Here's the orginal article in Finnish:

IL:n tiedot: Suomen suojaksi 4 000–5 000 sotilaan panssaroitu Nato-prikaati

I think it's basically just extremely sloppy journalism: didn't even care to read the article carefully, took just the headline and made a story from it.

Quite in line with what I argued earlier, the idea that radical loonies are in charge of anything is just a guise — Tzeentch

Is it a disguise? The Likud party had as it charter "From the River to the Sea" Israel without any Palestinian state ever existing.

How is that a disguise? I think it's quite straight forward and consistent from them.

Interesting view, if "things get out of hand in a nuclear way", let's blame the US as the puppet master and the Ukrainians as the puppets, and not even mention Russia as the one actually nuclear bombing the region. — neomac

Some are here the cheerleaders for the attacker in this war. First there was no attack, just US creating hysteria over a possible attack. Then it has been a victory for Russia, case closed, for all the time. Why won't the Ukrainians simply stop and surrender because they have no chance against Russia?

Western audiences have become so gullible and ignorant that they would believe whatever story they try to sell it under. — Tzeentch

Everything is the West's fault. All the injustices that happen in the World happen because of the West.

This naive and false idea makes them believe that they're smart as they criticize the West.

Finland to deploy up to 5,000 NATO troops near Russian border
— Lisa Lambrecht · Deutsche Welle · Aug 22, 2024 — jorndoe

This is typical "journalism" of today, from DW:

The Finnish authorities have decided to station a NATO armored brigade on the territory of this country to contain external threats. A new formation of 4,000-5,000 soldiers and officers is already being formed and will be deployed in the city of Mikkeli, located near the border with Russia, the Finnish publication Iltalehti

What the Finnish newspaper Iltalehti actually said is that an lower HQ is to be established at Mikkeli, which will start to organize the training of a brigade (in the future). And it's equipment will be forward deployed into Finland (in the future). Basically at one time, once the training starts that is, there will be deployed a battalion with a strength of 800 soldiers. That's it.

This likely will happen annually, I assume, just like the training syllabus of other formations go. Hence there won't be a permanent station of even 800 men. But I guess the HQ, about 15 to 50 people (which many likely will be Finnish officers already in Mikkeli).

That is quite different from a formation of "4,000 - 5,000 soldiers and officers is already being formed and will be deployed in the city of Mikkeli". From that you get the false impression that actually 4000 to 5000 NATO will be deployed to Finland and exist there in it's entirety all the time. Where 4000 to 5000 soldiers would be permanently housed I have no idea, as such it would be one of the largest military bases in Finland...which isn't built. :smile:

Actually we have that in Finland with the Presidential elections as we have a multiparty system with three or four large similar voter base having parties and then small parties.

Elections have to be simple enough for people to understand them. This what you stated (RCV) is one of the clearest ways. If there are a multiple of candidates that get similar amount of votes (something that doesn't happen in the US with it's duopoly in political parties) and nobody gets 50% on the first round, then there's a second round with two candidates that got the most votes. The picking of the two best is enough usually. Having election day twice isn't too much.

It's simple and easy to understand.

I myself also do like the D'Hondt method which takes into account how much the party in general has won and how much the individual candidates have won. Of course this way has funny result that if in an electoral district there's a hugely popular candidate of one party, let's say Josef Stalin, and the party has also with him totally unknown or hated candidates that get just a few votes, they'll go in assisted by the result of the huge electoral winner. The method (called also the Jefferson method) isn't easy to understand itself (the calculation method) and it makes coalitions useful, but I think it works.

What I don't like are these political systems where ruling parties make it extremely hard for new parties to get seats. And (unfortunately) in the case of the US, the POTUS has this "Superman" image as if one person could make a huge change to the system. True political change starts actually from the communal level.

Neither one of the US candidates appeals to me. — Athena

In short, just having two political parties simply cannot be representive of what a population wants.
That's the problem. In fact, when these two entrenched parties agree on something, the matter isn't discussed at all, but given as a law of nature. It also creates the bedrock for corruption and the negative aspects of US politics.

Yes, even if there would be more candidates that have a realistic chance that they might win, you still might be disappointed. Yet with just basically a right-wing party and a centrist one, you won't have enough choices. The whole "primaries" thing is a stupid charade, where people hope to change political parties from inside.

Anyway, I'm guessing that a solution would require both plausible security guarantees and ongoing justice. — jorndoe

How this would happen is the real question.

Perhaps have then the European development.

Wonder why or how Europeans started to talk about peaceful integration, not only coexisting but being intergration an have continuously their heads of state meeting each other?

In order to pacify Europeans, you had to kill millions, tens of millions of Europeans in two absolutely devastating wars. With every fifth Polack being killed. Losing that war twice worked wonders on the German psyche.

That gives an opportunity for the peacenicks to have a say.

Israel is ground zero in the conflict between West and Islam. If Israel falls, Europe is next. — BitconnectCarlos

This is a whimsical and ludicrous statement that naturally Israel (and especially it's far right) will want to cherish. It is taken out of context, but as people wave Palestinian flags in riots and demonstrations around Europe, it's understandable that some people believe this. And there's a lot of people who want to spread these kind of ideas.

The absurdity starts naturally with the fall of Israel.

Of course the hilarious thing is that the real country that has a "muslim problem" is Russia, which in the right-wing discourse is viewed as a champion of Christianity (even if that's Orthodox). In the map those that are light green have less than 1% of the population muslim. How with 1% or less (or in that level anyway) some kind of "replacement" will happen is beyond my understanding. Kosovo, Northern Macedonia and even Bulgaria have had since the Middle Ages their muslim populations. For some reason they aren't the problem.

