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.

So more in terms of a solution.

If it is an effect of the kind of society we have, i.e. exclusion of a certain part of society, then you would think the way to avoid it festering in the fringes, is to change society so there are included.

That was the mistake after WWII I think, exclusion of the extremes is maybe not the way to prevent fascism, maybe it is even (part of) the cause.

Because young undisciplined males are often the ones that don't fit in the kind of society we have. Those then find eachother in the fringes and re-enforce eachother in a bubble fueled with resentment... and you get an ideology infused with toxic misogyny.

And the particular reason for the recent re-resurgence is because these parties had traditionally been excluded from societal debate and traditional media... with the shift to social media this isn't really the case anymore. — ChatteringMonkey

I editted my first post while you were replying probably.

Ok social media is my answer then.

The second assumption is that there is a connection between the recent success of the far right and the emergence of a 'manosphere' and 'mysogynistic' tendencies. — Tobias

That isn't the case I think, we had had emergence of far right movements in Europe for decades.

The reason for it's emmergence is a group of people feeling like mainstream establisment parties wasn't working for them.

And the particular reason for the recent re-resurgence is because these parties had traditionally been excluded from societal debate and traditional media... with the shift to social media this isn't really the case anymore.

It seems to me the split is between a valuesystem based on universality (Christian/platonic) and a valuesystem centered arround the interests of a delineated, not all inclusive, group of people.

All of humanity has the same rights/value vs. my people first.

I don't think you understand the situation the same way as I do.

It is a big deal for Europe because it is one of the big factors hurting the economy. Energy-prices are being pushed higher because of the lack of Russian gas. If energy-prices are that high you simply can't compete in the world economy and you will see more and more industry disappearing.

All of the money will be loaned because European goverments are virtually broke as it is. A tanking economy and a lot of debt will probably lead to stagflation. Meanwhile the world goes on with its merry business while Europe becomes a backwater. If Europe wants to keep some of its prosperity long term you will need Russia to trade resources anyway because we don't have a lot of that ourselves....

I think you just don't see the long term implications of all of this. This is a pivotal point in history because of all the geo-political shuffling going on. If we mess this us, we will bear the consequences for decades to come.

Non of this makes sense from the point of view of Europes interests, but I guess we should just make that sacrifice because it is the 'moral' thing to do.

Why keep assuming so? Sure it can be taken back, and the Ukrainians are eager to. They don't want to march on Moscow, they want to throw the invaders out of Ukraine. And Hungary ain't helpin'. — jorndoe

The war has been going in the wrong direction the past 3 years, why do you assume that would change, if the US leaves the war?

What is the plan other than keep sending them more weapons to hold on for a little bit longer. Is there any plan?

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. — ssu

Do you not realize what precarious situation that gets us in? The last thing we should be doing at this particular moment is looking to get into prolonged wars.

Because what is there to negotiate but Ukraine surrendering? As I've said, if Putin can get what he wants, what is there to negotiate? Perhaps that Putin can weaken the resolution of the Ukrainians by Trump's "negotiations", which basically is that kick the hell out of Ukraine and lick the ass of Putin.

What the fuck is there to negotiate? How much more Ukraine has to surrender? — ssu

None of this matters if we can't take back territory, if you can't force a better negotiation position.

First, we have not given everything that Ukraine has needed, the effort hasn't been to support Ukraine so much that it could destroy Russian capability so much that Russia would accept a negotiated peace, it was give only so much, that Ukraine doesn't lose. That has been the error here. If everything would have been given then immediately, the F-16s, the long range artillery missiles, things would have been different. Biden opted not to do that. And now Trump is effectively hampering down the capabilities of Ukraine to defend itself, which just helps Russia to improve it's stance. — ssu

All of this is in the past, things we can't change anymore. We have to deal with the situation as is.

It hasn't been such a triumph for Russia as some even in this forum have portrayed it to be and Russia isn't the Soviet Union. — ssu

No, and it certainly hasn't been a triumph for the West either... the war is stuck and no going anywhere, certainly not in the direction we would want.

Please stop the warmongering, it's going to be the end of us.

But ask yourself really, is it good that Europe and the US go separate ways? How does that make the World better?

Naturally they will go separate ways, when the US acts like a bully and with hostility and contempt against it's allies. — ssu

I think something more fundamental is going on, they are essentially trying to overthrow the liberal democratic order because they think it was destroying the US. And they think it's destroying Europe too... Europe is their ideological enemy now.

It isn't about the world, it's about Europe, at least for me. It would be good for Europe because they have shown that they can't be relied on to have our interests in mind. I think we would be better of if we could determine our own direction.

