I think we should talk to Trump. There is a lot of misunderstanding between Europe and the new US administration.

They view our goverments basically as the same as the democrats, which is only partially true. We never had the same 'woke'-agenda in most of Europe for instance. And we view them as authoritarian fascists in the same mold as World War II fascists, which is also only partially true. They are not nearly as far down that road yet.

The knee-jerk reaction is to double down to stop them at all cost and polarise even further, but I think that is precisely how these populist parties tend to become more extreme, if they feel like everybody is against them no matter what.

Sure, they would say the same of the liberal democratic perspective. Ones freedomfighter is anothers terrorist.

I think what they dislike is the liberal democratic leadership of Europe and the EU, they are surprisingly high on Europe itself as part of the Western civilization.

So they want to change the leadership and ideology of Europe, hence the support for the far-right political movement in Europe. It does actually make sense if you look at it from their ideological perspective. They see themselves as the saviour of the US people, and so they want to extend the favour to Europe too if possible.

One thing that is not often discussed are the psychological effects of climate change on people and societies.

The ecological view on climate change and ecological collapse more general, is often that civilization and growth itself has been the problem that got us to where we are. While this may be true, it does get us into this logic of degrowth or civilizational collapse as the only possible ways 'forward'.

Problem is that this account 1) almost has to lead to a re-interpretation of most of our civilizational tradition as bad or misguided because of where it ended up and 2) it gives us and next generations very little to work towards or aspire to.

It think even before the physical effects get to us, the psychological effects might bring us down. If you wipe away the horizon... you get nihilism.

The question of whether there is climate change is a purely scientific one, but I think the way we deal with it is a political question and so a question of values ultimately.

For example, how much do you value future generation compared to living generations? Or how much do you value nature, only instrumentally or is there something more inherently valuable?

Seeing this purely as a scientific question, as if we can just ask scientist what to do about it, has been one of the problems it seems to me.

But we already know that governments are not really moral actors don't we? When in history have they acted in the interest of the world as a whole predominantly and consistently? Almost never I would say. Post both world wars attempts have been made to agree some things on a supra-national level because the potential consequences of not doing it were so dire. Those attemps weren't always a succes, but in some cases it has worked to some extend, like for proliferation of nuclear weapons for instance.

The way to escape the prisoners' dilemma in geo-politics is negotiation and coming to some kind of supra-national agreement.... you create incentives so the prisoners don't choose the default bad option.

The real danger long term is biodiversity-loss and ecological collapse. This could potentially mean that nobody can survive.

Deals are made to be broken. — unenlightened

That's why I said enforcable.

I don't think governements will do it out of their own volition, or can't because of the wrong incentives. Take Europe for example. We were doing some of the mitigation (not enough), but now the US is asking to raise military spending to 5% of GDP while putting tariffs on our exports which will possibly lead to a recession. And our economy was already hurting because of higher energy prices... It think in this context it will be very difficult for politicians to sell more spending for mitigation to the public. This isn't about morality.

Prisoners need some moral fibre to avoid the worst of all possible worlds. Your not liking the argument doesn't really change anything. Solidarity is the answer; solidarity in life, or else in death. — unenlightened

It has little to do with me liking it or not, the argument just doesn't cut it for those that need to take the decisions that matter.

Goverments are not going to make the leap out of a sense of solidarity, because geo-politics is typically not a very moral business.

Some kind of enforcable global deal needs to be made between the powers that be.

The problem I have with the argument is that it is made from the perspective of the world, while economic decisions are made by countries and companies.

Say some country would want to make the mitigation efforts of 1 to 2 procent of GDP per year. It will only see return on that investment of avoiding climate change effects if everybody, or at least a good majority of countries, makes those investments too. And since countries are permanently locked in geopolitical competition, the country investing a part of its GDP will be at a disadvantage because it has less GDP to spend on other things.

The first thing that needs to be dealt with is this collective action problem, because otherwise it does not make sense for individual countries or companies.

A few meters this century, and then the rest over centuries, I'm sure there are projections for this.

The most general discription I heard on the consequences of climate change is that it will be a multiplier on risks for human societies.

Climate change is basically weather becoming more volatile (larger extremes) and generally hotter.

That will mean less arable land and generally more extreme living conditions which will reduce habitable zones on earth.