"from the river to the sea" is the original zionist motto - but I would rather be a muslim under jewish rule than a jew under muslim rule. Israel is currently fighting the palestinians over the west bank. The simple fact is is that Israel has no viable negotiating partner today. — BitconnectCarlos

And that's unfortunately been the objective for Likud. That's why Bibi gave money to Hamas earlier. Just as we can notice from the peace deals that Israel has with the neighbouring Arab countries, only a country in control of it's territory as Egypt or Jordan can make a peace deal with Israel. Lebanon, which has been a failed state for quite a long time simply cannot. And Palestine, well Israel doesn't even accept a Bantustan.

Simple fact is that peace in the Middle East comes through deterrence on both sides: if one side has no deterrence while the other side does, this other side will abuse this and continue it's military strikes. And this is primary cause why there is no peace in the Middle East: Israel can do whatever it wants with impunity as there isn't a real military threat for it. The air defenses against Iranian missiles work. It also is the only country in the region that has a nuclear deterrence.

Hence in the remote possibility of Isreal doing something extremely stupid, like blowing up the Al-Aqsa mosque and the dome of the rock and start to build again the Temple on the Temple mount, the Arab countries will not unify against it. We have seen this response already. And simply put: why would they want to go to war with a nuclear power backed up by the sole Superpower? Especially when their arms basically come from that Superpower itself.

The likeliest outcome is the continuation of the current situation. The real forever war continues.

pro palestinian protesters met with Harris this weekend and claimed that she would be open to stopping arms sales to Israel if elected (she is currently the slight favorite.) — BitconnectCarlos

I'm sure that Kamala can lie to their faces things like that.

The Democratic Party today is a very unreliable "ally" to Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Nah. That's GOP sillyness. Bibi has just set up the bar so high. Here "unreliable ally" means that the US won't parrot everything what Israel wants. And it's just rhetoric. The US will be committed to fight for Israel, just as it has done during the Biden administration. US troops are already in Israel defending it.

Both the Republicans and Democrats are promising to take care of us, leaving us nothing to do but obey and be thankful we are so well cared for. — Athena

Well, you're an American, right? What else would they say?

We'll be in power and we'll not care a shit about you, but keep voting for us.

Perhaps that would be at least honest?

What's going on here? — jorndoe

Taking the land by little steps, or one Palestinian at a time.

After all, the "River to the Sea" was Likud party's original platform:

The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

And btw, the original platform continued:

A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

When you think about it, Likud and Netanyahu have been extremely consistent in their objectives for many decades now. It simply isn't complicated. These guys aren't going to negotiate like the Labor governments did. That time is in the past. It would be hilarious if not so deadly tragic, that this party dedicated to it's original agenda and objectives is somehow portrayed in the hypocrite West to be as perhaps doing a two-state solution in the future. Quite similarly to those on the other side thinking that Hamas is willing to negotiate and make peace with Israel (especially after the example that happened to the PLO when it did go with the peace plan).

This conflict could have been solved in the end of the Cold War. This conflict should have been solved int the end of the Cold War. It wasn't. Hence it can totally possibly continue for the next hundred years.

It's interesting you chose to share a picture from 1945, during which Israel had not yet been established and the United States still could be said to have reasonable leadership. — Tzeentch

Then the close alliance started. Not even the worst terrorist attack hasn't withered this relationship as this pillar of the "Twin Pillars" policy has remained. Many times the two don't see things similarly, but so hasn't it been in the alliance between France and the US. And of course there's later pictures:





With Egypt naturally the close relations started only after the peace deal with Israel and the kicking out of the Soviet military advisors.

Ramble all you want in your own imaginations, it's just nonsense I won't be reading....

US and Egyptian interests clearly do not coincide, and this "alliance" is a product of something else. — Tzeentch

Clearly they do, just like Saudi-Arabia has done for a long time. Even if the two countries would seem to be perfect enemies for each other with 9/11 terrorists and OBL and everything. That for example the US came to the aid of Saudi-Arabia in the most spectacular fashion with Operation Desert Shield shows this bond, just as does the US support for the Saudi lead war in Yemen.



What you can only argue is that the relations might sour in the future, just as they did with Iran after it's revolution or like with Pakistan later. Yet the simply truth is that these two countries, just like the GCC countries, are quite crucial allies for the United States. Membership in BRICS doesn't change this reality, because there is a multitude of similar organization where countries hold summits.

I've been the first one here arguing that the US Middle East policy is a slow train wreck, but the truth is that many of the allies of United States aren't similar as NATO countries and have similar value based relationship and clearly have their own agendas.

But stay in your la la land where Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are enemies of the US.

Calling Egypt and Saudi-Arabia US allies just turns 'ally' into a vacuous term. Of course they are not allies - certainly not today. — Tzeentch

:lol:
Don't let actual reality or actual data hinder your delusions or your imagination:



If a country has gotten more military aid than the ill fated South Vietnam or the similarly ill fated Republic of Afghanistan and only Israel has gotten more, then you have very curious is your ideas of the enemies of the US. And likely you never have heard about the large Bright Star Exercises that the US and the Egyptian military have had from 1980 with latest in 2023 (and the next one to be in 2025). But, as I said, do not let reality hinder your imagination in any way.


From last year:

The US said it is cooperating "closely" with Egypt to de-escalate conflicts and promote sustainable peace, including by supporting UN mediation to enable elections in Libya as soon as possible.

They are also cooperating to restore a civilian-led transition in Sudan through the Framework Political Agreement, the statement added.

It noted that both nations share "an unwavering" commitment to a negotiated two-state solution as the only path to a "lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and equal measures of security, prosperity, and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians."

The US said, based on Egypt’s transformational peace with Israel, it is partnering with Egypt to foster further regional cooperation including through the Negev Forum process, the state department added.

The statement added that Egypt is a valued US partner in counterterrorism, anti-trafficking and regional security operations, which advance both US and Egyptian security.

The decades-long defense partnership, it noted, is a pillar for regional stability.

It is interesting. I think it was the German authorities that made it.

I think Sweden actually stopped the investigations. Which I found quite telling.

I'm thinking more and more that this was a panic of the Biden administration or then really an Ukrainian effort. Or then both.

