Yes and the US is threatening to withdraw their support if we don't coöperate to get a peacedeal. That is the situation we are in. We can either coöperate, or try to go on without them with no other plan than to just keep Ukraine afloat... which in all likelyhood means we have to accept a similar or worse peacedeal a couple of years, and thousands of lifes, later.

We can quibble over who is the cause of what, and who is in the right. You say it's all Russia's fault, I say its the result of the two reacting to eachother... whatever. I don't think it matters nearly as much as what the actual situation is on the battlefield. We are not in a position to enforce the demands we want, there's really not much more to it.

And we used the "nuclear bomb" of financial measures against them. Of course they will use what they have against us... we are trying to break them, they are trying to break us.

We are at war, what do you expect? That Russia would just say, go ahead Europe, you can freeze all our foreign assets, throw us out of the global banking system, give financial and military support to our enemy we are at war with?

Yes, there would be turmoil, but not catastrophic and assets in the form of gold or property will retain their value. — Punshhh

Yes, as per usual it will be the bottom and lower middle classes who will bear the brunt of it... and cost of living is already becoming a problem for them as we speak.

Add to that climate change related issues like mass migration out of Afrika or crop-failures all over the world, an ageing demographic that needs more and more care, increasing geo-political instability, technological disruptions like the AI-revolution, fossil energy-depletion etc etc... and you have a recipe for something really special!

The younger generations will have nothing to look forward to, and if history is any lesson they will not go quietly in the night. We need to give them some perspective for a future Punshhh, getting stuck in an endless war is the opposite of that.

You know what I meant.

Trump is not going to side with Russia in attacking Europe. They only real care about China, which is the only one who can compete. If they have an interest in Russia it's to drive a wedge between Russia and China who are helping eachother in this war.

And Russia isn't going to attack Europe on its own, because they can't.

Non of this is real.

I think sooner or later the paper money system will collapse. But it's not the end of the World. Debts are then either defaulted or repaid by inflation and those that do have their savings in bonds and cash will lose that wealth. But then life goes on. — ssu

There would be massive social and political upheaval the likes we haven't seen in our lifes... but sure life would eventually go on I guess, after all the dust has settled.

It's really something, how blinded most Europeans are by imagined threats so they can't see the real danger right in front of them.

I think it's a bit more complicated... but I don't have the time now, have to go.

I mean it's difficult isn't it, because already I'm hesitating to say what I think because of all the taboos surrounding it.

If it is purely racism in the narrow sense, based on skin-colour, then I would say sure forbid it, but if it's about ethnicity and culture, then I think we should be able to discuss that.

The problem is the definition of what is racism has become so wide, that it typically also has come to include restricting speech about culture and the like.

And I think that is the point, that these things tend to shift and expand further than the original goal that may have been perfectly benign initially.

But here's a real life example. In a lot of western countries a lot of these restrictions to free speech have been set in place after the horrors of world war II. Very understandably so, and I'm sure they had all the best intentions. But what has happened after a couple of decennia is that some political parties have weaponised these restrictions to make otherwise perhaps legitimate concerns of other political parties undiscussable.

I just think, like T Clark, that there are worse things than allowing speech that may hurt feelings.

It can... I don't think we should suspect Jamal in this instance, but it won't always be Jamal in charge.

The point is that it is an argument to not have restrictions on free speech, because it can and will be used by those in power to consolidate their power.

Bit of a non sequitur. The fact that it can be applied to anything doesn't make it any less true.

This draw down happened only after the Cold War ended. That is 30 years ago, not 80 years. And naturally the threat that Putin's Russia poses is far smaller than what the Soviet Union did. — ssu

Yes I was overstating the case a bit, it is 30 years of no threat... the result is the same though, the military hasn't been taken seriously.

That would be the European objective, not Trump's objective, who is basically doing the bidding of Russia here. — ssu

But then we should take some initiative towards realising that objective, instead of merely antagonising like we are doing now and for the past 3 years. And I don't think Trump is doing Putin's bidding, he just wants out because he thinks that is in US interests... and for that he needs to find some common ground with Putin. Just repeating over and over how evil Putin is, isn't going to get us closer to a peace deal.

Which has been supported by the largest alliance in history, up until Trump. But cut off that aid, and Russia can take Ukraine. And once there's a cease-fire, then Russia can build up in few years the armament that it has lost. Also it drafts hundreds of thousands of conscripts annually.