Look, Russia hasn't changed it's objectives and it wants far more territory than it has now and wants a "finladized" Ukraine, realistic option would be a puppet leader for rump Ukraine, if not the total annexation of Ukraine in the future. Either Russia gets what it wants or is put into situation where the continuation of the war has worse consequences than a cessation of hostilities. Those are the only two reasons for the war to stop.

What from above that you don't understand or doesn't answer your question? — ssu

I understand that it would be bad for Ukraine. What I don't understand is why you think our negotiating position will become better if we continue the war.

To make our negotiation position better we need to take back territory. To take back territory you need a lot of troops, which Ukraine has less and less of. That means we would probably need to send a lot of European troops, which would escalate the war into a direct Russia-Europe war...

If the US leaves we lose the intelligence, tactical and logistic support. At this moment the European coördination is lacking if the US isn't filling that role. So we'd essentially be sending in troops without much experience and lacking propper support.

We should take the space Trump creates to get or at least try to negotiate a peace deal. If it doesn't work fine, then we fight... but we should at least put all effort in the negotiations first, and not constantly antagonise and assume it will fail beforehand.

The reality is there: True peace, or even a cease-fire, can be dealt from a position of strength. Of course, you can always surrender. If the Ukrainians want to surrender, nobody cannot do anything about that. If they want to defend their country, we should assist them. It's us next. — ssu

That doesn't really answer the question, why it would be better to prolong this war for European security, instead of using that time and resources to build up strenght to detter future aggression. If it's us next, going unprepared in a war that will be difficult to win, doesn't seem like the best option.

In fact you will just now witness just how different NATO is from the past Warsaw Pact, if Trump tries to bully his (former?) allies. — ssu

I think NATO is done de facto... which would be a good thing for Europe in the longer term.

No.

To have the Soviet Union or the satellite Warsaw pact states or to have a free democracy don't have the same consequences. Just as being under Russian or in an independent state is far different. Obviously you never had been in the Soviet Union or behind the iron curtain when there was one. I have, it really sucked.

In fact you will just now witness just how different NATO is from the past Warsaw Pact, if Trump tries to bully his (former?) allies. — ssu

We were talking about military power, as that is what is relevant for the Thucidydes trap... it has similar consequences on that account, I wasn't talking about the rest.

You think so?
We the pitiful paracites, that ought to pay...

And how did that go with Obama and his red-line in the sand? Tell me.

If you believe that NATO is similar to the Warsaw Pact, then you are quite ignorant. — ssu

It has similar consequences, which just are arrived at in a less hardhanded and obvious way.

Yet I would emphasize that taking the "minor states" only as either proxies or allies of Greater powers, which then can be erased from the equation, is wrong and creates huge, dramatic mistakes. — ssu

I don't think so because the US largely decides for NATO-members in practice.

I don't read the situation that way. Biden was a career politician. He could have backed out in a way that would have made everyone happy. He just wanted to grind Putin into the ground. I think it was personal. — frank

Could be, it is weirdly personal between the three of them.

Honestly, I don't think Biden counted on Putin allowing his economy, society, and military to be laid to waste by the war in Ukraine. That's just such a bizarre thing to do. Or maybe it's just bizarre from an American point of view? There just hasn't been a rational pivot from Biden's hawkish stance. — frank

Biden probably couldn't lose face after all the propaganda propping up the war and making it seem like winnable war.

One semi-plausible explanation I've heard is that Putin needed the war to stabilize his position internally... a war tends to call for unity and makes justification for expelling dissidents more easy.

Only if the US would flip to Russia's side more permanently, and in that case the US is probably the bigger threat.

If Europe unites more military, as geo-political forces push it to do now, then we can detter Russia on its own form attacting other countries I would think. We obviously shouldn't be naïve about it, and assume they won't attack, we definitely should detter it with military strenght.

It's the prospects for this particular war that are bad I think, not the overall picture.

To put it in another way, I don't get why people think prolonging this war helps in protecting us from further future Russian aggression. I would think going in unprepared in a war that's going to be difficult to make progress in, is worse for our security than using that time and resources to build up strenght to detter future aggression.

Aside from the question of who is to blame for what, what do you think we should do when the US leaves the war? What are we hoping to accomplish with continuing the war?

Do you think we can take back territory to eventually force a better deal with Russia? For that you need a lot of troops and Ukraines manpower is down a lot already. In any case it seems we would need years to maybe eventually reach that goal. Is that really in our, or even Ukraines best interest?

I just don't see it. The case that's been made for it is allways only a moral one. But the reality is that you need to take the territory back to be able to force our demands on the negiotiation table.

Convince me.