Of course now with Ukrainians holding a Russian city with the gas pipeline (and even earlier), Ukraine has had this dilemma: it's totally in their interest to attack key economic targets like the pipelines that Russia has, but that has quite a lot of international effects, also to those countries that support it. This is again the problem when Germany, for example, is aiding Ukraine but not part of the actual conflict.

Well, Germany has been quite clueless. At least Finland hasn't. Now when the border is closed and all trade has stopped, it's been really devastating for the border municipalities here in Finland. But there's no whining, on the contrary, people there say that earlier they were (and Finns in general) were too naive when it came to Putin's Russia.

They then thought that it was an ordinary country that would want to have good economic ties with it's neighbors and that there would be normal relations, just like Finland has with Sweden or Norway.

Well, Siberia teaches, as the saying goes.

Uh, both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US. — ssu

They are really not, but there have been times during which the US attempted to placate them. — Tzeentch

Again @Tzeentch is in his fictional alternative universe. Get your facts straight, man.

Why do I bother commenting your absurdities and errors?

to say that Israel has the US wrapped around its finger is simply a misassessment of reality. Tensions have heightened in recent talks and the Biden administration has been quietly targeting Israel with unprecedented sanctions. — BitconnectCarlos

Is it?

Let's take what these "unprecedented sanctions" have just been, from the link you gave us:

The goal is not to reverse any policy by the Israeli government but to create a climate of controversy around Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition partners.

So, the goal is not to reverse any policy... sounds odd for sanctions, but perhaps not for "unprecedented sanctions". As here the victims of the sanctions are like these:

(PBS News, March 14th 2024) he Biden administration on Thursday imposed sanctions on three extremist Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank who are accused of harassing and attacking Palestinians to pressure them to leave their land.

Two farms that the settlers run were also targeted in the move that is likely to increase already heightened tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the Gaza war.

The announcement from the State Department and Treasury comes at a time of increasing friction between President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose far-right government has reacted angrily to previous sanctions imposed against West Bank settlers.

U.S. officials — from Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken — have repeatedly raised concerns about a surge in settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank since Israel’s war on Hamas in the Gaza Strip began.

Here's about this from the German DW News:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=k5DckrHCVBg

Hence these sanctions are against few single individuals, to whom likely this "sanctions" aren't even a nuisance, but a badge of honor. Hence it's rather whimsical even to refer to sanctions in the way we understand sanctions against Russia, Iran or North Korea.

And as the economy changes the human practices that are a part of it will too. And the economy is never stable, so science will continue to change. — Moliere

That's a similar conclusion I've made too.

Basically when humanity has to adapt to the post-Peak population era with falling populations all over the World, a lot more than just economics with models of perpetual growth have to be changed. It's not just economics: social sciences have to adapt to explain the new situation. Just like the research on infectious diseases have to adapt to the new diseases that simply show up. (If there aren't any, at least you always have a lab leak!)

Perhaps the real question is sciences like Physics, Chemistry or even Philosophy in general.

But great that you are optimistic! :)

It's not like the US hasn't tried on both accounts. — Tzeentch

Uh, both Egypt and Saudi-Arabia are allies of the US.

Coincidence? I guess so, since apparently US grand strategy doesn't exist, and articles like 'A Geostrategy for Eurasia' by Zbigniew Brzezinski apparently don't exist either. — Tzeentch

Mr Brzezinski, the former security advisor of Jimmy Carter doesn't make up the "Grand Strategy" of the US. Yes, he can write books like the "Grand Chessboard", but it's whimsical to assume that he controls a "Grand Strategy" of the US.

I'm honestly a bit shocked you would claim that US grand strategy doesn't exist, but all that means is that the US is being successful at hiding their agenda. — Tzeentch

I'm not at all surprised that you think that the all the administrations from the Carter administration through Trump to Biden have behind them a "Grand Strategy"...

...masterminded by Zbigniew Brzezinski. :snicker:

In fact your idea of there being a "Grand Strategy" simply shows how little you know of how Washington works and how it goes through different agendas and strategies all the time. Or you think that from "CENTO" to "Twin Pillars" to "Dual Containment" to "War on Terror" truly represent a part of a "Grand Strategy" in the Middle East?

Heck, even the stance on Israel has changed quite a lot, if you start from the 1940's.

It's now more like the far left, muslims, and far right have formed a bloc that opposes Israel. So it's more like horseshoe theory. Moderate Dems are generally supportive of it as are most Republicans except the ones are fringes like the groypers/white supremacists. — BitconnectCarlos

You do understand that people mean with the far right (just as with the far left) totally different people that others think they are.

Bibi said he did not intend to take Gaza in his speech to the US Congress. Maybe you know Bibi was lying? — BitconnectCarlos

Bibi knows just what to tell the Americans and when. For him Americans aren't a problem, he's lived enough time in the US and has followed the politics to understand how American politics works.

Young Bibi at Cheltenham High Year Book:


(Which btw Bibi later lied about... as he stated that he would have just been in schools in Israel)

What we are witnessing is a dangerous shift toward a worldview in which power and military force are the only legitimate means of ensuring security, regardless of the human cost. — Benkei

It's a tactic of rhetorical attack as would populist do. Your do not engage in any discussion, you simply firmly state your line, something that many could call propaganda.

A country that deliberately bombs hospitals, schools, refugee camps, universities, museums, churches, mosques, and entire residential neighborhoods rejects the foundations of a civilised way of life. The West's continued support not only undermine the principles of justice and humanity but pose a direct threat to everything we stand for as a civilised society. — Benkei

Seems you would be also talking about Russian forces, but anyway.

I think it was you @Benkei, that remarked this being a genocide done simply slowly. This may have the point in that if the IDF doesn't take into consideration civilians as when the US has fought in Iraqi cities, which is now quite obvious from the death toll, it doesn't reach the sickening numbers of civilians killed by Germany during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 or what the Japanese forces did in Manila and Nanjing. Yet that number of killed is far higher than how many civilians have been killed in the Ukraine war, even if it would have the few battalions of Palestinian fighters included.

