They keep saying Abbas is ineffective, why is that? — schopenhauer1

Well, what has going along with the peace plan given to the people in the West Bank, the apartheid system continues, there new settlements are built.

You can point to Netanyahu being a dick and this or that, but this sentiment goes a long way back before Netanyahu’s policies. — schopenhauer1

Certainly, the Likud has all had this strategy where a two state solution would be a capitulation to the enemies of Israel. It has been the left that has honestly tried the two-state solution. Thus wanting peace, the Likud has fallen off from the political map and become a very tiny party in Israel.

Revenge and fear prevails and is the source where Likud politicians get their support. And it is ironic, that the former Shin Bet hopes that the US would here steer clear Israel to peace.

It will split the Democratic party and hand Trump a victory. — Hanover

Trump win is a possibility, although I hope Americans would choose something else than frail old men like Biden or Trump.

Yet I think the younger generations of Americans aren't as steadfast in their unwavering support of Israel, but do understand that perhaps not all the time America's objective as synonymous with Bibi's Israel. Assuming there isn't another terrorist attack.

Well, that's for the temporary truce then and back to bombing Gaza.

Interesting to note if in the US this will cause more critique or not in the democratic party.

There is something genuinely better about the values of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" of course. — schopenhauer1

That is putting it mildly. :grin:

And of course the French aren't ashamed of Napoleon: the remains of the guy are in a temple like mausoleum surrounded with other important generals. If you have seen it in Paris, it's quite impressive, something similar that we usually make for religious purposes. Having a painting of Napoleon isn't offensive, not at least in France.

Something that is rather telling, especially compared to Napoleon, is that it's speculated that the remains of one Mr Hitler were finally destroyed and dumped in a river by the KGB. A similar fate what you gave your worst enemies in Antiquity (besides demolishing every statue of them, which again has been done). Again something that the Will doesn't change...

You can see a microcosm of politics by simply walking! — schopenhauer1

Yet interactions with total strangers are different when you know the people. What if it's not a couple, but your grandchildren age 5 and 3 on a collision course towards you. Would you behave the same way? Perhaps, if you're playing with them, but many would stop and give them a hug. Yet you would give a huge to the adult couple! Hugging complete strangers would usually called to be an assault. Yet it's even more different when it's political actors, organizations or nations. I was taught in the university that it's wrong and lousy history writing to use nations as individuals like with "France disagreed with this" or "The US was angry about it". Far better to say whom representing the nation acted how. In the same way there is a huge and nearly illogical leap from a theory of how people act with each other to how the Emperor of France acted with other people. The generalizations that you can make don't answer much, especially if you are interested the politics that certain general Napoleon did.

But then again, Schopenhauer didn't talk much about Napoleon.

It might also be a symptom of adopting the business approach to healthcare. Neither the army nor the border guards are set up as a business. We accept that they have to provide a specific result, not just be efficient. — Echarmion

Or simply that the armed forces are an organization where future hypothetical plans have great importance. In every army there are multitude of officers all the time fighting and planning WW3. Operational Plans (OPPLAN) are most important to armies and it's armies are organizations perfected to issue commands and execute them in an coordinated fashion. The best example is this is that the US Army really made a plan to fight a zombie attack (see Counter-Zombie Dominance)! Yes, they say it was for training, but you never know...

In healthcare it's basically reacting what patients come in from the front door or into the ER. And that's basically it. If 20 patients arrive in a hour usually, then that's the volume to what everything is set up. If that becomes 200 patients in an hour then the doctors have to do a lot of triage and the waiting areas become quite ugly.

Uh, could be! :yikes:

Well, this painting surely is about the Russian campaign. With Cossacks and snow and all.

I wasn't being political. I work in a hospital. I saw what happened. — frank

So has your hospital learnt as an organization something when the next lethal pandemic hits?

I fear that health care sector is usually just barely coping with the 'normal' and thus the organizations give no real effort to plan for real emergencies outside of the normal. Basic reason for this is the lack of money for this, of course, but I think there isn't much mental effort for preparing for something that could hit next year or 50 years from now.