That will cause displacement of people and a large amount of migrationpressure out of the central latitudes where most of the earths population lives now.

Immigration-pressure, water shortages and food shortages from more frequent crop failures, will cause more unrest within countries and more conflict between countries.

Longer term you have the pole-ice melting (quasi-)permanently, which means sea levels will rise. And that means a lot of the coastal cities will have to relocate.

Finally it also has a mulitplying effect on further breakdown of ecological systems and biodiversity-loss.

I never talked about unfairness, that's how Trumps administration would put it probably, but I don't agree with that.

I think it is bad for a number of reasons. One of them is them is that depresses wages for the working man in the surplus-countries, and thus everywhere because it's a world economy. This isn't about poor countries only btw, the same has happened with German wages for example because it's a surplus-country. Reduced standards, enviromental and quality, is also bad in itself... It created a system where companies can shop over the whole world for the most favourble conditions and so puts goverments in a position of competition to lower standards.

And maybe the more important reason is that I think it is simply unsustainable as a system, because it relies on the US increasing its debt to buy up the surplus.... and you can only do that up to a certain point.

I don't see why that is a relevant question, because it is subordinate to the question of how you make the world-economy work. If you don't have an economy you don't have profits to begin with... But I guess half of zero means everybody gets an equal share.

This is the imbalance that needs correcting.
— Punshhh
Is it? — Banno

The imbalance being talked about is trade-surplus and trade-deficits. Those with a trade-surplus are producing more than what they can sell to their population. They have achieved that by lower wages, lower enviromental standards, lower quality requirements, direct state-aid, a strong dollar, regulatory barriers, taxes and to a lesser extend tarifs... thus undercutting other economies en forcing them to a race to the bottom in many cases.

Tarifs are probably not going to solve it, but it is a problem for the US and Western countries, and so also for the world economy, that will eventually need some resolution. The US can't just keep loaning to buy up the worlds excess production.

The more interesting question is what would be a solution that could work?

Ok that makes sense yes. Thank you for the feedback.

I don't see how it could be physical daylight since this is of itself an aspect of logos/fire, of the universe in total - with night/darkness as its dyadic opposite. I instead interpret his references to light/daylight to be metaphors for wisdom ... which is in keeping with a) traditional western metaphors and b) with the fragments I've previously referenced — javra

Yes I also saw it as a metaphor for wisdom and for those that are awake... as opposed to night, asleep, dream.

This sole nondualistic one - addressed at different times as Zeus/God/wisdom/light - then being the source of (what I so far find to be) a plausible priority monism, thereby being that "one only" from which the universe in oppositional total as fire/logos takes its form and attributes and which, as wisdom which is one, "knows the thought/logos by which all things are steered through all things" (which knowledge here, to my mind, clearly not being declarative knowledge - which requires changes via argumentation/justification, to not mention declaration - but more in keeping with notions of a complete understanding). — javra

I wouldn't rule it out, but intuitively it seems like monism or dualism isn't even the right way to talk about it, because substances are an afterthought of being, and there is only becoming. It more like some kind of energy/force process 'monism'. The thing that gives form and the thing that gives substance are one and the same.

Upon further reading I think he may be using Zeus as a symbol for daylight, the other thing he commonly stands for.

And daylight seems to refer to being awake or aware, being perceptive to the intelligble patterns of nature.

In other passage he contrast the waking with those that are asleep.

The waking have one world. in common, whereas each sleeper turns away to a private world of his own. — Heraclitus

The waking have one world because they are attuned to the intelligibility of the one thing that is, i.e. becoming.

becoming does not logically entail a completely permanent relativism wherein there is nothing for all of this becoming to eventually become. — javra

This universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been is, and will be -- an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures. — Heraclitus

It doesn't logically entail it no, but Heraclitus seems to have thought otherwise.

Heraclitus, or at least his known fragments, are not very explicit about the philosophical working which Heraclitus espoused. Nevertheless, one will find in Heraclitus in quite explicit manners the notion of something which is - i.e., some being per se - which is not in duality which its opposite and hence is not in a state of perpetually changing: — javra

The boundary line of evening and morning is the Bear; and opposite the Bear is the boundary of bright Zeus. — Heraclitus

Dyēus seems to reference the sky-father/God. What that exactly means for Heraclitus I'm not sure, but you may be right that it's not necessarily the totality of becoming.

