The basic problem simply is that there are no natural boundaries where Russia starts or ends as you have this huge steppe starting from Europe and ending in Asia. The problem starts from geography. This is the first problem anybody neighboring Russia has.

The next thing is that Russia's identity is imperial, there is actually nothing else. Soviet Union was a continuation of the Empire and Russia itself couldn't find another identity for itself, especially after it's present leader see the collapse of the Soviet Union as an "unfortunate tragedy", which assumes it was simply a mistake. The fact is it wasn't simply a mistake. Once countries get idependence that's it, to assume the independence is a "mistake".

The third issue that Russia hasn't understood that it has lost the empire. Permanently. The point of humiliation for the UK and France was the Suez crisis (and for France in Africa perhaps the present). Yet for Russia it might only be this war with Ukraine. Or something else in the future.

It seems to me we might say that imperialists, like the Russians at the moment, want to go into someone else's house, take it over, and tell them what to do and how to do it. The West, on the other hand, mostly just says, if you want to play with us, there are rules.... — tim wood

Do notice the difference!

Ukraine is not some one's else house. They don't even claim all their vast territory but three important provinces: Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk. These three 'municipal dumas' have always belonged to Russia, and they have been managed by Russian authorities since the Russian empire. — javi2541997

As did my country also belong to Russia. Until it didn't, when we gained independence. Just like Ukraine got it's independence and Russia did recognize the independence of Ukraine and it's borders. Until it didn't anymore. And that's the whole issue here with Russia. The nah... these countries around me are "artificial"!

It's basically like having a divorce where the husband accepts the divorce but then years after suddenly appears at the front door of his ex-wife, declares that they have made a vow in front of God and thus will be married until death departs them and then attempts to violently rape his ex, because it's his wife.

And then some will say: "Oh but we have to understand the man's side in this case! Didn't the wife also say "until death aparts us", so he has a point, right?"

One of the main things which pisses me off the most, is the way the Western world is cancelling Russia on literally everything: from economics to the arts. — javi2541997

At least I like Russian cuisine very much. It's there with the French cuisine as the hallmark of Western food culture (and I think is even better than Italian cuisine, actually). :yum:



And luckily my favorite Russian restaurant remains open, even if it does show the Ukrainian flag on it's front door and doesn't anymore serve Russian vodka (as vodka is a State monopoly for Putin), but has changed to Ukrainian vodka. (If you are ever in Helsinki, I urge to go and taste the above food Sword of Ivan in Restaurant Saslik!)

Capitalism is no less plagued by bad management, but has a better chance of effectively dealing with failing companies. — BC

The peril of centralization just there. Economies perhaps have to be de-centralized in order not everybody makes the same mistakes.

Does this speak to communism being fiscally workable, or does their failures speak to it being fiscally unworkable? — Down The Rabbit Hole

CCP is quite alive and kicking.

Yet in the Chinese example one has to remember what they have experienced: The "Great Leap Forward", which ended in mass famine, and the Cultural Revolution were huge disasters. The textbook Marxism that we call Maoism had come to an end when ideologically and physically as chairman Mao died and Deng Xiaoping took over. Boluan Fanzheng campaign was launched to "correct the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution" and get rid of the craziest excesses of Maoism of the Cultural Revolution. And this is what some typically Western communists totally disregard as some still cling as nearly an religious artifact to the purity of the words and ideas of Karl Marx himself and make the delusional argument that Marxism has simply not been attempted anywhere in earnest. The Chinese have had their share of ideological dogmas and I would dare to say have learnt their lesson from them.

Still in China, the official policy of Socialism with Chinese characteristics has been successful, has brought one billion people out of poverty and is de facto responsible of the historical Chinese economic growth as it is quite clear that it is the CCP that is in charge of China. Xi Jingping has himself said that Chinese socialism isn't and will not keep fixated in Marxist dogmas, but still is Marxism.

I think it has been arrogance and simply ignorance of the West not to see and understand that China won't somehow turn into a liberal western capitalist state once they open up their economy for global trade and that the "Chinese Socialism" is at least what the CCP genuinely believes in. After all, they do have achievements that they can show to their people. And the CCP has been all along what it stands for, they haven't changed.

The Chinese Communist Party does believe it is really doing Marxism.

Xi Jingping has said: "We should review the fresh experience gained by the people under the leadership of the Party, constantly adapt Marxism to Chinese conditions and make contemporary Marxism shine brighter in China."

Of course, "Western" Marxists see little Marxism in the "constantly adapting" Marxism of the CCP. :wink:

Sorry that I respond quite late, have had much work.

