Mandatory conscription for a defensive only military is the best solution to defense imo. Professional armies tend to lead to poor young people doing a disproportionate share of the dying and encourage governments to use rhem abroad as they “signed up for it”.

Its fine you guys: the Israelis have decided its legal for Israelis to burn down Palestinian houses that a Hamas fighter once stopped beside to tie his shoelaces.

If Russia was in a strong position now there would be no point trying to negotiate now when theres a 50:50 chance trump is in power next year and massively strengthens their hand.

You seem to be missing their entire point so I’ll state it in plane language to you.

You are advocating demolishing Palestine being justifiable because it places the security of Israel above all. The above poster is flipping your logic on you and saying demolishing Israel is justifiable as it places the security of Palestine above all.

I don’t even think victory is possible for Russia in Ukraine, never mind taking on NATO after.

By that I don’t mean they cant win the war in Ukraine, there is a possibility of Trump winning and pulling US backing, the EU not making up the difference and Russia winning a slow grinding victory over the Ukrainian military. But can that really be called a win? All they will have achieved is trashing their own post soviet surplus, their military, their economy and their largest export market just to be able to spend the next 20 years locked into counter insurgency in Ukraine and expanding and strengthening NATO. I don’t see that as a win for Russia just to gain a buffer state to ward off an invasion that would never happen thanks to nuclear weapons.

Denmark is interesting here. Sweden and Finlad are moving from neutrality into officially being in the NATO camp so that explains them, The baltics are tiny, right on the Russian border and have been screaming about the threat Russia poses for a decade, so no surprises there that they want to tighten up security relations with the US.

But Denmark is odd, they’ve been in NATO forever and arent exactly on the front line even in a Gotland scenario, so whats going on there?

Ah yes, all those little web companies who have been labelled “very large online platforms”, wont someone speak up for the poor little billion dollar businesses?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 3 April 1982. After expressing its concern at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the armed forces of Argentina, the council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. The council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.

The resolution by the British representative, Ambassador Sir Anthony Parsons,[1] was adopted by 10 votes in favour (France, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Togo and Uganda) to 1 against (Panama) with four abstentions (China, Poland, Spain and the Soviet Union).[2]

Resolution 502 was in the United Kingdom’s favour by giving it the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and to claim the right of self-defence. It was supported by members of the Commonwealth and by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina.

Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said? That was a resolution put forward by the UK which demands Argentina leave the Falkands and was passed with only Panama voting against it