Human nature has no real understanding; only the divine nature has it.

Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to acknowledge that all things are one.

Wisdom is one and unique; it is unwilling and yet willing to be called by the name of Zeus.

Wisdom is one ---- to know the intelligence by which all things are steered through all things. — Heraclitus

Does the personification mean anything, in the sense of having agency or will? Or is it rather a naturalistic/pantheistic god?

"unwilling and yet willing"?

This cultural reification of being into something that is fixed and hence not process, I'll argue, may have something to do with the metaphysical notion of an ultimate goal or telos of being (as verb) which could, for one example, be equated with the Neoplatonic notion of the "the One" - which ceases to be a striving toward but instead is the ultimate and final actualization of all strivings. — javra

I think it may have come from the transition of a predominantly oral tradition to writing. If something is written down it is not a person telling something to another person in a specific context anymore, but something that is abstracted from its original context to be read be someone who doesn't necessarily knows anything about that.

It then seems plausible enough to infer from his total known fragments that for Heraclitus becoming has at its ultimate end this addressed "wisdom" which is "one only" and can go by the name of "Zeus" (although imperfectly). — javra

Zeus is the totality of becoming, the one thing that is, the thing that cannot be named, the logos etc. I think he was using common used terminology of the time to convey to his contempories what he was getting at.

Man is not rational; there is intelligence only in what encompasses him. — Heraclitus

A dry soul is wisest and best. (or) The best and wisest soul is a dry beam of light. — Heraclitus

I think he saw this becoming, the universe as patterned to some extend, and cognition of man driven by desire or attachment as distorting. We are rational insofar we are part of it, and can intuit or sense it if we are not overly driven by desire (dry soul). This is very similar to how they see it in eastern traditions like Daoism for instance.

Aristotle’s original term was ousia (οὐσία), which is closer in meaning to “being” than to “stuff” or “matter.” One of the arguments I will often seek to defend is that this conception of being as "I Am" carries an implicit first-person perspective—a subjective dimension of being that much of modern philosophy, with its emphasis on objectivity, tends to suppress or bracket out. (For more on this, see Charles Kahn’s The Greek Verb To Be and the Concept of Being. I think this also maps against worldview—particularly the turn from participatory knowing to a detached, third-person model grounded in objectivity - perhaps one of the reasons why this distinction is controversial.)

In this view, being is not merely a feature of things “out there” in objective space, but something intimately tied to the standpoint of the subject—lived, known, and experienced. — Wayfarer

Has the confusion between philosophical and everyday meanings of “substance” something you've encountered in your own reading or forum conversations? How do you think it affects how we talk about mind, matter, or metaphysics more generally? — Wayfarer

Yes, and I think we need to go back even a bit further.

In Heraclitian metaphysics, becoming is the only thing that 'is', or being is becoming.

If being is becoming, then being is a fiction because being implies something that does not become but stays the same. In our experience of becoming we cognize a thing, and then later re-cognize a similar thing that is not exactly the same and give it the same name. X=X, identity strips becoming of its duration... it freezes it in time.

Being as a product of cognition, implies 1) a being that has some motivation for splitting pieces of becoming, but also 2) a view from a certain point in becoming.

1)

Donkeys would prefer hay to gold. — Heraclitus

2)

The way up and the way down are one and the same. — Heraclitus

We necessarily view things from a certain perspective and valuations differ. That is not to say that we don't all point to the same reality of becoming. Our senses do not lie, in the sense of our perceptions being merely appearance and not the thing in itself. They are selective and partial, but real enough.

There is no thing in itself, and thus no appearances... only perspectives on the totality of the one becoming.

Like becoming aware of the water we swim in... problem is the water turns out to be stale. It probably could have used a stirring and some fresh air a bit sooner.

I don't disagree with you here, just saying there's probably more going on with the UK than Brexit alone. And you also had COVID, the energy crisis etc etc... it's not as if Europe has been doing that great either.

What was to be that great solution with Brexit? — ssu

I'm not saying this would have solved the problem, but If you're going to go for Brexit you got to use the freedom from European rules (for example state aid rules) to invest in your industry and (energy)infrastructure, and to make your economy more competitive and attractive by cutting taxes and regulation... If you want trade, you have to make something to trade in the first place.

