First of all, don't get angry.

Perhaps the title of the thread was a bit confusing.

Notice the site guidelines and follow them and Baden shouldn't be angry:

General Guidelines:

1) Language matters:

This is an English language forum on an academic topic. Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout. This goes for both native and non-native speakers (although we're likely to be more sympathetic when judging the writing of the latter).

2) Tone matters:

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

3) Context matters:

The amount of leeway you get on the above depends to a degree on where you post and what the topic under discussion is. You're likely to have more freedom in casual and political discussions, for example, than in philosophical discussions.

Starting new discussions:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are:

a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.

b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.

c) Capable of writing a decent title that accurately and concisely describes the content of your OP.

d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active (and not a copypasta from elsewhere on the internet. Plagiarists will be banned).

For more help: see How to Write an OP.

Addenda:

1) No bumps allowed. If you want to attract replies, think of a better way.
2) While there are no specific limits to the number of discussions you can start, if we feel you are unfairly monopolising space on the front page, we reserve the right to delete your discussions regardless of content.

Now what? What would you have us do? Pretend that Putin can't hold us to ransom just because we don't like that fact? — Isaac

As pointed out, there isn't actually credible nuclear ransom. The US or NATO isn't fighting Russia. Russia isn't attacking the supply lines in Poland. Nuclear deterrence between NATO and the Russia does holds there's no NATO aircraft enforcing a no-fly zone in Ukraine, even if Ukraine desperately wanted there to be that. Places like Yugoslavia and Libya that did happen. In Ukraine it didn't: NATO isn't going to escalate as Russian deterrence works. And vice versa.

You can always hope that the conflict would stop and of course, that it doesn't escalate. That's a bit different to insist on stopping the war on any terms whatsoever.

Since Cherson may have served as a springboard for future Russian offensives, it seems to me Cherson may have been conceded to Ukraine as a form of 'guarantee' that Russia will not make a bid for Odessa / Transnistria. — Tzeentch

The simple fact is what was already known for a long time: Russia has problem to supply the troops in Kherson region because of the chokepoints of the bridges across the Dniepr. The commanding Russian general Suvorikin acknowledged this: that it simply wasn't possible to supply the troops. Russia wouldn't sacrifice it's best troops, the paratroopers of the VDV for nothing. Yes, now the threat of Russia taking Odessa and contacting the forces in Transnistria has indeed subsided.

Exactly! They are correct within their confined/discrete context, of which their are larger ones that encompass them and deliver us a better description of the interrelationships between contradictions and truths. In essence, the process of learning.
I'm definitely in agreement with/following your logic here. — Benj96

I think the real problem arrives when there obviously should be the same premises, like in natural sciences. Some chemical reaction (etc.) happens or it doesn't, and it's not a matter of either point of view or that the topic is different. Even if you have different schools in sciences, they are still talking about the same objective reality. It's not a subjective matter like what food tastes good or what art is beautiful. Hence it cannot be that I have my chemistry and physics and you have yours: we don't live in alternative realities.

I'm not sure what was the problem with that???

Why indeed was it removed?

Before this is removed, I just like to comment:

So if you want to remove more contradictions, one must consider a greater magnitude of premises and associate them with one another. The bigger the picture one sees, the more sense individual peoples opinions and beliefs have in that context, and thus the more one can empathise with any of them (as empathy is based on understanding not ignoring). — Benj96

Yes, basically when we have a new way of looking at issues (or questions/problems), that is the easiest way for us to change the premises. It doesn't have to mean that the earlier thinking was wrong, it just that we didn't think about the issue from the new perspective.

It's expert, after expert, after expert, all denying your imbecilic claim that we don't need to worry about nuclear escalation. — Isaac

Again a strawman.

It's not that we shouldn't worry about escalation. I've pointed way earlier the potential danger of the "Escalate to De-escalate" -doctrine and the fact that Russia far before this war in it's large military exercises ended them usually with using the nuclear option that would end (or freeze) the conflict.

And is Putin's regime threatened? Nope. He still sits in the Kremlin. Nobody is invading Russia.

It's just your peace at all cost immediately sends the wrong information: if you are losing, your way out is to use nuclear blackmail. Isaac approved.

Going just to ad hominems shows that you don't know much if anything.