When covid hit Finland, the only government department that didn't cry for help was the Border Guard: suddenly when asked to close the Swedish border (which has basically border controls since the 1950's), the reply was "No problem, we have a plan for this!" and hundreds of border guards moved hundreds of kilometers from their homes. Similarly when the army was called to quarantine the Capital region and the Uusimaa district from the rest of the country, in no time were conscripts manning traffic stops on small roads and trying to keep warm.

The health care sector simply isn't organized like this. Usually made up of either private enterprises or controlled by municipal authorities there doesn't exist a centralized command that a nation would need.

So yes, I don't think Schopenhauer much cared for current events or history. Rather, he used it as a platform to explain the idea that "It's all the same". Meaning, human nature doesn't change over history. Contra Hegel, technology gets better, but human psyche is nothing different. It's all the Will playing itself out in the playground that it makes for itself. — schopenhauer1

I agree with this.

Yet perhaps in the end it's a generalization with what we don't make more sense of the World, it simply isn't so useful. "It's all the same" sounds like a cynical remark, something like "Oh well..."

As for Napoleon's need to conquer the rest of Europe, as if Revolutionary France couldn't contain itself, so needed to burst from the seems, it's an interesting image. How much was it vanity? How much was it idealism? — schopenhauer1

And how much was it about France being the first nation that turned the whole society into war machine and had universal conscription where other nations had basically professional armies? When you have all those men, the capability to control them in huge formations (thanks to the optical telegraph) and a society molded to support them, why not use the forces you have? But yes, there was the idealism also. It wasn't just a French revolution for French people, the revolution was about universal values. ‘Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!’ is a slogan you don't mean just for France.

The Revolutionary legacy for Napoleon consisted above all in the abolition of the ancien régime’s most archaic features—“feudalism,” seigneurialism, legal privileges, and provincial liberties. No matter how aristocratic his style became, he had no use for the ineffective institutions and abuses of the ancien régime. Napoleon was “modern” in temperament as well as destructively aggressive.

Hence there is this zeal of creating a new World and off with the old with Napoleon. And naturally his remarkable victories captured the French people and got the support of his generals and soldiers. Just like, well, one Mr. Hitler got after conquering Central Europe in less than year.

Hence when you're so awesome, why not go and invade Russia!

In the long run, maybe in a decade or two, I would like to see a two state solution but not in the near future. — BitconnectCarlos

Isn't that the official line: a two state solution always in the future perhaps, but not now?

Perhaps we can have the two-state solution, if Hamas would hit the jackpot: hence not only succeeding in making a devastating attack on Israel, but having then made Israel to make such a retaliatory strike with so much force, that the death toll would alienate the World and even the US to demand a two-state solution. Then Israel would have to choose the South Africa option, especially if the Evangelists and AIPAC wouldn't carry through in the US. Well, if you make supporting Israel a "culture war" issue, that can kill debate about the issue quite quickly.

But likely you are right. The two state solution will be a dream and the conflict will just go on: surely the children that survive this war in Gaza will remember it. And then we can have the next 'mowing of the lawn' in 2030's, perhaps 2040's, when they are adults?

:smile: (Well, you did notice that I'm cynical.)

On the other hand, here's a clear headed interview of Ami Ayalon, who is one of the former Shin Bet directors and previously commanded of the Israeli Navy. Some points about this interview: Ayalon, who worked with Netanyahu for several years actually says Bibi's approach is risk-averse, meaning that he tries to manage things, not solve them (as this usually involves risk taking). Obviously managing the situation didn't work now.

Then he makes an interesting note: as both the Israeli and Palestinian narratives don't meet each other, the solution here would be outside pressure. Ayalon says that Biden here has credibility in Israel. He reminds that it took years to go from the Yom Kippur war to the peace deal with Egypt. It is leadership what is needed in the region, as this isn't just a conflict between Palestinians and Israel, but it has effects on the region and hence to the World.



What is so interesting in Israeli politics is how many of these former intelligence directors and generals have actually been part of the labour party, the left, in Israel. Perhaps it's that they do see that a two state solution is really the solution here while the right seems to have been hijacked by the fundamentalists and Bibi's type of populism.