I've explicitly stated multiple times that one of my purposes in the thread is to explain Russia's perspective as mutual understanding is required to negotiate peace. — boethius

And what kind of peace do you think Russia will opt for?

We are told by the Ukrainian perspective that the Russians are all low morale and not motivated etc. — boethius

Are we told that, actually by the Ukrainians? Compared to Ukrainians, how much stories of young Russians living abroad going back to Russia to fight the war? I think it's obvious that for Russians this more like an experience of Vietnam, even if the occasional explosion happens in Russian territory.

Seems the confusion was caused by above statement, by referring to them as conscripts it would seem to mean they are conscripted, but I have not found explanation of why the age of registration was lowered. — boethius

Yeah, to be registered is not the same as to be drafted into the army. I assume the Ukrainians do anticipate this war going possibly for many years still.

In other words you agree that NATO was not and is not prepared for the kind of war Ukraine is fighting and so unable to supply Ukraine to fight said war it's not prepared for. — boethius

NATO has nuclear weapons, hence any kind of confrontation with another nuclear armed foe (like Russia) makes the war extremely dangerous. But actually we do have a precedent: Last time Pakistan and India clashed in their border regions, you had both sides having a nuclear deterrence. What was obvious was that both side treated every escalation of the conflict with huge attention.

And do notice that the West can change. Were there rolling blackouts in Germany last winter because of an energy crisis? No, but remember how Russian propaganda was excited how bad Germany will have it during the winter 2022-2023... Hence NATO countries can get their act together and can alter their military-industrial base. As I've stated, the rearmament program that Poland has gone for is quite huge.

Packaging research and innovation that is publicly funded into a pretty package for consumers isn’t that valuable in my view. The claim was that innovation comes from entrepreneurs. That’s not the case with the internet. — Mikie

There's the technological innovation and then there's the innovation to use the technology in various ways.

If the net would be a) just a military application, none of us would use it and if b) it would be just by universities and public organizations, the vast majority would not use it. Not at our spare time, likely. You see, without the entrepreneurs these technologies would be just like computers were in the 1970's and 1960's: used by companies and organizations by specific "computing"-branches, which dealt with using computers.

The clear arguments were that Ukraine has less man power, far less material in what you are now calling a material war, barely any airforce, needing to traverse 1000 km to supply the front whereas the front is next door to Russia pre-invasion. — boethius

You mean NATO assistance has to traverse 1000 km to supply the front in Ukraine or what? Well, it's their country so that isn't a big problem.

Otherwise yes, but note that with an inferior armed forces, with less equipment and not much of an air force has put Russia to entrench itself behind WW1 lines and isn't taking much anywhere the initiave.

The additional clear arguments is that NATO does not wage and is not prepared for the kind of war Ukraine is fighting, relying on a strategy that assumes gaining air supremacy (which makes sense if you are the US projecting power around the globe, but does not make sense if you are Ukraine defending against a lot of artillery without said NATO airforce). — boethius

Well, this is the kind of war Finland was preparing for. Not going for the brainfart of an idea of New-NATO new threats was in hindsight a very good choice. And seems like Poland is now preparing for something similar. Yes, NATO depends on air power and that is totally rational. However what has changed is the idea that a) conventional war in Europe is extremely unlikely so you don't prepare for one and b) wars aren't short and hence you do have to have those materiel and ammo stocks.

Ukraine has suffered massive casualties, needs to conscript down to 16 years of age, and has not achieved anything militarily. — boethius

Really? What's your reference to conscripting 16 years of age? I haven't heard this.

And isn't it an military achievement that Kyiv wasn't encircled, Kharkiv wasn't lost, territory has been taken back from Russia and a lot of Russian equipment has been destroyed too

The Russians have been disabling the Ukrainian grid at will. — boethius

And Ukrainians have been repairing that grid also at will:

(June 22nd 2023, Reuters)"The most extensive repair campaign in the history of energy facilities is currently under way in Ukraine," Energy Minister German Galushchenko was quoted as saying by his ministry on the Telegram messenger. "Power generation and distribution facilities are being restored, and work is under way to strengthen the power system's resilience to military challenges."

Ukraine has nearly doubled electricity tariffs for consumers since June 1 to find funds to prepare for winter, when energy consumption is typically at its highest. About 43% of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has been damaged in air strikes, state-owned power distributor Ukrenergo estimates. Some 70% of its substations have been attacked at least twice, it says.

I'm pretty sure I didn't even say this — boethius

You said it. :wink:

See . Other's are too quotes. I do sense a bias towards the Russians in your comments.