But I guess when your line has been to attack the Ukrainians as being neonazis and repeat Putin's line including the West being the culprit and aggressor in the conflict, even to ridicule the whole reasoning for Ukrainians to defend themselves from an aggressor (because we are all people and national borders don't matter), it's quite understandable that you then promote the idea that West should abandon Ukraine because Putin makes nuclear threats. Especially when Russia was forced out of the only regional capital it had taken (but still occupies about 15% of Ukrainian territory), peace at any cost.

Just shows that it's actors both the far left and the far right that support Putin in the West.

The primary problem in my view in the US is the two-party system. I think that Trump was symptom of this as is the "perpetual leftist candidacy" of Bernie Sanders. The real success of the two party system is that they have created "primaries" to act as if being part of the actual elections and the way for democracy to work (and the way to influence political change through these to fixed parties) is through them. Of course there are also other institutional obstacles made for third parties thank to the power of the duopoly, yet the biggest obstacle is in the hearts and minds of Americans.

For example "primaries" in Finland are basically a convention of a party, that then usually is one news story of the day when a presidential candidate is selected or the new chairperson of the party is chosen, who then is the potential prime minister candidate. Nobody gives a damn how various contenders inside the party have regional support in the party organization.

The stranglehold that the Democratic-Republican duopoly is shown in these elections too. Third parties only desperately seek attention by having Presidential candidates. There absence in the House and Senate is telling.

And my country doesn't have a real right wing party. All countries have a specific history that has molded the political landscape to be what it is, hence there doesn't exist something like a perfect spread of political parties across the spectrum anywhere. The two parties simply have gained a stranglehold of US politics, which Americans accept as given.

It is your notion that considering the need to avoid escalation is "absurd" that the citations are aimed against. — Isaac

You should understand how nuclear deterrence works.

And just how lousy the weapon is, actually.

It's funny how no one anywhere but in the US would ever consider voting Republican. The US political system is a tragedy. — Benkei

Put people into the shoes of Americans, and many would vote for Republicans. All those Bolzonaro's, Viktor Orban's etc. show that too much left liberal push might create a counterpush (and vice versa, of course).

And it might be that Republicans aren't going to vote for Trump in the next Presidential elections, perhaps they'll vote for DeSantis.

Unfortunately nearly every article behind a paywall. One article by Mearsheimer, well, he was right in the 1990's about Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons. And the UN article?

Surely they (the UN) plea for the fighting to stop, yet notice:

The Assembly has also expressed strong support for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution of the conflict through political dialogue, negotiation, mediation and other peaceful means, “with respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and in accordance with the principles of the Charter.”

Hence Russia should withdraw from the occupied territories. Furthermore:

She said the General Assembly had been clear that so-called referendums and attempted annexations of southern and eastern regions in Ukraine by Russia, had “no validity under international law and do not form the basis for any alteration of the status of these regions of Ukraine.”

And this is the issue: Russia has to withdraw from the occupied territories. Period

Otherwise the "De-escelation through escalation" principle is successful.

I'd be in favour of literally any agreement which ended the fighting. The less territory in Russian control the better though, so if they'd go for your intact, sovereign Ukraine, then great. — Isaac

Less territory the better, but in fact any agreement to end the fighting. Anything goes, yeah right.

Russia seems to be withdrawing from Kherson. At least that seems then to be better for Isaac. :wink:

A Good informative comment.

Of course we have to remember that during the late Soviet times " ideological messaging from the top was amorphous, inconstant and uninspiring, for the most part". We and others called it the Lithurgy. Communicating with Soviets was basically listening to these lithurgies, which basically was the way for Russians to speak and show as Soviets that they were on the party line. What they talked in their own kitchen among friends was totally different. And this has continued to the Putin era.

What we cannot know exactly is just how popular this present lithurgy is. It's still like neocons of G.W. Bush administration: they had a huge impact on US policies, but quickly faded away and became unpopular among the masses (especially after Trump among the Republican voters too). The present "war-party" ideologues in Russia are actually also a rather small cabal.

Of course, this imperialist ultra-nationalism needs desperately some kind of victory in Ukraine. Ukrainians will fight and as long as the West will assist this poor country, Ukraine can push Russia into a humiliating defeat, which likely will make the imperialists a laughing stock and justified culprits for this war.