When Russia says it's at war with NATO and the West, we should understand that he means it. — ssu

I think he says that because we keep pretending like we are not in the war, i.e. that we're only providing help "to protect Ukraines soevereignity".

But yes we need to find a workable security arrangement for Ukraine, I do agree with that because otherwise you have the same problem in a few years. That is the single most important thing we should be aiming for, and to achieve that we will probably need to make some other concessions. And it will take a lot of time and effort to get there, so we better get started to move the conversation in that direction.

Yes, it's not going to end well.

The system is just going to default in some way or another. That simple.
You can default or then you can pay it with inflation. — ssu

And then what, we end up in a Weimar Germany kind of situation? You don't think that is something we should be trying to avoid at all cost?

This is what I don't understand, rhetorically we have our mouth full of warnings about the looming dangers of fascism, but then in practice we are doing exactly the things we know leads to extremism.

We need to borrow more money because COVID, because Russia, because climate change, because an aging demographic, because there is allways a reason!

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CAN/FRA/DEU/ITA/JPN/GBR/USA

It's not going to end well.

Why do you think so?

There's far enough resources, technological ability and I would say unity to defend the union. Going on in out of the area peace enforcing or other stuff isn't going to be popular, but the simple fact of defending the member states from outside aggression is an reachable goal.

Look, my country wasn't part of NATO, was left totally to the sphere of Stalin and yet we had enough deterrence to stay independent. Why now would we have less deterrence when we are in an alliance and when Europe is pouring 800 billion into defense procurement? — ssu

Assuming the US bows out of the war, we are weak at this particular moment because they did a lot of the coördination, the intelligence, logistics, tactical support etc... I think we need some time to get those things in order.

We also lack the battle experience. Russia is already fighting the war for 3 years now, they have a military economy going, and probably would want to keep it going because they are allready geared for it now. We're only just getting started.

I'm talking about the Ukraine war specifically... because to turn arround that war you essentially need to take back territory. Deterring Russia in the future is another matter, I think we could do that if we can prepare for it. Defence is generally a lot easier than offence.

Nonsense. We are talking of military strength and deterrence. Just look at what a basket case is Russia itself. And look how poor actually the Chinese are compared per capita to us. One has to understand that the NATO countries (minus US) spend more than China and Russia COMBINED in defense. It's really a simply an issue of having will here to really to put serious investment into defense. — ssu

I think you maybe don't fully appreciate how much a lot of European countries are in debt allready, because you live in a country that is doing really well compared to the rest. You also probably have a military that was taken seriously because of the Russia threat that was allways there for Finland... in Western Europe there hasn't been a serious threat for 80 years, and as a consequence the military has suffered. Large investements are needed, with money that isn't really there.

Russia is maybe a basket case in the overall, but they probably can keep a war economy going pretty easily because of the abundant natural resources they can allways export.

Russia isn't winning. Ukrainians can decide if they want to fight for their country or not. It is up to us if we want to give them support. For example: over 70 F-16 fighters have been pledged to be given to Ukraine. Now only 18 have been sent, I guess. We in Europe have to understand that Trump is hostile to us, he isn't our friend. — ssu

They are winning because they have conquered territory from Ukraine. Since they already occupy the territories they are asking for, they don't really need a peace deal... why would they settle for less if we can't get them out anytime soon?

How?
By giving into Putin's demands? By sidelining the Ukrainians here, just as Trump does? — ssu

Zelenski will have to listen to us because without our support he's losing the war anyway. We support him to get the realistically best possible peace deal, not to fight on indefinately. And yes that will mostly be giving into Putin's demands, i.e. no Nato, giving up the occupied territories for the most part, new elections in Ukraine... the one thing I would push for is a good enough security arrangement for Ukraine so Russia can't just start over. That is called cutting your losses.

And Chamberlain was praised at the time as “the benefactor of the world” while Chamberlain’s critics were “‘war-mongers“. That people "felt a very proper reluctance of sending young men of this country” to war, especially as there were no personal feelings of “ill-will” between British men and “their German and Italian contemporaries.” — ssu

Russia is in no way in a similar position as Nazi-germany. They have trouble conquering a small part of a neighbouring country. The fear that Russia will invade the rest of Europe is irrational from a practical point of view, and also contradictory with the idea that we should keep the Ukraine war going because we think we can just conquer back the territory.... you can't have it both ways.