To me all apolitical means is someone who is not interested in politics. — Tom Storm

A government official can be also apolitical meaning that he or she simply tries to avoid any politics and simply goes with what the current elected political leadership wants. Or as "Sir Humphrey" in the old UK Television series "Yes, minister" put it:


How apolitical can government officials be is another matter. But the idea is there.

And not just for months, since the very beginning clear arguments have been presented of why it's simply unfeasible for Ukraine to attempt to remove Russia from its former territory by military means. — boethius

Hello Boethius, back on the job? Ah, the Great almighty Russian armed forces!

Well, what I remember was that the "clear arguments" were for the Ukrainian Nazis just to roll over and die. Because Ukrainians were Nazis, right? And that the whole war wasn't of Russia's choosing, but actually the fault of the US, we've heard that. Several cherished (and cherish) this view. And Before the attack it was that the US is making whimsical accusations that Russia will attack Ukraine, but that was I think before you (I don't remember).

But let's just look at the past comment just why and how unfeasible it has been to attempt to remove Russia from its "former territory" (Hint, Soviet or Imperial territory) by military means.

Some old quotes:

the Russian army and reserves are far larger and now on the defensive and have all the benefits Ukrainians had defending Kiev, and the Russian army can disable. the entire Ukrainian grid at will

as from many Russian's perspective, once the 4 Oblasts are officially part of Russia then they will be defending their country against a hostile invader.

Additionally, Russia has demonstrated it has highly motivated soldiers able to win in urban environments, so, as I already mentioned, the reservists can have a large impact simply supporting the professional forces.

Ukraine has sent fresh conscripts with little to no training into front line combat, but there's no reason to believe Russia will do the same.

Let winter pass and by the spring everyone will be so fed up with energy prices that peace with Russia will just be the normal, competent, level headed thing to do by politicians wanting to be reelected.

Russia has only committed 10% of it's standing army to Ukraine, and so can also rotate units in and out of the war as well as reinforce if it needs.

And for the last, the best from last year...

This narrative that the Russians have "stalled" makes zero sense. Had Russia failed to siege Kiev (the biggest single strategic objective), ok, then clearly a big stall, but it didn't fail. Reporters are essentially reporting Kiev is now under siege. It may not be completely surrounded, but if it can cover the Southern gap with artillery fire then it becomes significantly harder to resupply Kiev

If Ukrainian forces dig in to the front of a salient, Russian forces can just flank and pincer around it, and in flat open territory like this I do not see how Ukrainians could build and defend a line hundred or two hundred kilometres against armor maneuvers.

Obviously, Russia can eventually simply complete the encirclement of Ukraine by coming up from the south, but that will take time and preventing encirclement of Kiev meanwhile is their main strategy.

Once Kiev is encircled the military, social and political dynamic will completely change.

:blush:

Unfortunately for you I even hold an academic degree in military studies. — Tzeentch

Oh, well that is then quite fascinating! Then you understand how stupid the whole idea of Ukraine somehow making a breakthrough to Melitopol or even to the Sea of Azov is. Without air superiority that isn't going to happen.

Genuinely curious, what did you study in your military studies?

Ah, the next buzzword is introduced, since 'counteroffensive' obviously didn't work out so well — Tzeentch

It's not a buzzword. I gather you have no military training and little knowledge of warfare, tactics or military history in general.

If what you're trying to do is convince me that people standing on the sideline fueled by media propaganda can produce an endless supply of hopium, don't bother. I am already aware. — Tzeentch

All I'm saying that this war can very well continue for a long time.

The amount of preparation, manpower and materiel that goes into an offensive means that it must make some form of strategic impact. If it cannot do that, it's a waste. And Ukraine being in the position it is in cannot afford to waste anything. — Tzeentch

It's a materiel battle, Tzeentch.

And the forces that are put into not such huge, actually. Keeping the initiative is crucial. If you think that giving the initiative to the Russians would be helpful to the Ukrainians, you are wrong.

. To go on the offensive, you must first break through the enemy's defenses. This must be done as quickly and decisively as possible. — Tzeentch

No. There are far more ways to defeat an enemy. You seem to have no idea how a materiel battle works.

People were suggesting this offensive would go all the way to Melitopol. Now it's clear they won't be able to take Tokmak - the first village of some significance on the way there. Hardly anything new, of course. People have warned that this would be the predictable outcome long before the offensive even started. It's just tragic. — Tzeentch

To breach the Surovikin line Ukrainians should have a) air superiority and b) enough resources to go through fortified and mined defensive lines in depth. The US could do that in Kuwait after pummeling the Iraqi troops with air power on a desert which offered minimal cover, then basically on single file columns go through the minefields. The Ukrainians cannot do that. Not without air superiority.

(US Forces going through the minefields in the Kuwaiti desert: An ideal target if enemy artillery would be around.)