Their only hope is that the West fails to do this, to support Ukraine. This can happen because of the absurd appeasing manner of fearing "escalation". Now Putin is supported only by the far right and the far leftists (as seen here on this forum), yet this mental block of fearing escalation might be the real hope for Putin. If Ukraine is pushed into an armstice on the present lines (or even with Kherson liberated and the front-line going on the Dniepr-river), it still will be a victory for Putin. Retaking Crimea would be possible for Ukraine only next year at the earliest.

As one commentator put it: the West support for Ukraine is strengthened by Ukrainian victories and Russian attrocities.

Obviously as there are so rare. But when you take all of the mass shootings, then you can obviously see that something has changed. Naturally just what of them are political is under debate.

And then there's of course the definition problem:

Compared to what era? I think the 60's and 70's were still far more violent.

Doesn't all this - threatening politicians - remind you of recent Batman movies? — Agent Smith

What recent Batman movies remind me was of the incredible scare that Joker would provoke people to riot. Well, it provoked people to go and see a good (which is extremely rare at the present) superhero (or supervillain) movie. Now days good movies seem for some to be toxic.

The preferable attack is by the "lone gunman", as obviously with a plot acted by more than one invites all the tools to combat terrorism thanks to the War on Terror. The murders of Mike McClellan (R) and Clementa Pickney (D), the 2017 Baseball field shooting and the attack on Gabrielle Gifford just show there is a long line of political violence in the US and it's not one sided. But it's not rampant.

At best, the elections can go without any violence, which can very well happen.

Inflammatory rant has been in US politics for a long time. That's not the problem. To live in an alternative reality is the problem.

The scary thing is if violence erupts. It's the fringe group toting arms that live in a fantasy World where the "Second Civil War" has already started. Too many automatic weapons in the hands of idiots. And if idiots from opposing sides just meet in the wrong place in the wrong time all hell can break loose. It really takes just a couple. And then the whole media environment is ready to blow it into something larger. The question will be who started it? Who shot first?




Political violence is a very sinister threat to any democracy, once it comes to be normal.

"Legitimate security concerns" is not fashionable anymore? — neomac

:100: :grin:

↪ssu, Putin's Russia sure regressed. :/ Not all Russians (I'd say), but the autocrat circle is in control. — jorndoe

This is true and sad. Hopefully the end will be such humiliating that the kind of nonsense will finally be brushed off. Yet that might be too much to hope.

I remember reading memoirs of a Finn written in the early 1920's that had served in the Imperial government in St. Petersburgh until the fall. He said he had met even Rasputin, but one his most damning remarks weren't at the Bolsheviks, but especially the Black Hundreds, which according to him were absolute poison for any sane and rational reform to happen, but lulled the Czarist regime to think that the people support them.

Russia has a long history of similar views of Putin and Patrushev (or Dugin). We often forget that either the Mensheviks or the Bolsheviks weren't the only play around in Russia when it had it's Revolution and especially before the revolutions. For example, the Chornaya sotnya, the Black Hundreds, promoted an ultra-conservative right-wing idealism which supported the House of Romanov, was against any reforms to the autocracy of the Tzar and favoured ultra-nationalism and anti-semitism. Some of the sycophants of Putin's regime seem like them. And of course, in today's Russia the movement has been refounded. And btw. the movement participated in the early stages of the Russo-Ukrainian War on the side of pro-Russian separatists.




I think the Russian tragedy is in the Slavophile attitude of seeing everything "Western" as bad and dangerous to the "true Russian state and Russian heritage". That the West is there to destroy every good in Russia. It's all a huge conspiracy against Russia to destroy Russia and the Russians.

Perhaps the cause for this is that modernization, or Westernization, has been forced by a violent system starting with Peter the Great and other autocratic regimes. And when autocrats force with an iron fist modernization however bening in the end, the way it's introduced is the problem. Because I think just as Greece, Russia and Russian culture is part of the West.

A far more deadlier conflict came hopefully to an end with successful peace talks just now. Ukraine likely hasn't yet reached similar numbers of killed.

A conflict that the media had forgotten. The sides in the Ethiopian civil war came to an agreement.