Human nature isn't the explanation for who we are and what we do. It's part of the answer. We aren't blank slates. — T Clark

Fair enough, and I do agree with this.

I don't disagree, but I think Lao Tzu sends a much more extreme message than that. — T Clark

Could you elaborate on this, I'm curious what you mean with it. Is it something along the lines of the Chuang Tzu quote?

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.
— Chuang Tzu — Chuang Tzu

This seems remarkably similar to what Nietzsche is getting at. Goodness as springing from the body, from the particular physiology of an individual... as opposed to Goodness coming from the holy spirit or the logos, imposed from the outside via the 'word', universal and abstract, and therefor not geared to the individual.

While I certainly would agree that the former is better for the individual, this still seems like a bit of a problem for society, because what society needs is not necessarily allways congruent with what is best for the individual.

I was just trying to figure out what is going on with the recent cultural, ideological and political devellopements in the US, as these usually spill over into Europe the years thereafter.

But sure let's play, suppose we agree on the goal that we should do something about the enormous public debt. Don't you think you will get wildly different policy answers depending on which side one is on, or what position one has in society? People do have different interests.

There's been enough of "resets" and understanding of Putin's Russia. As long as Putin's Russia is as hostile as it is, we should treat it as a threat, just like the West treated Soviet Union. Appeasement now will just show that Europe is inherently weak and can be forced with the threat of violence to give everything up. — ssu

It think the problem with this line of thinking is that we are in fact weak. Instead of trying to hold up a facade of strenght by not giving into Russia, maybe we should try to actually be strong. And to be strong you need to have a good economy, and for that you need cheaper energy...

I think these psychological considerations matter a whole lot less that we might think, it's the facts on the ground that matter most, and there Russia is winning.

Please do understand that Putin's Russia wants to dissolve the European Union and hence is a genuine threat to it. Someone that is your adversary really isn't your friend and you won't improve your security by going along with it. China isn't such aggressive as Russia. — ssu

I don't deny this, they are our adversary now and we should treat them as such for the forseable future. That doesn't mean we can't try to de-escalate and work towards having a less destructive relation.

And as long as Russia sees itself as a Great Power that should have it's sphere of influence in Europe, that long it's an existential threat. It can have a revolution and understand that the time of it's Imperial greatness is over, just like the UK understood and even France was forced to understand. — ssu

It think it's going to be difficult to get them that far, the break up of the USSR is still etched in their minds as one of the most damaging things that has happened to them in history... they lost as much people as in World War II in that period. Putin was and is the one holding the oligarchs in check. I don't think you can just have a revolution and expect things to go swimmingly for them.

Maybe this is mostly just a definitional semantic thing. Nietzsche for instance saw (Christian) morality as just that, social control, and stifling to the individual because it does constrict the expression of their biological nature... that is why he considered himself an immoralist. So he's saying essentially something similar, but the terms and definitions used are the exact opposite.

The aspects of human nature I've proposed are not intended to be comprehensive - they're just examples. I think there's a lot more going on. Humans are story tellers so it seems plausible to me that there may be an inborn tendency and capacity for mythology. As for values, there are studies showing that children might be born with the fundamentals of a moral sense. Here's a link to a discussion.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/f/1145/files/2017/10/Wynn-Bloom-Moral-Handbook-Chapter-2013-14pwpor.pdf — T Clark

Yes, we have innate moral feelings, maybe even something like a directional moral sense, but I don't think its enough on its own to get fully functional morality. We have a long education period for a reason it would think, unlike other animals.

If there's a cultural component to how we get our values, if that is part of human nature, then it seem like pointing to human nature as an explanation misses something, or doesn't really answer the question, as there is a yet to be defined component to human nature.

I do think education, or moral systems, can go to far or go wrong if they veer to far from the basic moral feelings. This is how I see Taoism for instance, partly as a correction to an overbearing Confucianism. A lot of high Chinese officials were Confucian in public and Daoist in private.... But I don't think you could have had a functioning Chinese society with Taoism alone.