What would be good now is to have a frank 'lessons learned' study of this pandemic for the next pandemic. Unfortunately that may be or become too political.

Yet it's obvious how usually the covid-scare went: people didn't know how lethal it would be, hence governments were forced to react someway. It was great to see totally different approaches: Sweden went it's own way and didn't lock down. And Swedes were happy.

Yes, Americans with their high hopes of being so independent and free will have debate long afterwards about this.

To me the politics was the least interesting aspect of the counterculture. What fascinated me were the new philosophical, spiritual, social and sexual attitudes it spawned. — Joshs

First contraceptive pills came to the market in 1960.

That was a medical advance that had an impact of it's own, even if other societal changes did matter (as for example condoms have been around for quite a long time).

In our societies and in human history war and the military aren't just simple acts or actors of violence. I think there's this very naive idea that war is somehow of multiplication or escalation from one individual hurting some other individual to group or a whole people inflicting violence on other people in similar way. I think it's different when you come to the societal level. Or wouldn't then all general then monsters? Usually higher ranking military officers are very rational, calm and aren't violent brawlers. Our societies have made them a fundamental part of the society and their role has been molded by centuries or millennia.

With Napoleon, the question I would have is how much Revolutionary France needed a saviour-general like Napoleon after the horrors and the extremism of the French Revolution? In this way it's easy to understand how a revolution that deposed and killed the King then ended up with a general crowning himself Emperor. Sounds at first illogical, but it isn't.

Yet I think that perhaps Schopenhauer remains at a more theoretical or philosophical level and doesn't ponder much about the Napoleon's or other politicians of his time.

Without the lockdowns, you would have gone outside in the morning to see what the people in 1918 saw: dead people laying in their yards. — frank

I'm not so sure about this. Even if nearly 7 million deaths is a lot.

You see, even if covid would be as deadly as spanish flu, medicine has improved quite a lot in hundred years. The closest you now came was the NY officials burying "John Doe's" in a ditch. Modern medicine has improved quite a lot. The truth is that modern society, however it goes against the views of it's critics, is far more immune for pandemics when they hit than people were hundred or hundreds of years ago.

The optimistic version I have trouble seeing. Hamas is destroyed and some other authority rebuilds Gaza with the help of Israel? — Echarmion

An inconsistency when your actual policy is to revenge a large terrorist attack, yet you want to have nothing to do with giving real independence/autonomy to the Palestinians (the feared two-state solution). Of course when you assist terrorists like Hamas and then think you can control them, this is the end result.

So even in a legal sense, Israel cannot simply wash it's hands of Gaza and pretend it's some foreign country they don't have any responsibility for. — Echarmion

Unfortunately the conquered land Israel loves so much seems to come with these human animals.

Breaking News: IDF won't bomb the women and babies next-door tomorrow. What exemplars of humanitarianism.

And more anti-zionist propaganda from the evil United Nations, here from "the head terror-apologist" as Isreali leaders have put it:



At least they've gotten more UN workers killed than in any conflict. Remember October 7th!

Ok, so what you're saying is "a very successful start if you ask Bibi"? — Benkei

The longer this 'pause' continues, the more flak Bibi will get when he restarts it. Especially if there still are kidnapped Israelis to be exchanged. But from the military point of view, naturally the operation isn't anywhere near to the end.

Here actually Joe Biden did say some words of wisdom to Bibi, but the natural response is to milk October 7th dry and unleash the IDF as long as their is the support.

No, it's simply that the Kremlin simply didn't understand how things have changed from seven years ago.

In 2016 emigrants coming to Finland got the country into a severe political crisis. It looked ugly, like an American culture war. Now similar action as an hybrid attack had a totally different response. Actually the anti-immigration party, the "True Finns"-party, now (again) in the administration is totally OK with Ukrainian refugees, while it still has the anti-immigration position towards others (like migrant workers or economic refugees). As I stated earlier, the opposition social democrats came out with a proposal to give military aid Ukraine for every refugee that Russia sends here.

In fact, when Ukrainian families were started to be moved to another place (with days notice time) from the city of Oulu (where many had stayed as long as two years) to other places to take in the new "hybrid" refugees, the True Finns minister of interior intervened. She order for the Ukrainian families to get rental flats in Oulu.