The pressing question is, why did the West push Ukraine into this disaster? — Tzeentch

What disaster? The only disaster are those who think that Ukraine has to achieve a quick victory over a superior enemy, or then it's meaningless to support them. Do these people get bored or what? Does the war become somehow an irritant to them? Luckily the commitment is better than the media portrays it to be.

Define what 'Ukraine winning' looks like, and then explain how wasting thousands of lives on ill-advised offensives brings us closer to that end state. — Tzeentch

Why do you assume Ukrainian operations to be "ill-advised"? If you don't have air superiority and Russia still has a lot of artillery, large scale attacks on the Surovikin line would be foolish. Something like what was witnessed last year cannot happen because of the Surovikin lin. If you haven't noticed, it's basically small scale attacks and advances are small.

So can we conclude Ukraine taking back Crimea is a pipedream? — Tzeentch

Seems you are eager to jump to conclusions, especially to the failure of Ukrainian actions. Yet I don't think the will of the Ukrainians to continue the fight has eroded. This war will continue on.

or if people in the West will keep puffing copium until there's not a single Ukrainian man left to fulfill their fantasies. — Tzeentch

How about Russia? Putin doesn't want to make another mobilization of reservists. And if Wagner PMC itself said that it had lost over 20 000 killed in Bakhmut, the death toll is high on the Russian side too. Hence I wouldn't jump into conclusions yet how this war will end.

What can be concluded is that with the West continuing backing Ukraine, Russia cannot win. And without Western backing, Ukraine cannot win.

One additional note: right now Poland supplies new armaments produced in Poland (mostly ammo), those supplies are still ongoing and will not be stopped. — Jabberwock

Interesting. Can you give references?

Poland will stop giving arms to Ukraine as the two countries have a disagreement over grain. Polish farmers fear what cheap Ukrainian grain will do to their livelyhood and there's elections coming, so the two countries are now bickering at each other. Poland I think is the 4th largest contributor of arms to Ukraine and has to it's size made the biggest contribution to Ukraine. They have given a lot of T-72 tanks to Ukraine, for example.

Poland will stop providing weapons to Ukraine as dispute over grain imports deepens

Whatever happened to that offensive, though? — Tzeentch

The Russian offensive? Well, that was only the small advances that Wagner made. Nothing else. :wink:

And the Ukrainian counter-offensive? Going as anything would go without an air arm / air superiority. The whole "offensive" is more of Western media expectations (as last year Ukraine could gain a lot of ground). Now Ukrainians are facing deep entrenched lines from the Black Sea up to the northern border between Ukraine and Russia. And Russia still enjoys an advantage in artillery, even if the amount of munitions they use has gone down dramatically. That means that Ukrainians would be crazy if they made a head on assault on the defensive line with concentrated large forces. Hence it's a war of attrition.

Came out of defense department research. Government funded— As were most computer technologies. — Mikie

But military doesn't make it a product for the civilian market. And this is crucial: as I stated, Xerox research center made basically all the real leaps in computer tech... and Xerox isn't dominating the market. This is even more clear when you have military sponsored investment. The classic obstacle is that the technology is simply declared secret. Well, not much will come out of that!

The only example of the Soviet Union where the army made something that was later extremely useful was for the Air Defence of Moscow Stalin started to build ring-roads around the capital. As then Moscow grow, there were these ring roads around it already making it later easy for the city to grow. But otherwise, how much for example technology done to make the ballistic missiles and the Soviet Space program gave to the Soviet ordinary citizen? Not much.

Less need for unions at a mom and pop store. But no one is talking about small businesses. They’re not the issue. — Mikie

They actually are one important factor when you consider why unions are so rare in the US. Not everything is about politics.

In the overall picture of the economy small businesses have a large role to play. Small businesses (those smaller than 500 people in the US) account for the majority of new job creation (62,5%) in the US since 1995. Small businesses employ 45% of the private sector workforce, businesses with less that 20 employees employ 16% of the workforce, hence basically every sixth US worker is employed in a company with less than 20 people. If (and when) you have a lot of entrepreneurship, these people won't be for trade unions.

And when have you had totally new industries? They are quite rare.

For example, what's the origin of the internet? A common Transfer Control Protocol/Internetwork Protocol (TCP/IP) for different computers. With the personal computer it's even more obvious: a computer just made for consumers. A totally new field truly starts with innovations and innovators and no prior market.