The formal systems of so-called morality you discuss are more about how someone thinks other people should behave. As I see it, that's not morality at all, it's social control - the rules and practices a society sets up to protect it's members and make sure things run smoothly. Murder is prohibited not because it's wrong, but because it hurts people that a community is obligated to protect. — T Clark

I think part of moralities function is social control. Murder derails societies as it tended to lead to bloodfeuds and the like... it was bad for social order. It seems weird to me that you would want to excluded that from morality, as a functioning society is a prerequisite for any kind of human flourishing it seems to me.

I don't think this is a fair, or reasonable thing to say, no matter what comes next. — AmadeusD

If you disagree with that statement, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

But again, this absolutely ignores what I'm saying: Sure, to stop it. Start by having this discussion. It is not possible for ideology to get in the way of this. All it can do is leave someone bereft of answers, and egg on their face. Not that this works in all cases, but it has almost universally allowed me to find common ground and understanding with people who's chosen polices are in the negative column, for me. — AmadeusD

Look this was just not why I was posting in this thread. And furthermore I don't see why we would need to find common ground to begin with, I'm in Europe and you're in New Zealand, we are not the ones that need to see eye to eye.

So what is our human nature? I'll go out on a limb here. It is a bunch of inborn genetic, biological, neurological, mental, and psychological processes, structures, capacities, drives, and instincts which are modified during development and by experience and socialization. I'll try to be more specific. We are social animals. We like and want to be around each other. We care most for those closest to us - our families and especially our children. We are born with temperaments that express themselves from the very start. We are born with an instinctual drive and capability for language. We are born with an inborn drive to find a mate, usually, but not always of the opposite sex. This is from William James. I'm not sure whether it will seem relevant, but it does to me and I like it. — T Clark

What about culture? Could it also be human nature to devise myths and tables of values to pass onto the next generation?

The foundation of these norms is the metapysical question. Do we have them just to facilitate survival and therefore ingrained in our DNA? Or do they come from a higher source of wisdom directing us toward higher purpose? If you choose the latter, you have no way of asserting that than faith. The consequence of denying the higher power is to be a complex wolf or chicken though. That worldview is lesser i'd submit. — Hanover

Maybe it's just a convention, wouldn't that be the most obvious answer?

And if they are not truth apt they cannot participate in rationalising our actions. — Banno

They can be reasoned with if you take a conventional view of morality, i.e. it is true that we agreed (as a society) that stealing is wrong... you don't need the moral statements themselves to be truth apt.

I would say you have a shared understanding and values that is functionally similar to religion.

I'm European.

I get it, trust works... until it doesn't.

Yeah but the reality is that we are not self-sufficient on our own. We need a group cooperating to sustain ourselves.

If religion or any other common understanding of how to realise this is lacking, then the personal interest of the populace will not be served by default.

Nah fascism is a particular way of organising the state, there's plenty of ways faith doesn't lead to fascism.

The problem is universality, the idea that the values of a certain group should apply to everyone... and hence everyone can justifiably be held accountable for not adhering to these values, even if they don't believe in them.

Plato... Christianity.

I don't think nationalism is functionally all that different from religion.
— ChatteringMonkey

That was my point. — Banno

I don't think it is a bad thing to be clear.

Well at least now you are beginning to address what I actually argued rather than what folk expect or want to think I argued.

Faith, understood as belief without or even despite the evidence, is not a virtue.

Faith, understood as trust, might foster commitment or dedication and these are (perhaps) virtues.

The Binding of Isaac and the Trials of Job speak of acts of cruelty, where unjustified suffering is inflicted in the name of faith. Moreover these are held up as admirable, to be emulated.

I don't agree. I hope other also disagree. — Banno

I don't think you really understand what faith is if you believe that you should evaluate what faith asks you to do by yet another standard. Faith is the standard, there's nothing besides. That is I think precisely the point of the binding of Isaac, that you sacrifice what may be in your personal interest for the greater good.

Why is faith the greater good? Because it is what preserves the social order, and that is a prerequisite without which individuals can't attain their interests to begin with.

If you believe inflicting suffering is the standard to measure behaviours to, then that is your faith.

Ok then we agree... I haven't read all the posts in the thread, so my apologies if I'm saying something that has been said already.

I don't think nationalism is functionally all that different from religion.

The difference is that belief is the more encompassing term, also including empirical beliefs about what is. Faith is a type of belief, a subset... about values, about what should be... things that cannot simply be derived from what is.