Of course the fact is that Israel is also changing a lot. It isn't similar as what it was in the 20th Century and just shows clearly that a rather secular society can become more religious even in this Century.

Hm. I'm honestly not one to ascribe a decisive amount of influence to interest groups and lobbies like the US Israel lobby. — Tzeentch

Then you should compare the relationship to other allies of the US. Politics is in the end domestic politics.

I think Israel serves US grand strategy in that it gives the US a vital proxy in an economically important region. For example, Iran occupies one of three vital bottlenecks that connect China to Europe, the Middle-East and Africa overland. The other two being Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. — Tzeentch

If we go to geopolitics, wouldn't then Egypt be a far more crucial link with it having the Suez Canal? Or simply Saudi-Arabia with it's position and oil reserves? Sorry, but you cannot explain the exceptional status of US-Israeli relations by other means than the amount of American voters for whom Israel is important. Especially when there is no Soviet Union, when Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and the GCC states are allies of the US. During the Cold War it was totally different.

In my view, it isn't. These groups are just the patsies, while the main driver is actual US grand strategy and the interest groups we believe are somehow causing this are just the vultures flocking to the smell of fresh carrion. — Tzeentch

US Grand Strategy?

Really?

Sorry, but there's no US Grand Strategy when it come to the real actions and policies which the US takes.

Of the Great Powers I would say that the only country that has the patience and ability to think long term so much that it really could have something like a "Grand Strategy" is simply China.

Let us take a moment to note that the person responsible for conducting the most well-documented genocide in recorded history, Benjamin Netanyahu, got some 50 standing ovations while delivering a speech in US Congress.

It's like watching a scene out of Maoist China.

I wonder how Americans reflect on this. — Tzeentch

Students do.

This conflict should have been solved when the Cold War ended, but it didn't.

The Israeli right and Netanyahu understood that for the US, the US-Israeli axis was far more than just an Cold War alliance. It wasn't the few million American Jews, but all the Evangelists who had a special place in their heart for Israel. And Bibi has been the best politician to use this totally exceptional relationship. I think he partly could be said to be also a de facto American politician. That's how well he can influence the US, even if he basically is a foreigner.

Media has already forgotten it. Just look at this thread. The wheels of justice turn slowly and at least e have a few court cases to look forward to. — Benkei

And unfortunately, which I truly hate, for some it has become part of the left/right culture war.

The sad fact is that the IDF can continue this for a very long time ...it isn't unbearable for the Israeli society. After all, perpetual low intensity conflict is the "natural state" of Israel for the ruling party whose original motto was "from the river to the sea". And they are confident they will get there, it will just take time.

That seems sensible in purely military terms, though using conscripts is politically risky. — Echarmion

Not at all at this stage. Just look that they aren't from Moscow of St Petersburgh. And the fighting is in Russia.

It'll be interesting to see whether combat on this front if going to look significantly different from what we've mostly seen due to the absence of mines and heavy fortifications. — Echarmion

It makes sense from the Ukrainians if it lures Russian troops away from where they are focusing their assaults.

It's not the exception but a feature. — Benkei

Now about 39 000 in Gaza have been killed. That's like every 58th person
in Gaza.

I assume the way is now for the media just to forget it ...and with people then being surprised later (perhaps in 2025, 2026) that it's still going on.

But the position of low military spending relative to other European countries has remained, and thus it's only position is to be integrationist, not independent. It relies on the military support of others, and has no standing in regards to its hard power other than small support roles like it did in Afghanistan and Iraq. — schopenhauer1

But then few outside the Baltic States and former Warsaw Pact countries could fathom how belligerent and utterly insane Russia would be with starting wars annexing territories from it's neighbors.

One truly has to simply totally sideline the actual delusional rhetoric that has been repeated in this war. Perhaps people would understand just how crazy it is if we would assume that the prime minister of UK would have similar rhetoric of "All the people of the British Isles should historically and by all logic be part of the same nation" and that the Republic of Ireland is simply an "artificial state" and it should naturally be part of the UK and it's independence has been a huge tragedy. Now a British politician truly saying something like that would be considered insane and briskly removed from office due to his apparent mental problems. Or perhaps an Austrian politician make the argument that Hungary and Austria should become one again.

But with Russia, this is totally natural and actually insignificant for those that want to see absolutely everything in the World just happening because of the evil US. But that's the repeated arguments for hundreds of pages now.

Yet the Ukrainian attack into Kursk shows that evidently the war isn't over.

- tho normal social hierarchies that are alive in all parts of our life are still operational in the sciences, too. — Moliere

And this is all it is, actually. After reading Thomas Kuhn's work I found it perplexing how someone could see it as something revolutionary or something that would be tarnish the shining shield of science. The simple fact that people in groups behave as people in groups. Yet this doesn't make science itself something else, a totally "social construct" as some wrongly think.

:D I don't mind. It is the lounge for a reason, even if there are some heady thoughts out there -- I really wanted to brainstorm science with this thread, as in, trip across different ideas about science that are nevertheless important. And that requires a tolerance for branching out to related subjects (and since I've barely set a theme, well... have at it!) — Moliere

I think there's no reason to have this in the lounge... this is an open Philosophy Forum and hence the threads in the first page aren't so different from this in the end.

An interesting question is if science will change, or will it be rather similar to what we have now even in the distant future, let's say 200 years from now in 2224. Now we can see very well where science was in 1824, just on this verge of a huge sprint that was taken in the late 19th Century and in the 20th Century. Yet in 1824, what typically was taught in the universities of the time and what was publicly known might be different than we think now. But how close science in 2224 to science in 2024? The more similar it is, I think it's more depressing as one would hope that astonishing new ideas would come around.

But will they?