However for those hypocrites who say they are for peace, but in fact de facto support Putin in this conflict (because they are against the West and don't care a fuck about anything else), it should be noticed just how and why a settlement was reached in the Ethiopian civil war. In short: The government won the war. But it could also face a continued insurgency, which would be even more disastrous for Tigray and the whole country. Hence both sides called it quits. At least for now.

A short but thorough examination how this was done, especially the peace terms are laid out:



Hence when talking about either an armstice or peace in Ukraine, one has to understand that the situation on the battlefield is the only reason both sides will make it. Just like in Ethiopia.

Neither observations have the slightest relevance too the inanity of your suggestion that the risk of nuclear war "isn't all that bad" because we got away with it last time. — Isaac

And the assumption that because Russia has nuclear weapons, it can invade other sovereign countries and we can't even give these countries aid to defend themselves is simply stupidity. Or insanity.

Communication between the nuclear superpowers has deteriorated a great deal. The diplomacy that existed a few decades ago no longer exists. If there were already several extremely close calls back then, it stands to reason that we're in an even more delicate situation now that communication is gone. — _db

I'm not so sure of that, actually. US officials have been in contact with their counterparts.

(BBC 21st October 2022) US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu spoke on Friday, the two countries confirmed.

Both sides said the situation in Ukraine was discussed.

It is the first time they have spoken since a call on 13 May.

After Friday's call, Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told the BBC that the US was "eager to keep lines of communication open".

"It has been since May since the two gentlemen spoke, so Secretary Austin took today as an opportunity to connect with Minister Shoigu," he said.

Russia's defence ministry said that "current questions of international security were discussed, including the situation in Ukraine".

We forget just how little interaction there actually was during the Cold War. There weren't many times, for example, that the US and Soviet leaders met.

For example, Carter and Brezhnev:

(May 16th, 1979 WP) Almost 2 1/2 years after taking office, President Carter finally met Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev today, and both immediately agreed that is was long overdue.

In reporting the exchange on the eve of their first formal summit session Saturday, U.S. officials said both Carter and Brezhnev indicated that their next meeting should take place much sooner.

Gorbachev was the first Soviet leader that Reagan met in his second term in 1985. He didn't meet Andropov or Chernenko. Then there had been eight years that the leaders of the two Superpowers had met.

A Republican controlled Congress won't eat alive Joe. Not literally and not even in a figure of speech.

We don't have to go further than 2015-2017 to have a situation with a democratic president and both houses being in control of the Republicans. And the other way it was with George W Bush in 2007-2009. So this isn't anything new, if it happens.

The simple fact is that not much then will be done and assuming it's not Trump that the GOP takes on to be their candidate, it's a real possibility that Biden will have a four year presidency. A present day Jimmy Carter.

Yet with Trump, he's something that will activate and energize enough hatred among Americans that he won't be elected (and Biden might have a second turn). Something that happened when the Democrats chose the wife of a previous democrat president to run for the position, when enough Republicans remembered all the scandals of that previous administration.

Well, thinking of "pathologically stealing or harming others" seems to have the idea in it that ethics can be universal and absolute. In many cases it is so.

Yet even rationality, that actions are logical depends the logical system. And the premises. After all, it's quite rational to defend yourself. And so, just where you put the line between justified defense, excessive defense or unethical defense, when a "pre-emptive attack" isn't justified. As the saying the saying goes, best defense can to be to attack.

Seems that James Webb telescope is in heavy use, new interesting images:

Scientists are looking at light from the universe’s first and oldest star clusters in a new deep field image sent by the James Webb Space Telescope.

Deep field images are captured when powerful telescopes like Webb and the Hubble Space Telescope point their lenses toward dark spots in space between visible stars and leave the lenses open long enough to capture images.

These latest images show galaxies from the farthest parts of the universe including one 9 billion light-years away, reports say. Each one of them holds millions of stars.

Is it possible to be a criminal, and also rational, in the strictest sense of the word? — Pantagruel

Laws defines criminals.

Speaking of a war existing between Ukraine and Russia is criminal in Russia.

So yes, you can be totally rational and a criminal. Besides, I don't think rational and ethical are synonymous.