Well religion is the institutionalisation of these values, how they get propagated in a given society, how and who can change them over time.

Faith is the belief in those values from the personal perspective.

There is no argument, it is description of what happens.

Religion, from the etymological root 'religare', means to unite. Its function is to unite a certain group of people so they move more together in a certain direction.

Faith then is the believe in a set of common values, without there necessarily being any justification other then the fact that a group of people have agreed to them.

It doesn't have anything to do with 'truth' in the empirical sense, it is future oriented, i.e. more about what society one wants to create... more about 'what should be', rather than about 'what is'.

It's a way to avoid prisoners dilemmas. It only works if people suspend there own short term self-interest for the longer term common good, which in the end is more beneficial for everybody than if people just all would pursue the own interest... a leap of faith.

Ok SSU let me ask you this, what do you think our long term strategy should be towards Russia?

I think, as I stated before, that the dynamics or the relation between the two has gotten us to where we are, not only Russia. And I think NATO was a part of that because it structurally creates tension as Russia is the explicit reason for the alliance.

We could have a alliance not against Russia, but for European security and involve Russia so it doesn't threaten its security, but also improves its security.

Putin is not going to live forever, but Russia is allways going to be there. I think we should look to the future, and not institutionalise the current conflict with Russia. Because if that is what you expect and build towards, then that is probably what you are going to get.

Actually, NATO gives a good, realistic, concept to follow here. Only without the US. So you have to have that command structures. In fact, this can happen inside NATO in the way that European NATO members and Canada just start assuming that the US isn't there and start having exercises without the US. — ssu

You could use it as a template, or reform NATO itself sure, but I would do 3 things differently.

1) I think there needs to be political leadership over it, so you have accountability to the public, and also real agency because it has a mandate from the public

2) We need a alliance for European security seperate from the US, because if you are only a junior partner in an alliance you usually have little controle over where it goes.

3) It shouldn't be an alliance against Russia, because all of the reasons I have been harping on about in previous posts.

I think we have to understand that the EU is truly an union of sovereign states, which will continue to be sovereign states. — ssu

Yes I totally agree with you about this, this is why I would give back a lot of what the Commission does now back to the countries... because they have lost a lot of their sovereignity to the EU, and are hampered in their ability to implement effective policies to deal with problems in their country.

I'm talking mostly only about a more permanent centralisation of defence and military because that makes sense in the world we are seeming to be heading to. And really, in practice sovereignity in foreign policy and defence is allready mostly dead letter now because a lot of it is determined by NATO.

To clarify maybe, true unification is not what I'm aiming for, i'm arguing for both centralisation of defence and foreign policy, and decentralisation of other things. Maybe a confederation is a better model for this.

Actually, there is now one unifying reason: Donald Trump.

If the US would, just like Obama and Biden and the presidents before them, stand with Europe, Russia wouldn't pose a threat. Now when Trump is in Putin's pocket, Russia is an existential threat. Add there the trade war. Add there the territorial annexation agende of Greenland, which is part of Denmark.

True unification usually happens with an outside threat. That is there now. — ssu

Yes the Russia threat and US tradewar is a unifying force, certainly initially, but it's also a polarising and splitting force. Militarisation of the economy and a tradewar induced recession will also create a lot of discontent in European countries. That discontent usually gets vacuumed up by far right parties that are financially supported by Putin and ideologically supported by alt-right media. It seems you can expect some countries to flip in coming election cycles should the war drag on another couple of years... and if that happens then you could very well see the end the EU, which is what Trump and Putin want, and/or the war spilling over into Europe.

That scenario, which seems very plausible to me, is what got me blackpilled on this war, but I guess nobody sees it like that.

I agree with most of what you said SSU. The point I wanted to make is that if liberal democracy and the values that come with that, are very difficult to implement in these countries, maybe we should be a little bit more understanding of that fact that it isn't feasible for them to adhere to all of those values we have declared as universal.

The weak point of liberal democracy is stability.

I don't want the EU to be an Empire. It can have a defense, but not be offensive. There's always going to be some Hungary around, but also so many the sovereign states won't start something extremely stupid. At least some countries will come to the conclusion that "this would be stupid". — ssu

Yes for sure I don't want empire either, we should build in enough checks and balances to prevent that.