And it isn't that already existing huge corporations really can imagine totally new industries. The whole large structure of a large company makes it difficult. And if a company has been "visionary", it's really rare they also dominate the field later. Best example is Xerox with it's research center in Palo Alto: it was an outside guy called Steve Jobs that went with the graphical interface and wysiwyg text editors that the Xerox research team had made and even that guy didn't notice the aspect of how the computers in Palo Alto formed a net (ethernet). And Xerox? The company didn't see any potential for commercial sales. When there doesn't (yet) exist a market, it's only visionaries who see a possible market.

But back to the subject: trade unions can use their power more easily if the industry has few large corporations. With a sector that isn't dominated by large companies you find less unions. The service sector has a lot of small businesses accomodation and food services (with about 8 million workers). The largest trade union is NEA and the most unionized sectors are education, steelworkers, public service workers and autoworkers. Sectors you don't see so much small companies and entrepreneurs.

Do people still believe this nonsense? — Mikie

Do people still read economic history? Nonsense!!!

How about the...

a) Aviation industry?



b) The automobile industry?


c) The computer industry?

Let's put aside for a moment the whining that government and corporations are against trade unions (which in the US they are) and look at more fundamental problems that trade unions have:

1) Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. The people who are basically both an employer and the employee. (Here I mean the real self-employed persons and not Uber drivers, who in my view are "entrepreneurs" just for the company to avoid taxes.) The United States has the highest percentage of entrepreneurs, those that are self employed, and can be considered the most entrepreneurial country in the World. Over every tenth in the American workforce is an entrepreneur. Then there are the companies which are run by a family: again here the relation that the "employer" and the "employee" have is far more than just a work related matter. Small family enterprises don't fit the typical view of the greedy employer who steels from the employee.

2) Trade unions have been bureaucratic and slow to spread when totally new industries appear. The reason is quite logical: a new industry is created by inventors and entrepreneurs in garages or similar tiny enterprises. Extremely seldom can huge corporations invent something totally new and thus create totally new fields of industry or service. At start there usually are no huge corporations... it only through time comes to that through competition. And the fact is that trade unions are concentrated in sectors where there are large companies or a single entity like the government. Again for this there is a rational reason: in a company of less than ten people, it's far more easier for the individual worker to approach the "employer" than in a corporation of 20 000 or more. For a trade union to bargain few with big companies is easier than to approach thousands of smaller companies.

At best, antiquated Parmenidean sophistry. — 180 Proof

Answering the OP, the fundamental issue from Ancient philosophy is exactly to read Parmenides by Plato. I think you would have to refer to that one. As it states in Parmenides, we don't have the book from Zeno anymore and Plato himself opposed the Eleatic School. Hence our understanding of the Eleatic School is very thin. That @180 Proof calls it sophistry is the mainstream view, although looking at the history of mathematics after the Greeks, the Eleatic schools counterargument was indeed valid. How much you can built a philosophical view upon it is another question.

Mathematics overcame this basically only with limits and the modern interpretation of infinitesimals. That happened far later. And these findings would have surprised the Ancient Greeks, just like they were surprised to find irrational numbers themselves (as they first thought that math had to be so perfect that every number had to be rational).

If that was what it was, wouldn't NASA have figured that out? — RogueAI

And then, of course, you have the actual witnesses, the pilots. But what do they know about encounters in the air. :snicker:

The pilots btw. said that the biggest obstacle was simply to report the fact in fear that they would be laughed upon or at worst grounded.

I think now it's politically correct for authorities to remind that we don't know. Like not jumping to conclusions or so.

Do notice that there has already been a discussion on the PF in the thread UFO's by @Michael after the Senate inquiry into the subject just two months ago.

I think that the Mexican government saw this and wanted also to discuss such interestingly exotic subjects. So now you have TWO parliamentary institutions that have discussed UFO's and alien life. That's very, very interesting. That's how it would go...

Anyway, I think there's been extensive discussion about the sightings especially after the US armed forces did release footage and the fighter pilots were interviewed (and weren't kicked out of their jobs and downplayed). Mr David Grusch just put it a little bit more to tinfoil hat territory, but then was the also the Mexican Congress also.

First it's laugh, then it's simply silence, then it's already old news as things were revealed / discovered years ago...

(I think the threads should be joined...)

Basically there hasn't been any response to Finland and Sweden (when the time comes) joining NATO. And yes, it's been quite empty on the other side of the border, even if naturally Russia has stated it will increase it's forces on the Finnish border. Hence now, luckily for us Finns, it's been a No Action Talk Only -response from Putin.