This totally different kind of attitude towards especially Ukraine comes from a spectacular coincidence that the True Finns party leader actually had worked in Ukraine, knew the country and could speak totally fluent Ukrainian. He towed the populist party to a firm anti-Putin stance and made a separation to the pro-Putin populists in Europe (and the European Parliament). Hence Finland is quite committed to Ukraine and will never see it as an "forever war" that simply ought to be stopped even in favour of Putin.

Here the party leader Halla-aho speaking to the Ukrainian parliament in Ukrainian and getting a standing ovation from the Ukrainian members of Parliament. (Unfortunately the translation only in Finnish, which won't help others)


Basically now these hybrid attacks just strengthen Finnish resolve to aid Ukraine.

Alternate world type stuff. — jorndoe

Exactly. Especially the nazi stuff.

So a very successful operation if you ask Bibi. — Benkei

Do remember that this is just a very temporary truce. So temporary, that the EU and the UN quarreled for long which words they could use: ceasefire / truce / humanitarian pause. And this is so temporary, they are still discussing if the extension of the 'humanitarian pause' can be continued past Thursday.

If (when) Bibi continues the operation, I wonder what countries will continue repeating the line that Israel has the right to defend itself if we reach new heights in the numbers of killed civilians.

Destroying the south of Gaza Hamas in the southern part of Gaza is the now the aim for Bibi ? ? ?

And I wonder how more enthusiasm for the 'just cause' Bibi will get when he returns to the war... :death:

Why did they write in the article about 'artificially' raising oil demand?

What's artificial in that you promote what your country can provide?

Anyway, with the current prices I'm sure that they have to promote oil products. Having seen over 100 dollar per barrel prices and having now well over 50 dollar prices make alternative energy sources quite competitive (this year Brent prices have been over 70 dollars, now it's 80 dollars).

Just to put things into scale, the war in Gaza has now killed more Palestinians than were killed in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. In the scale of the 80-year conflict, that is much.

Nah, Ukraine still isn't ruled by a Nazi regime; those claims are straight from the Kremlin's propaganda machine (don't echo them). — jorndoe

Oh he will echo them.

How else would we be on page 535 here?

I think there is a grain of truth in this, but I emphasis 'grain'. And here moreso than many other places, a little learning is dangerous. But this 20-year-old article on physicist John Wheeler's 'participatory universe' can be interpreted to say something like that. — Wayfarer

In my view Wheeler and especially the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics are the pinnacle of (logical) positivism. Hence we have these models that puts the human observing something in the center of everything. Because ...it's us humans making the observations.

Logical positivism has been killed many times over by philosophers. But no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart, it arises unbidden in the minds of scientists. For if the content of a theory goes beyond what you can observe, then you can never, in principle, be sure that any theory is right. And that means there can be interminable arguments about which theory is right that cannot be settled by observation.

This, in a nutshell, is the central conundrum of quantum mechanics: how does the mathematical formalism used to represent a quantum system make contact with the world as given in experience? This is commonly called the measurement problem, although the name is misleading. It might better be called the where-in-the-theory-is-the-world-we-live-in problem.

Tim Maudlin: The Defeat of Reason

Old story, cumulative trust-erosion, mala fide. Another Kremlin character problem, ↪ssu? — jorndoe

Lol. Funny video, made it quite clear what they want.

It's the typical mischief Russia will do. We are used to it, they do it all the time. A Great Power has to flex it's muscles and put in line, right? :smile:

You see, we "crybabies" start our relations with other countries with following international treaties and so on. But for Russia anything there is in foreign is up to be something that one can pressure with. So it can be asylum seekers, trucks even custody battles between parents.

The best thing is that now in NATO people can talk about Russia openly. Basically the Cold War Finlandization ended when Russia attack Ukraine last year. It was a real political and cultural transformation.

The only root to a negotiated settlement is the collapse of the current Ukrainian government and essentially just accepting whatever the Russians want. — boethius

Perhaps too clearly stating your "pro-Russia party" credentials there, tovarich!