If the knowledge or insight is worth money, yes. However there's still a lot of academic and scientific studies that people, who have done them, would enjoy if their ideas would be picked up by others. It's totally understandable that for example nuclear weapons technology and the science used is declared classified and you just don't sell it to anyone that wants it. With philosophy, it isn't.

Still, I think that there is a problem when there simply are so many scientists and academic researchers, group behavior kicks in and an incentive emerges to create your own "niche" by niche construction: a group creates it's own vocabulary and own scientific jargon, which isn't open to someone that hasn't studied the area. Then these people refer to each others studies and create their own field. Another name for this could be simply specialization: you create your own area of expertize by specialization on a narrower field. When there are a masses of people doing research, this is the easy way to get to those "new" findings. Hence even people in the natural sciences can have difficulties in understanding each other, let alone then the people who are studying the human sciences. Perhaps it's simply about numbers: 30 scientists can discuss and read each others research and have a great change of ideas, but 3 000 or 30 000 cannot. Some kind of pecking order has to be created. The end result is that you do get a science that is "Kuhnian" just by the simple fact that so many people are in science.

(In 1927 it was easier just with 29 quantum physicists meeting each other)


I remember when studying a course in philosophy in the university I personally got irritated when a philosophy teacher said that one could only use the German words for some philosophical terms or otherwise their "essence" would be lost (think example's like Heidegger's Dasein). Well, if you cannot translate your ideas to another language or cannot define something by using other words, there's something wrong with you. But that's just my opinion and others can disagree with this.

And this is universal and not just limited to philosophy. I remember another historian who went to great lengths to write one of her historical books to be as easily readable for the layman as she could do only then to be scolded by her peers for the book not being "academic" enough. For some to be as understandable as possible isn't the objective, the objective is to limit those who don't know the proper terms out of the discussion, even if they could participate in the discussion. Naturally people will simply argue that just like with abbreviations, we make it easier for people to read it when we use the academic jargon. But there can really be other intensions also.

(Yes, it's the length of the equation, even if mathematical beauty would say otherwise)

As a starting place maybe it'd be nice if public libraries had access to academic journals. Taxes go to pay for that research after all. It should be accessible. — Moliere

Better even if academic journals would be available freely in the net. Think about general science magazines if they would have links to all the original publications. There's still the paywall and simply you have to somehow have to have the knowledge of an interesting article being in some publication.

I'm interested in something called arbitrary transfers. Basically any transfer of money without any goods or services in return. — Mark Nyquist

What is arbitrary about them?

Even the US government is spending about half into transfer payments to individuals and businesses (mostly to individuals). This include Social Security, unemployment insurances, student grants, etc.

Welfare states do it even more.

Something along those lines has come up before. — jorndoe

As many other things and issues. Over and over again in this thread.

Russia has a population of 144 million, and a GDP of 2.2 trillion.

It's tiny. Germany alone doubles Russia's GDP. — Tzeentch

Doesn't matter when Germany has a tiny army that could be swept away. Just look at the difficulties that Germany has had in increasing it's defense spending. Bureaucratic Germany with it's people not threatened with Russia isn't going to budge easily.

War with the Russians is in European interests?

The fact that you're saying this is why I keep emphasizing you're war-hungry to the point of absurdity, and you don't even seem to notice it yourself. — Tzeentch

You have to have deterrence to keep the peace.

Now creating that deterrence will simply get some people to think that your war-hungry. Well, I'm not.

But the cold fact is the deterrence is to prepare for war. What else would it be? You shouldn't forget that.

We are no longer a key ally to the United States, since we are nowhere near the Pacific and likely to stay on the sideline if large-scale conflict were to break out there. In fact, we will profit from a war in the Pacific, directly and indirectly. That now makes us a threat and a potential rival to the US. — Tzeentch

First of all, the globalized World won't profit from something far more devastating than a trade war. The disruption to the global trade routes and supply chains would be far more bigger than anything experienced during the Covid pandemic.

And your forgetting that the US has nothing like NATO in Far East. Don't you remember how SEATO simply collapsed? What are the goddam allies of the US? How close are South Korea and Japan to make some joint effort here? What are US allies there in the Pacific? Australia, and the UK! Not much of an alliance that AUKUS.

This is the peril when you have only nation-to-nation defense agreements, but not a treaty organization with collective defense. What countries would (or could) assist the US, if China went for Taiwan? The Japanese? How much? The South Koreans? They have to deal with North Korea. Likely Japan could give a few destroyers and subs, but likely it would hold it's resources back. And in truth the US is lousy in creating new workable alliances, because it doesn't want to.

In truth, the more the US gives the middle finger to Europe and NATO, the more it plays to the hands of the Russians and the Chinese. Just like forcing Ukraine to give up will just play into the hands of Putin and Xi Jingping. And the more likely it will want then for assistance from NATO, if there is an actual conflict in Taiwan.

Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war - which is of course exactly what Uncle Sam is trying to achieve in Eastern Europe. — Tzeentch

Pointlessly antagonizing Russia?

Look, Putin has all the time wanted to portray Western Europe as a threat Russia. That Russia is under threat is the reason he can claim to have to have dictatorial powers. Every opposition to his regime is a CIA backed attempt to break up Russia in his view. Fear of the West is the essential oxygen that the Kremlin breathes. I think that you simply don't understand this and all the incredible bullshit the Kremlin is really creating about the West. Just like this one, just to give one example:

(The Barents Observer, August 2023) One of Russia’s most powerful men this week paid a visit to the Republic of Karelia, the region located along Russia’s border to Finland. Nikolai Patrushev is Secretary in the Russian Security Council and a close ally of Vladimir Putin since the 1990s.

In a meeting on national security held in Petrozavodsk, the Karelian capital, Patrushev warned against terrorist attacks from the West.

“In Karelia, ten crimes of terrorist character planned by “westerners” and Ukrainian special services have been averted only over the last half year,” Patrushev said. He claims that western security services are deliberately trying to stir separatist tensions with the aim of destabilising the political situation in the region.