Just look at Brexit and the thread that we have here on PF. Now basically the last thing that the Brexiteers, who were so enthusiastic about Brexit, emphasize that the "will of the people" in the vote should be respected. And that's it. Nobody is trying to argue about green chutes or the benefits that Brexit has given to them. Yet for many years until Labor took over, they were anticipating the benefits of Brexit to be just around the corner. — ssu

You cannot always evaluate a decision like Brexit on the outcomes a few years later, as if that decision is the sole cause for how the future turned out. It has to be said that the British Republican party was exceptionally inept at implementing Brexit and capitalizing on opportunities it created.

The security required for global trade is not a military deployment. It is an international world order. The soft power and diplomacy, creating over an extended period an atmosphere of trust, respectability and cooperation between nations and regions. Piracy (which would require a naval presence) has only been a minor issue in certain regions. — Punshhh

I agree for the most part, although I do think all these things can't be neatly seperated from eachother. I don't think you would have the same stable international order if there wasn't a superior military backing it, even if it isn't used in an obvious direct way to protect it.

So again It is a flawed argument, a non argument. But we do know, don’t we that all the arguments coming out of Trump’s White House are flawed, or non arguments. As his modus operandi is disinformation. We have to judge him by his actions, while rejecting his reasoning in favour of the established (over a long period) narrative. — Punshhh

Yes they are creating an ideology to support their ambitions for power... to rationalise their actions and garner support from people.

To clarify, my goal is not to find out the truth about the matter per se, but to get a clearer picture of what their ideology is. Because eventhough the ideology isn't necessarily about the truth, it is often a sign for what they want to accomplish, and it does influence people.... and because it influences people it will have real consequences.

For example, let's say they want Greenland to extract future resources and/or maybe for future security. They will say Europe are a bunch freeloaders, Denmark isn't a good ally and doesn't invest enough in Greenland, and Russia and China are looking to controle it etc etc. Aside from the truth about Denmarks and other countries actions, it does create a story which would make it easier to sell a possible take-over of Greenland to the people somewhere down the line.

That's the lie that people believe in. The truth is that you are better off with international trade than you are without it. In the end, Trump is just hurting Americans. But this is what Trump has been thinking all his life, that foreigners cheat the US. He will continue with this, now when there's nobody taking the executive orders from his desk that he then forgets. — ssu

Depends on what you understand "better off" to be, and who exactly is better off. Globalisation was to the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, and it implies a certain kind of world where capital and companies are floating over borders reducing the impact national goverments can have.

In the overall it will probably hurt the US economy, in the short term at least. The long term is hard to say really. But yes, I'm also sceptical that you can just un-globalise from a world-economy because of supply-chains being so international and markets becoming smaller.

That's not going to happen. What Trump will do is to alienate it's allies and wreck the American economy. And Russia will be very happy about it. — ssu

If it wrecks the US economy, it will wreck everybodies economy I would think, or at least those of the West. And in a more dystopian view of the future where everybody is in shambles, when the dust is settled the position of the US may not be that bad comparitively speaking, protected by two oceans and a ton of resources to work with.

Anyway, a lot of this depends on how you view the future. If you believe the current path of globalisation wasn't sustainable anyway, and was going to break eventually, then yeah maybe there is something to be said for anticipating that and trying to become more self-sufficient in advance.

But yes, at the very least it seems like a very risky leap into the dark.

Yet the fact is that Putin is a gambler. He did gamble with the annexation of Crimea and that worked well. He gambled with Syria and lost. He gambled again with Ukraine with the invasion in 2022 and that didn't go so well. But if he can snatch victory (thanks to Trump), why wouldn't he gamble more? — ssu

He wouldn't gamble more if he perceives it to be a bad bet. If we for instance build up our defences then the bet becomes worse...

So now the US is the enemy? — ssu

They are an ideological enemy, not a military enemy yet. That takes some time considering how much we are interwoven still.

How does that benefit the US? — ssu

I don't know what their plans are long term, but there are a few scenarios that could be good for them.

If they take Greenland and Canada, divide Europe together with Russia, then European countries probably don't pose much of a threat to them. And between the two of them they'd have a large swath of the earths resources which they can use to build up an even bigger economic, technological and military advantage.