Yeah, why didn't my country and my grandparents generation accept the wisdom of not fighting back in WW2 and essentially just accept whatever the Russians want?

Oh yes, they were cry-babies. :grin:

That is a rather naive and ignorant view of how things work around in Europe.

Again, Sweden is irrelevant. If it wants to join of its own accordance, fine - another useful idiot to wave the flag - or such is the sentiment in Washington. — Tzeentch

Showing your ignorance again, Tzeentch.

Well, if Sweden was firmly non-aligned would mean that the situation in the Baltic Sea would be very different and the Baltic states would be in a very precarious situation. And without Sweden joining NATO (or applying to join) likely Finland would not have joined. In that case Putin could have smiled confidently, he would have a breach in EU/NATO and his most crucial waterway to international trade wouldn't be cut if a conflict arises with NATO.

If Sweden would then be similar as Belarus, then the whole situation in Europe would be extremely changed. Likely all other Nordic countries would be non-aligned and not try to have bad relations with Sweden. And Sweden likely with it's advanced military industry would be something that Russia desperately needs. Losing Sweden might turn to losing basically all the Nordic countries in some fashion.

(Swedish modern fighters are flown around the world. Not many countries have the ability to manufacture such aircraft.)

Sweden is an irrelevant nation. — Tzeentch

Response starting like this is quite irrelevant.

Besides, there are already NATO countries that oppose Ukrainian membership in the organization. So that's that. The only way forward is for the US to make bilateral treaties with Ukraine.

Hardly any stomach for that in the US.

Had the US succeeded in creating a fait accompli in Ukraine, it would have pushed for NATO membership and any politician foolish enough to get between the neocons and their project would be disposed of, with lethal force if need be. I'm convinced of that. — Tzeentch

That's simply nonsense. Hence we disagree. If Sweden hasn't got in, surely Ukraine would have been a problem. It had the "limbo answer" just like Turkey had for EU membership. Membership would always be possible in the future, because there was no reason to bar a sovereign state like Ukraine entering the alliance. However, it wasn't something that would happen, even if some US presidents would have liked that.

A good reminder that the West isn't the US.

In fact, Finland has gotten it's share of flak by earlier deciding to get an air defense system from Israel. When asked about it by Al Jazeera and reminded that the leftist alliance party has criticized this, the foreign minister could only say: "Finland is a democracy and we have a multiparty system - all politicians have the right to also oppose the decisions of the government". What else could she say? Yet the message is still quite the same as from Spain.

Thanks! A great documentary.

Yes, usually the generals and the intelligence officers tell the truth ...afterwards when retired. Naturally when in service they are loyal "team players" for the political leadership.

And the most obvious part is what Russia actually has done: annexed territories it has deemed to be an integral part of Russia. As said many times again and again, the whole annexation and then Russification of occupied territories show well this wasn't just about a pro-Russian government in Kiev or NATO enlargement. And "wasn't just about" NATO would be the correct way to see it. Yes, NATO enlargement was one reason, however if NATO enlargement would have been the only reason, then just a show of force in the border would have done it. NATO is an international organization and membership calls for every state to accept a new member. Sweden shows this. It wouldn't have been easy to do that no matter what an US president wants. That's why Americans like Trump can be so disappointed in NATO.

I prefer to be an optimist. That we don't hear about some great German project to reclaim all this land to the east, parts of which they had held for centuries, says something about peoples ability to move on given the right context. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or our lost Karelia. Nobody ever has thought that it could be gotten back and Finns even wouldn't like it back: it has now a Russian population that has lived there nearly 80 years.

Well, not a lot are craving either for those lands. As all the Finns living there were evacuated out from there, there was basically the memories and some unscrupulous Finnish politicians who after the Soviet Union fell held the view that talks with Russia could perhaps be possible just to get some votes of elderly (and foolish) Karelians. Of course it was nearly the first thing that Yeltsin in and interview had said that Russia would never in any situation give back land. (At least there was an opening that people could visit their old places.)