Finnish military analysts have estimated that basically Russia needs a decade to recover from the war. There is absolutely no denying that Russia has lost huge amounts of equipment and manpower. Of course putting all the resources to serve the military-industrial complex and increase arms production is totally possible for Russia as it's a political choice, yet that has a huge effect on the welfare of Russian people. And we shouldn't forget that when Putin came into power, the Russian armed forces were a catastrophe, basically a shell of the Soviet Armed forces where basically only the strategic rocket forces ad been taken care of. It took 20 years and a higher oil price for Putin do something about it. And now he is in a war, hence shouldn't underestimate the Russians:

(Business Insider, Sep 14th 2023) Before the country invaded Ukraine, a senior Western defense official told The Times that Russia could make 100 tanks a year; now they're averaging 200.

Western officials told the outlet that Russia is on track to manufacture two million artillery shells a year, which is twice as many as Western intelligence originally estimated it could make before the war.

Can Russia economically do it? Here we should remember that actually a nation going on a war footing (without it's infrastructure and cities being bombed to rubble) makes economic indicators go haywire. For example during WW2, during a time when rationing was introduced to Americans, manufacturing of private cars was stopped etc, the economy just skyrocketed (with the debt also).



Even if GNP is not a common indicator, that the total output of goods and services OVER DOUBLED in six years (and then came off a cliff) tells just why economists usually start from 1946 and never produce longer statistics that include wartime to peacetime.

Of course Western defense spending has gone up. I think in Finland the defense spending has grown about 45% and reservists are training such size and intensity never seen before, actually. And I don't think Finland isn't the biggest here, Poland has a massive weapons procurement plan underway.

A possibility nobody can rationally deny. Nonetheless, I do feel that it will not be long enough to tire out the truth completely. — Existential Hope

Well, one can always be an optimist and look at what is good and what really bad things have not happened. And the easiest way is to put our present problems into a historical context where our problems will look small and not so dangerous.

When it comes to India (Bhurat), you haven't had a nuclear war with Pakistan and seems that the two countries have learnt to play their version of a nuclear standoff. And then your country has managed to delicately stay in your policy of being nonaligned and has continued to be in terms with both the West and Russia and China (even if with the last one you do have a little trouble in the Himalayas).

We in the West aren't hearing about the Indian economy collapsing or it soon collapsing, anything about the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency or mass killings. The last large famine India endured was in 1943 and the last small famine happened in 1966-1967 in Bihar. If bickering politicians is the only thing, then the future looks very bright. Poverty has decreased, population growth isn't a problem. Even if there is poverty and corruption, those aren't something new in India. No news is good news.

The thing that I dislike about name-change campaigns is that they are

a) campaigns conducted for some ulterior motive
b) usually in the interest of a small but strongly motivated group
c) often leveraged with shame and guilt whether deserved or not — BC

And what does it tell when the name of your capital has been changed six times?

The city that now is Kazakhstan's capital has been named Akmolinsk, Tselinograd, Akmola, Nur-Sultan and now is called Astana. It became the capital only in 1997 and since then has gone through the last three names. A lot of honoring has been done in that country, I guess.

Especially when the city / country isn't conquered, but continues as earlier, changing names gives the impression that the name hasn't been important and people don't have much attachment to it. (Just try to get the people of Rome to change the name of their city) It then can be changed either because political correctness or giving someone (something) this grandiose honour of having a city or a place called after them.

It's a similar story like when have the urge to take away statues.

You're quite right about the unavoidable nature of those afflictions. May we see a better tomorrow. — Existential Hope

Unfortunately I feel there's still a long road on this same path before that better tomorrow.

Even if the opposition chose the name (and the hyper-nationalism of the ruling government that tends to portray opponents as anti-nationals may have played a role in this decision), one would have expected a mature response from people who claim to cherish the nation's rich heritage. Instead, we had to weal with words like these: — Existential Hope

India is part of the global community and thus totally open to the influences of polarization and populism just like Finland, UK or the USA are.

Populism sells and political parties see polarization as a way to get votes. Maturity doesn't sell. Lame! It's something not just happening there.

I don't think there will be civil war, but this is not to say there will not be violence and bullets. Two reasons I think things will not escalate to war is that the trumpster "patriots" are not significant enough in numbers or bullets. — Fooloso4

The US can experience political mass shootings as uh, it's now experiencing mass shootings. Likely they will be downplayed, because nobody likes that the going is something like in a Third World country. And never underestimate what kind of a police state the US already is and can be.

The most stupid thing the Democrats likely will do is to portray them as people who start a civil war. That just is condescending nonsense and outright propaganda and won't do them any good.

Besides, the Trumpster won't lead his followers into a civil war, because he's not a leader, just a great populist, yet in the end just a whiner. He genuinely had a chance to make an autocoup and would have the crowd there to make seem like a revolution and what happened? The Secret Service simply drove him off to the White House, even if he demanded otherwise. Then he just stared at the TV at his followers invading Capitol Hill and did nothing. Finally he tweeted for them to calm down.