A more stable partner? Did you notice how stable it was when Prigozhin made his coup attempt? Did you notice that the prior leader Yeltsin had to fire with tanks his Parliament? A country where in the last 125 years one and only one leader of the country has normally retired from office without being deposed or killed or then died at old age while still in office. That you call a stable government? — ssu

Ask China. They seem to be thinking of Russia as a stable partner. And I mean if you look around the world the bar is not that high, you can't be to picky.

And oh yes, we naturally want less globalized world, less prosperity, less wealth for everybody. Because trade is bad according to Trump. What a wonderful objective for the World. — ssu

Yup it's not about the world, but about America first.

Yes I think you are right, economic globalisation was the cause of the hollowing out. But they see it as sort of a package deal maybe, for globalisation you need free trade, for that you need trade routes to be save, to protect those you need a global security order... If your aim is to rely less on globalisation, the security needs also change presumably.

If Putin is so reasonable, why did he attack Ukraine? Why did he think it would take only a few weeks? The fact is that he thought and what was briefed to him was that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight back, that it would be like Crimea all over again. Or Czechoslovakia in 1968 again. — ssu

Remember at the time we already had really high energy prices coming out of Covid. I think Putin figured it was the perfect time, because he could really hurt Europe relying on Russian gas. He didn't think we would be willing to put that much on the line to support Ukraine. His gamble didn't pay off, but then there would probably never have come a better moment... I think it was pretty calculated.

This actually is the real problem, because Trump actually doesn't see any value whatsoever with NATO. He doesn't seem to understand that he is giving the ultimate prize to Russia and China by crippling US power himself. It's quite evident that Trump or his supporters don't realize how much prosperity the US gets from the dollar being the reserve currency, and it's role isn't because the US is so economically awesome.

The only "logical" reason I come to is that Trump truly sees things as personal matters and while business with Russians have been so important to him, why he had these ideas of building hotels in Russia. He also likes autocrats. Then he hates the democrats, the liberals whining about an rules based order, he truly sees all this as a great opening to improve ties with Russia. Just like Canada being the 51st state or the US annexing Greenland. Both of these ideas start to be fantasies of a delusional old man. Yet deals with Russia might be personally very lucrative for Trump, just as is dealing with the Saudis and Gulf State leaders. No EU leader will start talking about issues like this, because it would be their ass on line if they tried to bribe Trump. — ssu

I think you are giving Trump to much credit, the Greenland to Panama Canal idea of total security for the American continent has been floating around for a long time. And there are others in his administration that are a lot more ideologically driven than Trump himself, like JD Vance, or even Musk.

Yet geopolitically it doesn't make sense. NATO without the US is still over 600 million people and surpass in every measure (except nuclear weapons) Russia. Furthermore Russia isn't the Soviet Union. — ssu

I think it does make sense if you see the global liberal democratic order, NATO, as a problem in itself that needs to be dealt with... because it was more and more overextending the US budget while hollowing out the center of the country. If you want a less globalised world and reduced involvement of the US, Russia could be a more stable partner in a multi-polar world. The problem with Europe is that there is no Europe when it comes to foreign policy and defence.

The center of Europe
Dark clouds circling ever nearer
Dog pile world

War is the father of all things
The old world order was born out of world war two.
Its decline questions its values

Blinded by the light
Black is feared to be behind
The world is grey

Experience of becoming precedes cognition
Cognition produces being which flows into the idea of becoming
The illusion is capturing becoming in being

The logos of the Christian God is not the logos of Heraclitus
It is merely the mother of ten thousand things
Fire is the beginning of heaven and earth

Re-evaluation of values
Primacy of the word led the West astray
Under Dao it should be

And if you haven't noticed, Europeans are compared already to parasites on this forum by some and the resentment and condescending attitude towards us is already evident in the Trump team. — ssu

On this I will say a couple of things.

Expect more to come. It's baked into their ideology because they see mainstream Europe and the Liberal democrats as part of the same disease destroying western civilization. The ideology will spread.

Don't take it to personally. Ideologies are usually a bunch of half-truths and oversimplefied answers to complex issues. There will allways be people parrotting around this stuff.