The Ukraine war, like the Winter War and Soviet-Polish War before it, seems like the opposite phenomenon. A self destructive inability to move on. Putin's own words on the subject certainly seem to look backwards more than forwards. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Russia simply has a character problem as Russia has always been an empire. People who support Putin basically fear that it will otherwise collapse even further than it did when the Soviet Union collapsed. And when those dying now in the Ukraine war come from Dagestan and other minority held places while St Petersburgh and Moscow don't feel the mobilization, it differences just grow.

I don't think the US shows the Occupied Territories as part of Israel on any official maps either. The US generally refers to them as "Occupied Territories." This is why Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem was a big deal; it was a tacit, if not open acknowledgement of Israel's possession of the land. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is true. And of course one thing no other administration had yet done.

Comes to mind the irony when the US got Morocco to normalize relations with Israel as it accepted that Western Sahara is part of Morocco.

US policy towards Israel hasn't always been a "blank check," e.g. forcing them out of the Suez. Rather, it seems to have evolved more towards one due to electoral pressured within the US and ill conceived GWOT policy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is quite true and I've said it myself, actually. The real divider was the six-day war. This was the glorious achievement that Israel gave the US when then Soviet backed Egypt and Syria (and Pan-Arabism) was defeated. Before Israel's closest ally was France.

Anyhow, I think the comparison to Ukraine is useful at showing just how counter productive Israel's apartheid policies have been. In Ukraine, no one outside of a very small fringe want to expell the 17% or so of the population that are ethnic Russians, a good deal of whom were settled there by force as recently as the 1930-1960 period. The groups get along and have a shared identity, despite the horrors of the 1930s. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And it should be noted that the invasion in 2022 actually united Ukrainians quite well. I don't think that there's anymore a language issue (something similar happened in Finland during the Winter War).

Yet in the case of Israel, its almost impossible to imagine an empowered PA state deciding that Israeli settlers were "a part of our community." Point being, peoples can overcome historical bad blood, but not if they live in largely separate ecosystem. It's a core example of Israeli apartheid undermining their own security. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've all the time said that there isn't a peaceful solution for the Israel-Palestinian question. That's the tragedy here.

Or then there is the way like the militaristic Europeans came to be pacifists and have this integration effort even to this day: have such violence as you had in WW1 and WW2 and then it's enough of bloodshed.

It's actually more close to that of a driver's license in that no one is blocking you from getting a driver's license, there's no authority that stops you getting the license. — Christoffer

At least here there is a test drive, which you have to pass. So yes, the authority can stop you from getting the license of you don't pass it.

If you are talking just about "mandatory education". Then the question is what is the punishment if you don't do your "mandatory education"? Is it a fine, or then an social-worker comes to check up how you are doing. Or then you aren't allowed to have children? It seems so based on what you state here:

So, if two people plan to get a child, they need to first apply for this evaluation (or education as you can see in my answer to Echarmion) and go through with it. If they are evaluated to be in the A category, a potential harm for a child, they cannot go through with it, and if they do, that child will go into adoption.

This is more Orwellian I thought. Before planning to have children, I guess a couple needs to show to the authorities that they are to be eligible to have children. So this evaluation happens when there even isn't a child! Perhaps it should be done immediately if people get married. Or just move together and are deemed to be in sexual relationship? Just in case...

Sucks to be planning for your first baby. Especially in the West that some countries try to get people to have more babies...

Just education alone could mitigate a large chunk of the problems in society. — Christoffer

Yet just education isn't same as a license for "being fit to have children". Besides, flunking that exam and wow, I guess looking for job places will be tough after you cannot to have this license.

Again I have to make ask again: why the obsession with a license? A reproduction permit?

Why not a softer approach?

Already authorities intervening in cases where parents simply cannot (or will not) parent their children are dramatic and some controversial. It's a delicate matter, not some regulation of handling hazardous stuff.

Right now we have voluntary education available, but I think at least mandatory education would save a lot of children from harm. Especially together with much better support from social security authorities, with a case handler that's constantly there for support during the first years of the child's life. — Christoffer

I would, and from my own personal experiences, support the Finnish method of the government giving free maternity package to pregnant mothers and couples and free counseling for future parents. It works, it has all the correct things and is very useful. That usefulness makes it so that people really use it. Rules and the threat of punishment isn't the only way you can inform people. And a very lousy way to try to "educate" them.