In fact, hang it, why don't we just invade Russia? After all, what was the battle of Stalingrad really, but a lot of high jinx? — Isaac

For Ukraine to defend itself from an Russian attack is different from NATO attacking Russia.

But if you listen to Putin, it seems to be the same.

↪neomac ↪Isaac I think the discussion about legitimacy is irrelevant. Do Ukrainians deserve to be protected against Russian aggression, answer: yes. At any cost? No. The only difference of opinion on this thread is when that yes becomes a no. Avoid nuclear war is obvious, the evaluation of what actions increase that risk is not. Then there are knock-on effects like causing an energy crisis that hurts the poorest all across Europe. Is it worth that? There are plenty of people divided on that. — Benkei

I think the escalation to WW3 is severely overstated. It seems as if people have long forgotten that similar wars where on one Super Power's enemy was eagerly supported by the other Super Power were more of the norm in the Cold War. In the Korean War the Soviet Air Force and the USAF fought each other over the skies of North Korea, and both sides just kept it as a secret.

Even if Kherson falls to Ukraine, it's not a desperate situation for Putin.

Besides,

I've noticed not much enthusiasm for the incoming elections here.

Might the Republicans get both houses? What do people think?

Well, the inflation finally came, even if it wasn't supposed to happen at all in an deflationary environment. And wasn't so transitory as suggested.

So things kind of things that people have anticipated for decades might actually happen.

But yeah, permabear scaremongering has it's audience always, at least for soothing pessimists that they are right.

Ah, in mathematics, yes. Sorry, I didn't understand you at first.

In mathematics you start with logical premises, and then get that system something is wrong of false in that system starting from the premises. (Hence if 0=1, then anything goes.) I forget what philosophical school of mathematics that is, but it basically just looks if the system is logical by it's own rules. Of course mathematics itself is under scrutiny here.

(Not my best day I assume)

No.

Logically it's not just any kind of adjective. We assume that true things exist. We cherish for example mathematics because there true statements exist. Math gives them proofs. If 0=1, then basically you can prove anything in mathematics.

Yep, I may confuse you. Sorry. :yikes:

I agree with you, but I lost you at this part. — god must be atheist

Physical existence is quite clear: either something is made of atoms exists or it doesn't. Hence we can say that an animal we define or have named as being a horse exists ("horses exist" is a true statement) whereas an animal named as an unicorn doesn't (hence "Unicorns exist" is false). Here existence refers to physical existence.

Yet when we don't ask about physical objects, but refer to other questions, the "existence" isn't so straightforward: is there a very popular called mythic imaginary creature called an unicorn? Are there pictures, books or songs about unicorns? Of course. It's our questions that define the truth or falsity of the answers.

Apart from the interesting ontological questions, we simply need in everyday life to exist as humans a lot that isn't made up of atoms. An advanced language makes us what we are, just as understanding concepts. It's simply biology that makes us different from other animals.

Even the hard core materialist needs things like language and math. He or she might simply brush away the question with the standard answer that it all happens in the brain.

In a way, the problem is that existence and something being true is synonymous. From that we get confused.

Who cares? The Russian economy is rather small. You think the world economy will tank if we boycott Portugal? — Olivier5

Portugal btw. was the last Western country to hold on to it's African posessions by fighting colonial wars (in the 1970's) thanks to having a fascist regime. The regime was finally overthrown in the Carnation Revolution and finally Portugal ended it's wars in Africa. Before the revolution the colonial wars both in Angola and Mozambique were draining like 40% of the Portuguese governments budget. (The hasty and immediate retreat of the Portuguese from both countries created unfortunately a void that lead to civil wars in both countries)

Hopefully Russia would have a similar coup?

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Is antinatalism the answer?

Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. After all, if everyone believed in antinatalism, we as a human race would be wiped out of the Earth. Too bad for all of our domesticated animals.

Putin's Russia went regressive, downhill.
Not really the best; all those nukes and Kinzhal don't help either, and at the fingertips of a creepy autocrat?
Having gone down that trajectory matters — we take it into consideration when making assessments, important people use it when making decisions.
All the bombing killing destroying shamming re-culturating really doesn't help.
I guess some don't want to get dragged along downhill, and some don't want to implicitly or explicitly assent to (reinforce/encourage/support) the regress.
Why would anyone jump onto a degenerative path/trend (toward an unknown future)? — jorndoe

The short answer is that Russia is a police state. There are more political prisoners now in Russia than in the later years of the Soviet Union. A ruinous path can be followed easily.