Do take it as a sign to question Europes position in the world. The world has changed, the worst thing we can do is to cling to a past that doesn't exist anymore.

We need new leaders that have received the memo.

Well, Russia has recently conquered back Kursk. It's a stalemate where Russia has already conquered the territory it wants for the most part, and is the one most likely to break the stalemate.

But yes semantics aside, the point is that Putin doesn't really need the war to stop. That is leverage we do not have.

Again this is my point. But the fact is that there's not much pressure if any, and some could make the argument that the US is putting pressure only on Ukraine, which it can pressure. The US doesn't want to pressure Russia, Putin isn't a bad guy (as Witkoff explained to us).

Threat's of new sanctions if the partial cease-fires aren't held. That's the pressure? Where's the part of putting real pressure on Russia? — ssu

There's not much pressure from the US now, that's right. From the point of view of Europe that is a fact we need to deal with. Maybe we could have tried to convince the US with a more coöperative and less antagonistic approach, but it would likely not have mattered much considering the ideological hate they seem to have for Europe.

So, on this point too, that is leverage we do not have.

It's the messaging you send. Deterrence is messaging. It's the whole point. When you falter already when there is no actual or only little pressure, who would think you would have this turn around when a push comes a shove, or a blow? Already you are caving in.

You see, something like a treaty alliance or defense of the sovereignty or territory of a nation isn't credible, if you start with "but in this issue we will cave in or that territory we won't defend". That will just break the credibility. That will hurt morale: if you don't stand up for this, what else won't you stand up for? And if you haven't noticed, Europeans are compared already to parasites on this forum by some and the resentment and condescending attitude towards us is already evident in the Trump team. — ssu

Here is where I disagree. Deterrence is not messaging on its own. It's messaging with the threat of actual military force to back it up. I think Putin has a reasonably good idea of what we are capable of without the US, and probably knows we would have a hard time pushing back Russia on our own. In poker they say, you can only bluff or represent a hand that you could reasonably have considering how you played up to that point... we haven't exactly shown a lot of strenght up to this point.

So what should we be doing then with very little leverage, and the probability of losing more of it with the US leaving?

To me it seems like we should use the little we have now with the US still in the war to get a peacedeal, even if it's a 'bad' one... it doesn't seem to get any better. And for that you need to coöperate with the US, if we are working towards the same goal of peace, maybe we can pressure Russia more, and maybe have a little influence still over the negotiations and the contents of the peacedeal.

But what are we doing instead, we stick to our initial demands of Russia leaving all of Ukraine eventough we have no leverage at all. Russia will never accept this and the US gets annoyed for not coöperating. The result is that we have no say in the whole proces, which will probably lead to a worse deal for Europe and Ukraine.

It seems to me we are horribly overplaying our hand. Bluffing a hand that you can't reasonably have, usually ends in ruin.

No, you truly don't seem to understand it:

Putin will stop the war, when continuing the war is possibly a worse outcome than having a peace.

That's it.

Putin could stop the war when he wants! If Putin now says that "OK, we'll have a cease-fire", you think Ukraine would say no? Of course not! Ukraine is OK for a cease-fire. They have shown their willing to accept a cease-fire. It's their call, Ukrainians have to decide that. — ssu

Putin has no reason to stop because he is winning. A cease-fire is tactically not advantageous for the party that is winning, because it gives the losing party the time to regroup and/or rearm, and thus level the playing field. What could persuade him to consider a deal is pressure from the US and to a lesser extend from Europe. That is why I would push for a peace-deal now while the US is still involved.

If the US goes, you lose a lot of the possible pressure you can put on them, which means you will have to turn the war around without help from the US, to maybe get a peacedeal. I haven't seen anything that gives me reason to think we can do that. There seems to be no plan at all for how to achieve that.

Russia is winning as it stands. They also produce more military equipement than we do at the moment, and can still rely on the help of China, North-Korea and Iran. To me that sounds like a losing proposition. And if you eventually lose the war anyway, if Ukraine gets overrun, then you really don't have any deterrence left anymore.

If you start with your the attitude: "We have to appease now Russia", then you haven't any credible deterrence whatsoever. Never, in anything. Because Russia isn't even pushing your country much. If you appease them now, you will appease them anytime. — ssu

You keep repeating this, but I don't see how this follows. Why would appeasing them now mean we will never have any credible deterrence? Deterrence is a function of military strenght in the first place. We are weak now without the US, but if we build up military strenght as we plan to do, we could have credible deterrence in a few years. Why not?