And the foreign services are especially working towards youth, he argues.

“On social media, separatist calls are propagated [and] western special services’s sabotage and terrorist pursuit in the region constitute a security threat to population,” the security chief said.

Patrushev’s meetings in Karelia are covered by regional government newspaper Respublika.

According to Nikolai Patrushev, additional measures must now be taken to disclose and avert terrorist activity in the region. And effort should be concentrated on transport infrastructure, as well as energy objects and objects of biological and chemical character. Also teaching institutions and public places of mass gathering of people must be given priority, he underlined.

The Republic of Karelia has close historical ties with neighbouring Finland and cross-border relations thrived through much of the 1990s and early 2000s.

(See here)

This is the kind of bullshit rhetoric coming out from the Kremlin to it's own people. And then you think creating deterrence is antagonizing Russia too much?

As though US geopolitical strategy is going to be guided in any way by what NATO countries want, as oppossed to what necessity dictates. — Tzeentch

Actually it is guided. Biden was all in favour of the "pivot" to Asia and his administration full of the "pivot people", just like Obama's. But he cannot and couldn't. That's the power of Atlanticism.

For Superpower USA, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the jewel in it's crown. But if American want to let their hubris go rampant and think their stature in the World doesn't need NATO or any allies (except Israel), I think they are mistaken. If the US really leaves NATO, then Europe will have to reorganize itself. But it's not something where the US wins.

Believe it or not, but I don't think that especially those Americans wanting to "make America great again" don't want the country to be the bigger Canada. Yeah, isolationism sounds great at first, but then when other countries really don't give a fuck, then comes the anger back when people find that isolationism is not a cure-all, just as Brexit wasn't for the Brits.

The simple fact is that the West is stronger together. Something that some people hate.

Incommensurability would indeed be an interesting question, perhaps even of an own thread. At least with icommensurability, the question of infinitesimal being larger than zero but then could be discarded might work.

To show that the idea of Zeno's dogs least and most eating dogs, infinity and infinitesimal as a number, isn't so far off and how non-standard analysis has made the infinitesimal a come back is explain for example in the following video:

What you're describing are US-European relations during the Cold War. During this time, Europe was a key US ally against the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that this relationship has been fundamentally changing since the end of the Cold War, and especially since China has emerged as the new threat to US power. — Tzeentch

In Europe, especially countries like Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States see the situation as the continuation of Cold War. Hence they usually are flabbergasted when (and especially after 2022) when some idiot starts talking about the present as totally different from the Cold War.

The idea of a fundamental change is nonsense. It was the nonsense when it was eagerly talked in the 1990's, when the membership of Russia in NATO was on the table. Then it was the "New Threats" and things like conscription were "ancient relics of a bygone era". Not anymore. If you wouldn't have ex-KGB officers at helm in Russia, yes, Russia could have been totally different.

What has changed is that Germany is unified and now has a bulwark of Poland between it and Russia. For Poland the situation is far more perilous than it was in the late 1990's (and thus it's vast rearmament program).

Since the Ukraine war, it has become increasingly clear that US and European interests divert in a way that is dangerous for Europe. The US is using European naivety in this regard to have us hamstring ourselves. — Tzeentch

I have no idea what you are talking about here. European and US interests are quite the same: the totally reckless territory annexing Russia threatening with nuclear weapons is a threat. You seem to be in your own echo-chamber.

Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army. — Tzeentch

That's why Europe simply needs to rearm. The assistance it has given to Ukraine has in now way been a real burden.

We are now no longer "friends," but temporary assets to the US, and the US is already preparing the ground for when Europe finally slips its orbit. — Tzeentch

Bullshit again.

NATO countries don't want the US to go. And the idea that Americans want to be just like Canadians isn't true. But that's the reality if the US wants to go out of "foreign entanglements" like NATO and Atlanticism: then the US is just a large Canada. People don't know (or care) in Europe what the Canadian government wants. But naturally everybody has quite good relations with Canada.

And why this thinking that the countries want to severe good ties? That's the thing in your anti-American hostility you forget.

There's no point in talking about the Soviet Union. Russia today has nowhere close to the power of the former Soviet Union. It's a completely different country. — Tzeentch

Again wrong. Russia has a very large armed forces and a nuclear deterrent, while European armies have fallen in size dramatically from the Cold War era. And present day Russia is as aggressive if not more aggressive than the Soviet Union.

But Finland has been working with NATO for a long time, and has been a member of the European Union almost since the start. — Tzeentch

Assuming that the EU started at 1993 is wrongful, the treaty of Rome in 1957 would be far more correct. Naturally Finland has tried to have as much of ties with the West, earlier there was naturally the obstacle of "Finlandization".

Obviously once tensions start rising as they did post-2008, Finland is going to be in the crosshairs. That's where it put itself when it aligned to a bloc that became hostile towards Russia. — Tzeentch

You really don't get it, do you.

There's no other option. There's no option of "Let's be friends with Russia" that would have a better outcome for Finland: Russia would just increase it's efforts to dominate Finnish policy, if it would be let to do it. With Russia as a neighbor there's no "normal" relations let's say Canada and Switerland can have. Just look at how great being the member of CSTO has been to Armenia. Russia didn't give a fuck when Azeris supported by Turkey annexed Nagorno-Karabakh. That's the kind of "ally" Russia is. CSTO, just like the Warsaw Pact is primary a form of control.

I think in your naivety you think that if only Ukraine given up on everything and done as Russia wanted, everything would be fine. It wouldn't. Just read what Putin wants. Ukraine was an artificial construction and the country's should be together. That's it. All those annexations show that this isn't just about NATO and Americans, it's about a lot else that you simply refuse to take into account.

You are quite selective with the lessons you learn from history, I've noticed. — Tzeentch

At least I refer to the peace agreements and the wars the Russia / Soviet Union has fought, unlike you.