A Finnish maternity pack:

Well I did realize it, but not how significant of a dilemma it truly is. — Vaskane

As I've thought about it, this happens actually mainly for purely domestic political reasons. To put it bluntly, it isn't the 7 million Jewish Americans, it's the 70 million Christian Evangelists for whom Israel is the Holy Land and who want that support to be so staunch.

Someone whom I'm argued against in his views about the war in Ukraine is John Mearsheimer. Yet he does have a point in the case of the US-Israel relation: the "Israeli lobby" is no conspiracy, it is one of those very effective pressure groups that is typical for American politics itself (think for NRA and the gun lobby).

Mearsheimer in this case looks at domestic politics (of the US), which he should do also in the case of Russia too, but he sticks to his theories and doesn't do this.

The reality is that this issue of neutrality or then trying to join NATO or then wanting better ties with Russia (for example to avoid being invaded and destroyed), is extremely controversial in Ukrainian society. There are large groups of people on each side of this policy issue. — boethius

More proper would be to say "was extremely controversial" and "there were large groups".

But of course, that the attacked unified Ukraine naturally is accepted by some here.

If Israel is allowed to do it, why can't Russia?

That's the whole point of what I'm getting at.

If Israel is allowed to forcibly remove population and replace it with its own, why can't other countries? — Vaskane

Yet the obvious answer here is: using force to annex territories is against international law in both cases!

It's the US that has a moral dilemma here, other countries are pretty consistent on this. Maps still used here in my country do separate the West Bank and Gaza from Israel as they don't draw Crimea belonging into Russia. I think only one country gives that unwavering support for any action Israel makes.

. By calling others "totalitarian" you are labeling them and isn't engaging in the philosophical argument correctly. — Christoffer

I do apologize for this, but just to note that it is totalitarian societies that would do this kind of licensing or have licenses for reproduction. And I would emphasize that we are talking about a human right.

Licensing something that is a human right is very questionable in my view. You've already responded to this later, so I'll come back to this. Yet first and foremost, there are naturally many ways that authorities by law intervene in these things. A license-system is one specific way..

But you build you argument on the idea that the license has some arbitrary totalitarian principles for deciding who's going to be a parent or not. — Christoffer

Having not a license when you should have is braking the law. It is as simple as that.

This is a strawman since the parameters of decision has to do with evaluating the possible damage onto the child by evaluating the competence of the parent. — Christoffer

This itself is a strawman argument here. Look at what Merriam-Webster defines a license:

License: a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful.

Hence the activity is unlawful if you don't have the license. Yet for some reason you argue that this has to be dealt with the action of licensing the activity, not by as at the present by authorities intervening if there are problems. Which is my basic point.

If you are going to bring in human rights, then we can easily apply Right to Health into the mix in the perspective of the child. — Christoffer

Great! Lets think about that. Because the human rights start usually with a fetus that is defined to be that human (hence you cannot have an abortion on the last month of the pregnancy). I'm all for the perspective of the child.

But how that license works here?

Well, any activity, occupation etc that we get the permission to do, with the licenses, is gotten before you start the activity. So do the license applicant apply for this reproduction-license when they think they will try to get a child or simply when the mother is pregnant?

Is it then either you get the license or a) the mother does an abortion or b) the newly born child is immediately whisked away when he or she is born?

A human right is, as I mentioned, also Right to Health, which, through the perspective of the child, means they have the right not to be mistreated by their parents or put in harms way by incompetence of their childcare abilities. — Christoffer

And as the vast majority of parents aren't so deadly for their children, the sound and logical system is to intervene in those cases when the child is in danger. Not by have a license system that makes reproduction without the license unlawful.

We do that with a lot of things that otherwise are legal. We can (in many countries) use alcohol. But usually if someone misbehaves under the influence, there are many laws that limit this. But then the issue is misbehaviour, violence or whatever.

Instead of doing these slippery slope fallacies you're doing when arguing against this type of parent license, look at what the intent and practice is supposed to be. — Christoffer

And you should too, actually, because I'm not referring to fallacies here. Having some ownership or activity regulated by a permission from an authority is one form for regulators to act.