At worst, it's like if your country would be attacked, then you "allies" would say to you: "Do not fight! Do not defend yourself, but listen to the attacker what they want and accept that, because that would be better for us."

That's what you are proposing. — ssu

No it's not the same because Urkraine is not an ally, we have no alliance with them.

I think your problem is that for you these conflicts are just forever-wars, something that you can choose to participate and if you participate in something, there's no negative issues. And you can later just withdraw. That might be the problem here. — ssu

I said many times why I think continuing the war would be a bad idea if the US leaves the war, i'm not going to repeat myself again and again.

Yes yes, we should allways keep the war going no matter what the chances of winning are, no matter how many people will die, no matter what the strenght of the alliance is, no matter if it could escalate into nuclear war, no matter what economic price we pay... there can be no appeasement ever!

Jesus* man, can't you see how extreme your position is? What is it that makes you so imperivious to all reason on this topic, do you hate them so much?

(*still the root of all evil!)

Yes our involvement has been half-hearted from the start. They probably didn't really want to get involved all that much, but then they had to virtue-signal a bunch to the public that they would support Ukraine because that's what was perceived to be the right thing to do.

In many ways that half-hearted approach was probably the worst thing that could happen to Ukraine, because it encouraged them to fight on thinking they had more support then they actually were going to get.

It's this callous political calculus of our leaders, without much regard for the very real consequences, that is so infuriating.

Once the U.S. realizes that pressure on Ukraine isn’t working, they’ll either start pressuring Russia — or walk away and dump the problem on Europe. — Валерій Пекар via Roman Sheremeta · Mar 23, 2025

And if the problem gets dumped on Europe, you'll probably see the same thing happening again. Now European leaders are stumbling over eachothers feet to shout vacuous slogans like "We stand by Ukraine" and the like. But then when the time comes to actually step up, when it dawns on them what it will actually cost to help Ukraine win the war, the backpedalling usually begins... and Ukraine will probably be the victim of our halfheartedness once again.

The support is never unconditional in reality, we should be explicit and clear about that.

So when it's your country who will need assistance, will you be then happy with allies that decide that what they can do to answer your call for article 5 assistance is to send your country bodybags, because you need those and anything else would be too "escalatory" for their own safety? After all, they have to think about their own security and not put that on line with you and your decision... — ssu

Of course I wouldn't be happy with it. And I think Ukraine has every right to be unhappy with it too. They are fighting for their survival, I don't blame them for anything. But we are not Ukraine, and we do have other things to consider then only Ukraines security.

As I've said, appeasement is not only historically, but in this situation logically it is the worst thing to do. — ssu

This only follows if we were in the same situation as with Nazi-Germany, which we aren't. Hybrid attacks are not the same as a conventional invasion.

And I'm also not saying we should keep appeasing Russia as a general strategy going forward, just that at this particular moment that makes the most sense, because our main ally who we relied on for some key military functions, isn't willing to help anymore.

This is actually confusing. On one hand you argue that the promises are empty, on the other hand it seems that we should not give the promises. — ssu

I don't see what's confusing about it. Empty promises are worse than no promises, right?

What's your point Jorndoe? That it would be bad for Urkrainians? I never claimed otherwise.

We have been supporting them unconditionally in rhetoric only yes, and probably never really had the intention to go all the way. I wish we would stop the empty promisses, so as to not give Ukraine false hope, and not to hinder peace negotiations. I think it's disgusting the way we are handling it, with so much at stake either we do as we say, or we shut up.

And I don't disagree with your comment. I didn't mean to imply that we are in the exact same situation as Weimar Germany... just that these kind of things do tend to cause serious problems.

On its own it's not necessarily the end of the world, that's right. My point is that we won't be experiencing the consequences of it in isolation, but together with all the other challenges we can expect to face in the near future, which will compound on eachother.

Re-re-repetition indeed.

Let's all sing in choir, "It doesn't matter that you are right if you can't enforce your demands on the battlefield".

The decision to support them or not, and under what conditions, is ours. The idea that we should just follow them, wherever that may lead us, is insane considering what is at stake.