Do we learn nothing from Vietnam, the Middle-East, etc. when it comes to US involvement in fragile states? — Tzeentch

Fragile states like North-Vietnam or Israel? Hmm...

Or you really think that Ukraine or Finland, Sweden, is similar to South-Vietnam or Pro-Western Afghan government?

I think what plays a large role is that, despite all the historical evidence, Europe seems chronically incapable to view the United States as a ruthless great power which follows realist logic. — Tzeentch

This shows how you really don't understand Europe. You think that US and Russia act and behave in Europe similarly, because they are Great Powers.

I assume that you come to this conclusion with thinking about how the US has treated let's say Guatemala (and how the US has acted in it's backyard). Well. in the long run the US policy towards Guatemala has been more like the United Fruit Company's policy towards the country. The US doesn't behave similarly towards France, Sweden or Finland (as Russia doesn't behave similarly towards Brazil and India as it does towards Georgia, Moldavia or Ukraine).

And the simply fact is that you simply don't seem to understand European integration and NATO at all. NATO isn't like Warsaw Pact, which primary function was seen in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. NATO isn't just a puppet for the American President, which has been shown quite many times (for example from how much Trump despises the organization this should be evident). You insist Ukraine would have been invited to NATO, because American presidents wanted so, even if it was obvious that many NATO countries opposed this. Yet NATO could never give formally an outside member. And the de facto assurances didn't matter for Russia, because it has territorial interests in Ukraine. Just like EU hasn't officially stated that Turkey cannot be never an EU member, this is de facto real. It's an international defense pact that sovereign states have willingly put their defense into, just as EU countries are committed to European integration.

The simple fact is that even if for Yemenis or Palestinians and many Latin Americans, the US seems to be a ruthless Superpower, but that isn't the case for Sweden, Finland or East European countries. Just as Russia wouldn't never dare to do any hybrid attacks towards India and try to involve itself in Indian politics. I'm sure Russia behaves quite cordially towards it's BRICS partners. It doesn't act the same way in it's "near abroad" thanks to being and seeing itself something else than a nation-state, but a great power. This is something you have to understand, but you just ignore it.

So Finland and Sweden gave up their neutral status and put themselves in the crosshairs of a future conflict to 'protect' against a power that was trying to return to stability to begin with. The power who is trying to avoid a return to stability is the one they chose to jump in bed with. — Tzeentch

I do value your opinions, Tzeentch, but this is ignorant bullshit.

Especially Finland has been in the crosshairs of a conflict with the Soviet Union starting from the armstice in 1944. It was in the crosshairs and continued to be in the crosshairs especially after Putin has wanted to make Russia a Superpower again. Russia did it's hybrid attacks by organizing refugee flows into Northern Finland in 2015-2016. It has GRU sleeper cells in the country ready to do sabotage and to assassinate important people as the way of it's "deterrance" in Finland, if war breaks out. It has breached consistently Finnish aerospace with military aircraft, has jammed GPS signals and kept up belligerent rhetoric all this time prior to 2022, hence Finland has all the time been in it's crosshairs. What you are saying is simply ludicrous.

You simply don't understand that there wouldn't have been any end to this if Finland would have stayed neutral, likely the hybrid attacks would have continued even more to push Finland back into a weaker spot. There would be no "normal relations", there would be only Finlandization, where the Finnish President would get his international speeches from the FSB chief in the Russian embassy. That's the fucking "normal relations" that Putin wants. That we would talk the "lithurgy" as in the Soviet times.

And wtf stability are you talking about? Russia's military has always been multiple times larger than Finland's or Sweden's? Do you think annexing territory from Georgia and Ukraine is a way of Russia attempting "stability"?

It's simply imperialist revanchism, an attempt to fix what Putin sees as the greatest tragedy of the 21st Century (collapse of the Soviet Union). Nothing else.

You clearly have a problem with the idea that things can return to normal after this war, even though it would likely be the best scenario for all parties involved (except the US). Why? — Tzeentch

I don't.

The war ends when the two sides come to some conclusion, either a peace deal or a cold armstice (as with the Koreas). And it's the job of Ukraine and Russia in the end. And I don't want to hear your arguments of Ukrainians being pawns with no ideas of their own in this game.

The thing we've learned from history is that Russia has to be forced someway to a peace agreement: if continuing the war looks to be a better option, the Russia will continue the war. Plain and simple.

And likely relations are tried to be improved after Putin dies of naturally causes or is replaced. Remember that the war isn't hurting Europe so much, so this can go on for years, even a decade.

Second order recursion sounds indeed more logical.

What do you mean by 'recursion of the reals'? Recursion requires well ordering. — TonesInDeepFreeze

From the quote, the only difference between recursion and real recursion, that I can think of, is using recursion for reals, in other words recursive real numbers: "A recursive real number may be described intuitively as one for which we can effectively generate as long a decimal expansion as we wish, or equivalently, to which we can effectively find as close a rational approximation as we wish."

Because I don't think there's real recursion and "phony" unreal recursion.

Thanks for the comments!

One point though: Godel-numbering is in the meta-theory, but we want to know why we need multiplication in the object theory. But, if I'm not mistaken, we need that it is representable in the object theory; I'd have to study the proof again. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, I understand that it's a part you need in Gödel-numbering, to make the number that holds the logical sentence. Once you have both addition and multiplication, you can do what Gödel did. With Presburger Arithmetic the completeness is lost if you take into account also multiplication:

adding, for example, the multiplication function x: Z^2 -> Z(or even simply the ‘squaring’ function, from which multiplication is easily recovered) to Presburger arithmetic immediately results in undecidability, thanks to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem

(see On the Decidability ofPresburger Arithmetic Expanded with Powers)

But then I also found an interesting answer on StackExchange, which seems very interesting, an answer to the question "Why does multiplication lead to incompleteness where addition does not?":

The issue is not about multiplication per se, or even about the combination of addition and multiplication. The theory of Real Closed Fields has both, and is consistent and complete. The issue is about the strength of induction.