So why I think this could work, i.e. having a more centralised defence and foreign policy, is 1) it would enable us to defend Europes interests better on the world stage, which would be a net benefit for all countries and 2) it would prevent European countries from fighting among each other.

Why do I think the latter is important? I think one of the problems of the EU has allways been the democratic deficit, the notion that European bureaucracy is to far removed from the people and is just doing stuff that is not in the interest of the countries and its people. The way to solve this is to bring back government to the more local level so there is more of a connection again between goverment and the people (the principle of subsidiarity). If you want to do that however you probably get stronger nationalist sentiments forming again, and you risk what has happened again and again in Europes history, European countries going to war with eachother. By tying up the miltary of the countries in a more central European defence you could effectively avoid that from happening. The EU was a peaceproject, it was very effective in preventing intra-European wars, just not that effective in other areas.

How do universal rights not make a lot of sense for other societies? What other societies are you thinking of? Are they somehow incapable of living up to our level or simply just love more autocracy? — ssu

No they just have another order of values. They think stability comes before rights, which I would argue makes some sense because you can't protect rights if you don't have a working order to protect them. So Putin or Xi think they can remove dissindents because it threathens the stability of the country. Liberal democracy isn't allways something that works because of the circumstances some countries find themselves in... just look at all the failed attempts of the west to install these kind of regimes. Sometimes it just doesn't work, and then you get violent anarchy like in Irak for instance, or Lybia, or Syria. Or look at the US now, or Nazi germany, democratically choosen! It think the assumption that liberal democracy is allways the best is bit misguided.

NATO will be replaced by an European security architechture, if Trump wants to destroy as Putin would desire and if we and the Americans let him do that. And then Russia will go against that European rump-NATO and the European Union. — ssu

And we can detter it with military strenght, like the US did untill now, without the antagonising.

These two seem to be opposed to the other. — ssu

It's the principle of subsidiarity, you delegate everything you can to the more local levels, and at the highest level you keep only what needs to be dealt with on the highest level. Foreign policy, defense would probably need to be cöordinated at the top level because that makes most sense.

I would suggest the ability to go forward with a "coalition of the willing" in issues and that there isn't the ability of one or two countries to simply oppose everything and bloc action of the union. And simply to understand that EU has it's limitations, it cannot act as a single nation state, but it can act as a pact. — ssu

You can never devellop a consistent longer term strategy like that I think, which is what all other blocs are doing... you will end up being a leaf in the wind on the geopolitical stage.

The most urgent issue is that our politicians wake up to the threat that the Putin/Trump pact is for Europe. In no way this appeasement and support that Trump gives to Putin (with the alt-right cheering it) serves the interests of Europe. Likely Putin has promised Trump a bigger "minerals deal" if he hands over Ukraine to Russia. All the actions taken by to undermine Ukraine start unveiling a really bad situation. And Trumps obsession for Greenland (and Canada) perhaps shows that Trump is drooling for riches in this new imperialist game he wants to play with Putin, who is in real trouble otherwise. — ssu

Ooh they are awake allright. I think they should keep calm and not overreact... that is the bigger danger now.

A bigger reason is that countries haven't had a realistic energy policies in the first place. Especially thinking that renewable energy will take care of everything and fossil fuels don't matter is the primary cause. Germany went and closed it's nuclear energy for no reason and the UK's energy situation isn't bad because of Russia. — ssu

Yes, mistakes have been made, but again we have to look at the situation as is. Renewable energy is still only a small portion of total energy consumption right now. Maybe we will get there eventually, but we will need gas for a while still.

First, does Sachs say anything negative about Putin's Russia? Does he mention the annexation of Crimea? No, he skipped that. If I remember correctly, according to him all rhetoric of Russia having territorial aspirations was "childish propaganda". So what Putin talks to the Russian people and has written about the "artificiality" of Ukraine and the injustice Russia has been a victim with losing Crimea doesn't matter or itself is childish propaganda too? — ssu

Well a lot of countries do this, Turkey has aspirations of taking back the whole Ottoman empire for instance, that doesn't mean they will start invading those countries necessarily. I would agree that they have those aspirations in general, but I think the real issue was genuinly the fact that Ukraine is vital for Russia's securiy because it's a straight line of 300 miles over plains to Moskou. And given the US trackrecord the concern was not wholy unjustified I would say. That and Putin maybe needed a war to stabilize his rule internally.

