And how can there be adequate freedom and happiness with their government
for the whole population, or at least the majority of the population of one
country?
At the moment I am sufficiently confused. I ask myself, will we ever be able to achieve
lasting peace all over the world?
What about the defense industry: Does mankind really need that many weapons and war inducing facilities?
Can we not eventually talk to each other to settle our differences,
rather than attack each other in a nasty way just because we are different
from each other, and also may have different feelings about certain things?
What is there, that can unite mankind for good?
Why do we promote war rather than peace with another country?
Is war really the best way to ‘get our wishes’ for freedom or independence promoted?
You guess right: I am thinking more and more about how the Ukrainian people might perhaps be helped.
So, It is strange to consider, that the most hatred can often develop between very close people, like between brothers/sisters or cousins!
Well, it looks to me, to work for and achieve peace still takes quite a bit of time, especially if there are so many war mongers are among us that profit financially from the promotion of war!
It is the poor people that have to suffer most and more and more from all this.
That we can all have the ‘good’ life is again becoming just a dream and not the reality.
AuntyUta 
In the late 1960s/early 1970s I actively participated in opposition to the Vietnam War. It was my sincere belief that we would be successful in bringing change to the world. While we might have succeeded in ending that war, from the perspective of the intervening years, it is obvious that in reality nothing really changed. Society is remarkably resilient. It might slightly bend in response to pressure but will essentially return to its former state as soon as that pressure is reduced.
I still believe in that dream. Hopefully, the next generation will be more successful.
Yes, Lew, we can always live in hope. Thanks very much for commenting! 🙂
I just noticed an article in The Conversation that seems to say a lot about what I would like to come to grips with:
https://www.eastmojo.com/news/2022/04/25/ukraine-invasion-putins-conflict-is-showcasing-new-age-for-war-reporting/
This is how the article starts: In his authoritative history of war correspondents, The First Casualty, journalist and historian, the late Philip Knightley, identified a dilemma that has long confronted journalists reporting conflict: whose side are they on? Knightley warns that the “aims of the military and the media are irreconcilable”. Soldiers want to win wars and hide the consequences of their actions from the world. Journalists want to depict the horror and write a “first draft of history”. . . . .
Further on it says: But on the whole, citizens of liberal democracies can know more about the war in Ukraine than they have known about any previous conflict. The risk of reporting war is still high – as the deaths of journalists such as Fox News’ Oleksandra Kushynova and Pierre Zakrzewski on March 14 in the village of Horenka north of Kyiv demonstrate. But the balance has changed and evidence for which previous generations have had to await the release of military records and diligent work by historians is now almost instantly available to news consumers. . . . .
I wished I would understand a bit more about what conflicts do lead to invasions of other countries, and are borders still essential in this modern age?
Another thought of mine is, how far can capitalism be adopted by other countries before it causes great distortions in the social structures the world over and leads to major conflicts?
I guess, there are always changes in the making. Do these changes come more quickly now than they used to come about?