Yeah, that is NOT a leader in a civil war. Those kind of leaders have to have firm belief in their cause and the will to kill a lot of people.

But semiautomatic rifles in a crowded area can kill a lot of people.

ever since various opposition parties coalesced to form an alliance called the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), some have begun calling for dropping the word "India" from the nation altogether. — Existential Hope

There you have it. All politics.

Personally, I believe that it can be beneficial to distinguish between liberation and an unreasonable aversion — Existential Hope

Stop!

Did you notice that you already gave the reason, the cause and the effect earlier above? There it is in a nutshell: if the opposition wouldn't have came up with this smug way to portray them as INDIA, would this discussion take place. It's all and everything about this. It's just to make less petty and give it more meaning to the discussion. And yes, I do know that India's name has been also Bharat far earlier than the opposition came up with this idea.

No.

I'm not aware of similar discussion taking place in Niger. Or Nigeria. Or Mauritania.

It's usually the grandiose and narcissist politicians that want to leave their remark and change the countries name to a more "authentic" name from a "derogatory Western" name. Like the Shah that changed his country's name from "Persia" to "Iran". Or like mr Erdogan with his country Türkiye. Yes, as a second grader in Seattle I laughed with my classmate when we found that one country is called "Turkey" on the globe. Mr Erdogan likely has been upset about the name for a long time.

This law also makes it optional for employees in unionized workplaces to pay for union dues or other membership fees required for union representation, whether they are in the union or not.

Right-to-work is also known as workplace freedom or workplace choice. While the name of the law implies that it provides freedom to workers, critics argue that it weakens unions and empowers corporations instead.

I think this is totally sensible that being a member of trade union is voluntary, the whole idea and participation has to come from the workers themselves, not by some goddam law! Places like China membership might be mandatory, but that makes it far more worse.

What does actually a "unionized workplace" mean? Is it that in the workplace there exists an union?

Not really. The minority of rich and their politicians make the laws, make the rules of employments, make the system in which workers have no choice but try to make a living. — Vera Mont

So trade unions are banned or what? I don't think so.

The same minority also control the broadcast media and convey the information (propaganda) that favours them and turns workers against one another, convinces workers to vote and think against their own interests. — Vera Mont

Well, if you're workers vote and think against their own interests... either they are genuinely idiots or you are just condescending towards your fellow citizens.

Well, every 9 out of 10 American workers don't belong to a trade union, so I guess you are in the minority.

Trump was impeached for asking Zelensky about it. — NOS4A2

For trying to coerce Zelensky to do something about it, actually...

“At the moment, this case is up in the air, so to speak. Up in the air means that there is no active investigative work ongoing. At the moment, detectives and prosecutors do not understand what they are supposed to be investigating,” Kholodnytsky said.

Fearing to bite the hand that feeds them, I guess.

But it's tragicomical how Ukraine has been this center stage of US domestic politics with now two US Presidents getting impeachments (that won't go anywhere).

Well, if Ukraine gets to be an EU member sometime in the future, I hope they get their corruption into control. Perhaps starting with not feeding the corrupt Americans, eh?

It occurred to me that I rarely, if ever on this forum, hear about the kind of duty I define in the OP or see people prescribe strong, traditional moral obligations towards leadership in a plain way. It is usually just so-and-so is evil, too extreme, too centrist, too censorious - and no one provides practical solutions, even if those solutions are just favorable tradeoffs. The principled leaders I have in mind are not perfect, but they are our best chance. — ToothyMaw

Some might not see it this way, but I find duty starting from things like being a parent and being there for your children. Or being there for your parents when you are old. Even being faithful and devoted to your spouse. And then helping people if you come to the sight of an accident, you do help total strangers.

In the OP I think many people perhaps crave for purpose, not duty. Especially in their jobs they want to have a purpose and not just some idiotic thing that they did their entire life to get money to feed themselves and their family. Purpose and duty are different. Something that has really that sense of duty and the duty issue is important is when you take an oath to do it. You usually take an oath to serve in the military. Or an oath to be a citizen (if not born to be one). When serving hamburgers in a fast-food joint you don't take an oath. But for example when becoming a doctor or a priest you might find yourself taking an oath.

One reason just why duty seems to be such an old cliché and nearly controversial is simply because we live in an ultra-individualist consumer society where nearly everything seems to be just an transaction. If not, by God, our individual rights are trampled!!!

Anyone here who served in an armed forces? Just curious. :chin: — jgill

If compulsory military service counts, then yes.