Putin punched a long time way above his weight limit: made huge gambles and they paid off. Yet those successes made him unable to stop and still keep on gambling. In hindsight it might seem that if Russia would have stopped at just annexing Crimea and not instilling an insurgency in the Donbas, he might have won easily. So why couldn't he stop?

The reason has some similarities to the hypothetical historical scenario if Hitler would have kept his promise to Neville Chamberlain and Chamberlain's declaration of "peace in our time" wouldn't be what it is now, but viewed as one of the greatest achievements of successful diplomacy in history. (Which of course in reality it wasn't, but quite the opposite.)



The simple fact was that the Third Reich and it's armament program was all bent for war. The deficit spending in pre-war Nazi Germany was simply reckless in the long run. Actually it had it's first cracks in 1938 as Schacht had to finance the Mefo-bills by dubious methods forcing banks to buy them. Such an armament program would simply be ruinous for the economy if it would just be in existence in peacetime. All the rhetoric wasn't made for peaceful coexistence. It all had been so easy until it came for Poland. So why stop there the grand project?

Even if Russia's monetary and financial policy is different, In Putin's case the kleptocratic system around him simply cannot create the economic growth that would hurl Russians to a level of prosperity as in the West. GDP per capita is a higher in the Baltic States than in Russia, which were earlier lower. And seeing that the East European countries that have joined the West are far more well off than those who have not is the reason why Ukrainians demonstrated against their government by waving EU flags.



The bad economy would simply be a reason to change the leadership in any democratic nation. And since Putin cannot give economic prosperity, Putin chose the other objective: to make Russia great again and rebuild the lost Empire. That empire building is done by Russia in a defensive manner: all what Russia is doing is defending itself by enlarging itself. As Catherine the Great said: "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”As we have seen from even this thread, some in the West even believe this line from Catherine the Great. That obviously Putin was somehow pushed to invade Ukraine, hence the culprit is the West. That we are critical towards our governments, as people in a democracy should and can be, has lead some to amazing self-flagellation and believe the Russian propaganda.

Hence once on this road, it seems there is no other option for Putin to fight the war to the end or hope the West will get tired of supporting Ukraine. Likely outcome is that this will be ruinous for Russia (as it is for Ukraine). But perhaps Putin might hang in their like Syria's Assad.

Can somebody sum up just why anti-natalism is such a popular topic?

Trump didn't get away with everything he wanted, let's put it this way. He was still a Putin lapdog. — Olivier5

This is one of those very peculiar and strange things in international politics and really interesting to find out what history will say about this.

At first Trump genuinely seemed like some kind of a sycophant to Putin. That obviously poised the question what the Russians had on Trump. But then again, this is Trump, the most bizarre US President there ever has been, who genuinely was a fanboy of leaders with dictatorial aspirations. Yet the ineptitude of Trump meant that this didn't have any kind of effect on the policies the Trump administration actually did. This ineptitude is forgotten: Trump's lack of genuine leadership skills meant that he was unable to create a cabal that would have gone through for example with an autocoup.

So for example, in the Helsinki-meeting between Trump and Putin Trump suggested a joint-venture to tackle cyberattacks (!), a proposal that was dead immediately. Not to forget the humiliation of Trump say he believed Putin more than his own intelligence services.

Yet Michael Flynn, the ex-national security advisor who urged Trump to use the military to seize ballot machines, was as the advisor for Trump only for 24 days. And this is the norm: the openly pro-Russia people in the Trump sphere were kicked off quite quickly.

Hence Trump basically gave only a scare to NATO, just as the Capitol attack and Trump's actions then did for Democrats.

Yet Trump still does matter. Even today in the war:

(Politico, Oct 11th 2022) The person who can end the war in Ukraine is Donald Trump, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Speaking at a panel event in Berlin, Orbán said that peace talks should not be conducted between Ukraine and Russia, but between the U.S. and Russia, with Trump leading the negotiations on the American side.

Orbán said “the Ukrainians have endless resources because they get all that from the Americans,” arguing that only U.S. military support will allow Ukraine to continue to fight.