The induction axioms in Presburger arithmetic are the first order approximation of the Peano axiom, and basically do not allow for establishing facts about other facts that have, themselves, to be established inductively.

You cannot get real recursion off the ground unless you have a second order theory of counting, that allows you to represent the sets of integers for with the results are already established.

So to get a first order theory to start doing Gödel's proof, you have to bring in either infinitely many facts about addition, which are needed to establish the relevant results about multiplication, or a few facts about multiplication, itself, as additional axioms.

(See here)

I find this interesting. With real recursion I assume means recursion of real numbers. Well, if you have real numbers, then you're hopelessly mired in the notion of infinity and infinite sequences and so on. With mathematical induction, we get to questions about infinity.

Ukraine's neutral status is the key to a stable Eastern Europe. — Tzeentch

Everybody even Ukraine would have been totally happy with Ukraine being neutral... assuming that Russia wouldn't have intension of annexing large parts of Ukraine into itself, as it has done. And this simply is the reason for all of this. I think you have a problem in understanding just how a big deal is it to other sovereign states for a state to attack another one (which it has earlier recognized) and then to annex parts of it.

And this is the reason why Russia itself creates the situation where other countries want to join NATO.

Just stop and think it yourself for a moment: why would Sweden with a leftist government want to shed it's over 200 year neutrality and Finland, that earlier enjoyed the fruits of having good relations with Soviet Union and later Russia, suddenly join NATO? You think it was an American plan?

It's worrying how your rhetoric turns any dialogue with the Russians into something negative. — Tzeentch

The majority of Putin's rhetoric is negative. Not all.

Just like the way you use the term 'Finlandization' to describe any kind of positive relations with the Russians. — Tzeentch

WTF are you talking about? We had good relations with Russia. Finlandization has a negative definition, which as a Finn I clearly understand.

Finlandization the process by which one powerful country makes a smaller neighboring country refrain from opposing the former's foreign policy rules, while allowing it to keep its nominal independence and its own political system.

But your stance is that if a country attacks another and starts annexing parts of that country (and actually has done this to two of it's neighbors), then other countries should continue to have perfectly normal relations with this country. And if countries oppose the aggression by severing ties and sanctions, that's bad. Oh, that's so bad!

It bears every hallmark of war propaganda, which is designed to make war the only outcome. The same trick was used in Ukraine to make it fling itself willingly into the abyss. — Tzeentch

Blaming the victim is so nice. :vomit:

The question you should ask yourself is whether you will be the beneficiary of such a war, or whether that will be some unnamed country across the pond. — Tzeentch

I'm a great supporter of deterrence: with good deterrence, you can avoid blackmail and war. Without any deterrence, Great Powers will do as they want with you. Russia is and has been this kind of Great Power that if it see's an opportunity it will use it, especially in it's former "colonies", even if we don't talk as colonies. Well, my grandparents were born in a Grand Dutchy of Russia. That was basically something similar to France in Algeria. And Russia views it's "near abroad" as similar as other Great Power viewed their colonies. With Putin at the helm, Russia hasn't moved on from it's imperial past and simply continues similar policies as earlier and views it's near abroad as it's own. Unfortunately, it isn't as benign as the US is to it's neighbors (at least after it had it's wars with Mexicon and the British Empire). And this is why other countries like mine that were for a long time non-aligned have chosen NATO. Annexing territories is the real key here.

I would be really happy if Russia would be a normal country and respected the borders of it's neighbors. I have nothing against Russians, I have known many, I have been in Russia and love it's food and culture. But it is a dictatorship that lost in it's gamble and is mired in a war.

Your the one talking about enlarging the war, not me.

* * *

And from an earlier response, I'd like to add:

Russia has a fraction of Europe's GDP and population. Russia is hardly a threat if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses. There's no basis for this type of fearmongering nonsense. — Tzeentch

You simply don't even read what I write: Russia with it's large armed forces and with it's huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is more than a match against any EU country vis-a-vis. And with the US out of the equation, the military balance is quite on the side of Russia even if you group up European countries. And then there's just all the hybrid operations that Russia has done, which you dismiss, of course.

Russian rhetoric and behavior has been surprisingly consistent over the course of more than a decade when it comes to this issue. — Tzeentch

Was denazification on the table in 2014? But I agree, Russia has been quite consistent in attempting to annex Ukrainian territory irrelevant of NATO. As it was an "artificial" country.

They repeatedly give NATO chances for dialogue, and NATO repeatedly ignores them. — Tzeentch

Have you ever noticed what kind of dialogue that was? It was that Russia should have a say if a country could join or not NATO. That naturally goes against NATO's charter. At least for Finland that was the second to last straw to break (the last straw being the full invasion of Ukraine).

And of course, what you always forget, is that simply putting the troops on the border made immediately NATO countries like Germany vow that Ukraine wouldn't be accepted to be in NATO. But naturally that wasn't the goal, just as Saddam's mobilization of Iraqi troops to the Kuwaiti border wasn't done in order that Kuwait would follow OPEC guidelines on oil production.

Where is this imperialist Russia that wants to "Finlandize Europe"? — Tzeentch

Here's Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, from the official Russian Foreign ministry website :

As for the “Finlandisation” of Europe, I remember that period very well. It was an element of euphoria that developed after the end of the Cold War, when everyone was considered a friend, and ideology was abandoned everywhere.

https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/en/foreign_policy/un/1959636/

That's the delusional way that official Russia thinks about Finlandization.

In fact, the Soviet Union hoped the Finlandization would catch on. It's simply how it wants to influence other countries. The best way is to "influence" the actions of other countries without having an open conflict. The worst thing for this idea (and the present Russia) is European countries forming an union and the Atlanticism that NATO creates.

But we need multiplication for Godel numbering. — TonesInDeepFreeze

OK, I think you answered here my question.