You simply have to be yourself critical about and notice the bias that Sachs has here. Is he right about the US giving up Middle East policy to Netanyahu? Yes, I think so. Did Brzezinski write "The Grand Chessboard" with aggressive hubris towards Russia? Yes, I have the book in bookshelf, yet it wasn't an US masterplan for Russia, because Brzezinski was just one voice in the cacophony of US foreign policy community of competing think tanks and commentators. Just like Jeffrey Sachs himself and his friend John Mearsheimer are. China or Russia might have masterplans, the US, not so. — ssu

I'm sure he has some bias, but all the regime change attemps and fraud wars they engaged in over the years don't seem like a mere coincidance. Maybe the hawkish policy makers generally won? Maybe there was a military-industry incentive to choose those policies over the others? For other countries it doesn't matter much if they have a grand plan or not if the consequences are the same.

You might argue that isn't the US doing the same, trying to influence smaller states? Well, it really is different having been the ally of Soviet Union and Russia or having been an "ally" of the US. Just ask WHY people in former Warsaw countries wanted to join NATO? And btw, naturally every ambassador tries to influence their host countries, yet the vast of them in a friendly and open manner. — ssu

Unless it's via secret CIA operations. Maybe people generally prefer to live in our type of society, but isn't part of it also that we were the dominant power and generally more wealthy than the rest of the world because of that.

Now all that is being thrown away with the contempt and disregard, near hostility that Trump is showing against Europe. With asking for Greenland and questioning the whole sovereignty of Canada the devils of jingoism and xenophobia are summoned up and the supporters of the Trump/Putin-axis market this as being part of "realpolitik", while those defending the international order are accused to be stooges of the "deep state".

Well, if national security doesn't mean anything to you, have then Putin destroy everything. He will. Because the next target after NATO will be the European Union. Sow discord and discontent in Europe is the way forward for Russia. Trump is doing the work for Putin in an astonishing way. — ssu

Here's how I see it.

The liberal democratic order was West-centric, with notions such as Univeral rights not making a lot of sense for other societies, and often used to unnecessarily antagonise them. Maybe it was due an overhaul now that China is more of an equal on the world stage. A new order will emerge, because anarchy is good for nobody. I think we should talk to China who is the one allready thinking in that direction. It doesn't have to end in a worse place, this is just a transition, which is why we should try to look at world not only from our Western perspective now and try to find agreement instead of looking for the disagreement.

NATO should be replaced by our own European security achitecture, and I think that would healthy because then we will need to take it seriously and can determine our own course... and devellop some geo-political consciousness again.

The European Union needs to be reformed too, maybe replaced by a federation or something. You need real agency at the top if you want to be a player on the world stage, and you can't have that if you are perpetually divided with that many member states. Now we are being ruled by a bureaucracy that devellops an internal logic of its own that doesn't necessarily serve the member states. I would stop a lot of the harmonisation efforts of the Commission so countries have more say again in how they want to organise their state. Real diversity in countries and unity in strength under Europe.

I think we need to look forward SSU, and not backwards, clinging to a world that is disappearing. That's why I think we should do everything to get out of this perpetual dance of the death with Russia, it is important.

Yes, but what should change? I have the idea we hear the fringes on each side far louder than in the past? — Tobias

Yes it's getting more extreme on both sides.

I think identity is important here. Now the mainstream view of ourselves in the west is that we are these cosmopolitan citizens that are part of the group 'humanity', an all-inclusive group. That is the Platonist part I was referring to, morality as something abstract and universal. For those doing well in the globalised world that is something they can probably relate to.

For those left behind in rustbelts and online chatrooms this doesn't mean anything, and from their perspective it looks like a cabal of people taking advantage of them... which you know has at least a kernel of truth in it, in that the structures that were set up, deliberately or indeliberately, don't favour them. So you could do something about that.

But more important is probably that they feel like they don't belong to anything, and so sometimes they find their group in sportsclubs, or sometimes they go to crime... or sometimes to more extremist groups. One thing that has worked to keep back the far-right in my country was a strong conservative party, with a healthy kind of patriotism. Maybe it should be fine to have an identity as a country that isn't all-inclusive, and have policy that favours a certain kind of culture or values above others... so you have something people can identify with.