Australians know him as Timbo. Best example of a media troll who says this to get popularity (and notoriety) he is happy with. Earlier he was suggesting that people priced out of the property market should simply eat less brunch. Hence a troll. Or perhaps the guy is just irritated about how difficult it is for him to get good employees.

At least he said unemployment has to rise 40% to 50%, not meaning unemployment has to be 40% to 50%. Well, unemployment (if the stats are genuine) in Australia is something like 3,7%. An unemployment of 5,55% isn't bad, double digits unemployment is bad. But then unemployment figures are notoriously understated (with unemployed when they stop looking for a job or after some time falling from the unemployed statistics).

But here's the issue:

The unemployment - inflation argument goes a long way and is mainstream economics. Basically meaning that with high unemployment you have a recession and prices don't rise because people cannot afford higher prices and they cut spending. Then when unemployment is low, economy is roaring and guess what, with high demand those prices rise! This is quite straightforward and simple.

Yet the model doesn't take into account (of course) in any way the government and especially not the central bank. Because you can have stagflation: both high unemployment and high inflation. Hence if the government recklessly borrows or prints money to cover it's expenses, it's totally possible to have both unemployment and inflation.

Now I guess the game is to have the modest inflation that will take care of the excessive spending while not being so hot that the voter will jump out of the boiling water in the next elections.

First of all, the monarchy always bounces back because Spain is not mature enough to be a Republic. All republicans dream that Spain would be like France and Germany if we get rid of the king. Well, this has zero basis and our left (where republicans are allocated the most) tend to copy the behaviour of socialist Latin American countries rather than Western Europeans. I agree, in short, that, thanks to our monarchy, there won't be a Coup de Etat because the military structure is loyal to him. — javi2541997

It's not maturity. Spaniards that I've met are just as mature as we Finns are. It's more perhaps about poverty, weak institutions, not so great economy, class division, lack of social cohesion and a lot of political polarization. And a violent, difficult history. Also that burden of having been an Empire earlier.

The Nordic monarchies and the UK (after it's Civil War, that is) are good examples how actually modern constitutional monarchies have worked through the problems of industrialization and modernization without violence or revolutions with the monarchy surviving and adapting to a much smaller part. For example Sweden has been run for a very long time by the Social Democrats, and they are all but happy with having a king.

Spain, I think, tells another story. There is just this history of violence and vitriol. Yes, we too had a Civil War (which happened very much because of being part of Imperial Russia and since they had their socialist revolution, I guess we had to have ours too...). Yet even if many were killed in Finland in 1918, there wasn't such cruelty and loathing that you could see in the Spanish Civil War. Also, the Social Democrats, who had started the uprising in 1918, came back into power in Finland in the 1930's having been adapted to multiparty democracy (with the right accepting them). The militant Social Democrats had fled to Soviet Union and formed their Communist Party in Moscow. They were banned until the end of WW2. In Spain the whole totalitarian nature of Franco's dictatorship was there to prevent the socialists from re-emerging.

If during the Civil War Republican fighters posed with dug up skeletons of nuns or thousands of children were taken from "leftist" family to be re-educated until the 1950's, you can say there is deep division and polarization in the country. Without some unifying event, this all will still linger on even if new generations have been born with having no recollection of even Franco's time.

A time that some very old Spaniards still remember:

The Habsburg family represents the Golden era of Spain worldwide. Unification of the country, moors are kicked off from the peninsula, empire, resources from colonies, literature and art flowing around and a big presence in both European and Vatican power relationships. A pure nostalgic would feel nostalgic of this royal family. Since Charles II (the witched) dead without descents, the fall of Spain started on. His successors inherited an empire that remained largely intact, but Philip of Anjou had little sense of Spanish interests and needs. When a conflict came up between the interests of Spain and France, he usually favored France. Ferdinand VII was the worst of them: Spain lost nearly all of its American possessions. Incompetent, despotic, and short-sighted. — javi2541997

Ah! Nostalgia.

Well, the Habsburgs of Central Europe didn't have that kind of a great run in the 20th Century, although it's interesting to speculate if the dual monarchy had survived and would (or could) be a truly multiethnic empire. Let's just remember that the UK has still prevailed in one piece. And, uh, Spain too, even if both countries (UK and Spain) have had their experiences of attempted secessions in the not so distant past.

Yet it's telling that the last Habsburg, the crown prince of the last Austrian Emperor (and Hungarian king) was a staunch activist for European integration and a MEP in the EU. In his funeral, the nostalgia for the dual monarchy in Austria was very evident:

What? Why would I think that? — Vera Mont

Unlikely you don't think that way, but those that think that changing your job is the cure if your salary / working conditions suck and think it's all about the individual, do usually think so.