plays the "Where a tiny nation that neighbors want to whipe away!"-card with dedication.

I'm not sure just how many Americans actually know that Israel has nuclear weapons.