And the question which you shouldn't try to evade here is: is for the protection of children the best way to response with authorities implementing a license-system on reproduction?

I simply doubt that is not the most effective way, and it would cause resentment with others than me.

Approaching this logically, yet impractically, kitchen knives hurt their owners >90% of the time, yet adults with serious problems due to toxic childhoods generally harm folks other than their parents >90% of the time. — LuckyR

And how many own kitchen knives and have accidents with them, compared to adults that harm other people?

But the issue is here the licensing, the segregation of people in the form of a license on what they can do. People understand that you need a license for fire arms, explosives with the ability severely maim or kill people. Yes, you should now how to use them. But kitchen knives?

Having a license is quite a totalitarian way to solve the problem and likely opens up other ways that authorities can control lives of citizens.

Just take the case of above Hugh Lafollette. Because the link doesn't work for me, I don't know if this is either @Christoffer writing or then Hugh Lafollette quote. Either if it's Hugh or Christoffer, a comment:

Is a driving license, that you have showed the you know traffic rules and are capable of driving really comparable here? Do we need a license for a bicycle? A toddler can hurt himself or herself with a small tricycle. But the toddler cannot cause huge danger with a tricycle. A person with a big truck can cause a lot of harm. And, even if it might sound strange for Americans, driving isn't a human right.

But, for the totalitarians here wanting licenses for everything, creating a family is a human right.

Let's take into focus from Declaration of Human rights, article 16.

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

So having the right to marry and to found a family is a human right. So basically here people want a license for an issue that is a human right. I think this is totally wrong.

I support the idea for a license for parents on the simple fact that we have licenses for every other thing in society that has potential to harm someone if not practiced correctly. Like a driver's license. So why should parents be able to take care of a defenseless child with the enormous risk of putting that child in harm due to malpractice, incompetents or downright bad intentions? — Christoffer

So there you have it. Parenting, having children is something like driving a car and knowing the traffic signals. What is a family, motherhood (or fatherhood) else than a danger to an infant?

I'd like to challenge the idea that this strategy for society can only exist in a totalitarian society. That conclusion does not take into account the number of licenses and certificates that we already have and it makes a straw man out of the concept by not even engaging with the process of building a framework around the concept as a practical process in society. We already have something of this process for adoption agencies doing a thorough review of the adoption parents before they are allowed to adopt a child. So why would such parents be treated in that way and not parents getting their own child? What is the difference? — Christoffer

The difference is that we do have those processes in society when things don't work. But usually only after they don't work. A license is different. License here is something universal: everybody has to have one. Without one, you are breaking the law. Besides, getting a license you have to prove to an authority, a total stranger, that you do have the qualifications of having children. And the idea is with a certain objective as it's a license: you pose a threat otherwise. Great approach towards your citizenry.

And lastly, assume you would have this extremely stupid arrangement of a license for something that is extremely natural and is considered a human right. Then what you think would be the result when statistics would show that (for example) minorities don't get the license as often as the majority does? Or that (what is actually quite likely) that poor people don't get it as often as the rich?

Great job with your licensing on social cohesion then, because people won't think that the objective is to "protect children", but protect the society from "children of certain people". Yep, it surely is quite totalitarian.

As a response to Russia's hybrid attack on Finland with sending and assisting refugees to the border, the opposition leader Lindtman proposed aiding Ukraine military with 100 000 euros for refugee that manages to cross the border. "Our support for Ukraine doesn't waiver, the focus won't go off Ukraine, on the contrary. " he said. (Own translation from Finnish)

Lindtman is the leader of social democrat party after Sanna Marin, which just shows how in unison the political parties are about the situation.

Do something twice, and you lose strategic surprise initiative.

When some years ago Russia did the same kind of maneuver, the Finnish politicians were dumbfounded and didn't know how to reply. Only behind closed doors the authorities understood the hybrid attack. Now it was immediately revealed by the media how the FSB was behind this. EU countries firmly understand this and there isn't anymore the discord that happened with the refugee crisis in 2016. The response is world away from what it was back then.



That discord and uncertainty is now in how to deal with the situation in the Middle East, not with Russia.