you were only too happy to mention Western leaders urging peace. Did they do so because they think it's pie in sky according to you or because they see a realistic road to peace? I assume it's the latter and I'm challenging you to think about what that would look like but as usual thinking beyond your pre-conceived opinions is beyond you.

I should've asked @ssu

Here's a map showing countries stances on sanctions btw

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/686699

So trade partners would ask for liberal democracy and giving up nukes, to which sooner or later Russia would have to agree. — M777

Plenty of countries are and will continue to trade with Russia. Your view is western centric. The majority of countries have not changed their trade relations with Russia and for the time being Europe is not free of its energy dependence on Russia.

Most? Not even most countries have imposed sanctions. But I agree that if Russia loses this war, which seems more likely by the day, Putin is likely not to survive politically. Whether that leads to meaningful change or just another figurehead remains to be seen. Hopes or on changes to a liberal democracy are fine, insistence really none of our business and dangerous to boot as recent 40 years of history have shown.

I get it, you're neither interested in peace nor analysis.

A precondition for resuming trade and dropping sanctions will be an end to hostilities not regime change.

Our forefathers fought for a host of freedoms over centuries. To give them up is an insult and thankless, so I really don't agree. Mere survival, life without dignity is not enough. I don't believe Russia poses such an existential threat. China might eventually.

GPS-guided artillery is on its way, which allows Ukraine to threaten supply lines. That might be the end of it. Let's hope so.

So after Putin and his regime has gone, the west would agree to trade with Russia only after a liberal democracy in installed there. — M777

LOL, because principles have obviously factored into "the West"'s decisions before. Tell me another fairy tale. We will trade with autocratic regimes if this is economically expedient.

We're not boycotting Israel, China or any number of Middle Eastern countries either.

So what do you mean, let Putin take over Ukraine? How's about the Baltic, Poland? All Europe? — M777

The answer is in the past you didn't quote that went before it.

The conundrum you described has no solution that you or I can see. — Olivier5

I'd call that a failure of imagination.

How about demilitarised zones? Or be old school about it and have an exchange of hostages? What else does Putin care about other than whatever strategic value he sees here? What is that strategic value? Can it be reached through different means? Etc. There's a multitude of avenues to explore that can give us an idea of solutions.

I think it's more interesting to do that with someone who thinks differently than with someone who already agrees with me.

I didn't ask what you "liked" I asked you what a peaceful solution would look like if no country is willing to give Ukraine the security assurances it's asked for. Ukraine is willing to part with the Donbas, if it gets assurances that can be backed up by other countries that that's where it stops. WIthout those assurances, they're afraid Russia will conquer it as a salami, one slice at a time.

So there's a conundrum there but both Draghi and Macron expressed the need to pursue peace instead of "bleeding the Russians". So what would a solution to that conundrum look like? That was my question.

When some people don't want to aid Ukraine, here's a picture that comes to mind.
Once again, if you don't want to send howitzers to Ukraine, chances are you will be sending troops to Poland. — M777

Even Hitler didn't act in a vacuum. It's well established that the peace enforced after WWI was onerous on the Germans which contributed to the circumstances allowing HItler to rise to power.

Here to NATO encroachment, contrary to promises made, has been a contributing factor (and in my view decisive). Especially when last year NATO once again expressed Ukraine could join, only to make u-turn quickly after the start of the war that it would never join, which makes you wonder as to the purpose of that NATO declaration to begin with. It's not as if war wasn't a likelihood. Then there was the proxy war going on in Ukraine for 20 years already, which also played a role. So, perhaps we shouldn't be contributing to higher likelihoods of war to begin with and when there is war think about how to extricate ourselves from it instead of arguing for the start of WWIII in which nuclear weapons are now part of the arsenal of the aggressor.

Back in the days of South African Apartheid people didn't find moral clarity so difficult. Israel is a racist, shit country.

I just want an aggression punished. — Olivier5

Maybe try to keep your feelings out of it. The only people getting punished are civilians and soldiers. Putin will sit on his throne regardless. And where was your bloodthirst when Iraq happened or any of the 300 illegal wars the US has fought? I bet you ineffectually protested it and then after the fact bleat about the criminal court, if at all. Why don't you put your feet where your mouth is, pick up a gun and walk to Ukraine and "punish" some Russians while making a target of whatever building or people you're standing next to? Why must others do the punishing and dying on behalf of your misplaced principles? Ukraine had already signaled it wants peace, its prepared to give independence to the Donbass region but it's not getting the security guarantees from the West that it wants. I asked you how a peace deal would look like and I get a repetition of what isn't possible. So one of the guys who went on about "Ukrainian agency" prefers to not pursue the peace Ukrainians want because he feels Russia has to be punished. Fantastically consistent of you!

When Apartheid ended, reconciliation instead of punishment led to peace. When Germany was punished after WWI it led to WWII. Maybe think about the cost before pretending principles are worth shit.

First thing first, Russia has to be defeated and repelled from Ukraine. Once that is done, and I have no doubt it will be, the situation will be different: Russia will need security guarantees against a victorious Ukraine; and Belarus may become independent. — Olivier5

Eh...?

You do like your death tolls high. What a surprise.

Why didn't Finland join earlier? They just didn't think there was any need? — frank

Because the policy of determined neutrality worked for them. Both policies carry risk. If you're attacked, you're alone when you're neutral. On the other hand, you won't be dragged into wars for expediency and are aren't a target by association.

NATO was necessary during the Cold War. Nowadays I only see trouble ahead. It's just a means for the US to bring the fight to the doorstep of other countries, without risking their own resources. And it does that through various treaties, not just NATO. The US has only known 15 years of peace since its inception and we've already seen NATO involved in conflicts that weren't defensive.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. — Olivier5

That your proposed solution isn't a solution as this has already been rejected by countries asked to give security assurances to Ukraine. So the problem is really complex. How do you provide security to Ukraine in a way that's also acceptable to Russia and that other counties are prepared to give? (e.g. Article 5 like assurances are not going to fly).

I think saying "Ukraine gets to decide the terms of peace" is naive, also coming from Draghi. Their terms were to join NATO. We all know how that went. NATO pretended they could join and then when there was an actual war all of a sudden that door closed. Not the epitome of trustworthiness either. Any peace is going to have to be tripartite, Ukraine, Russia and whatever countries are involved to give Ukraine assurances.

As I said, they've indicated they don't want to give such assurances to Ukraine.

sorry that's not clear to me. Between whom?

Yes, EU countries are starting to signal to the US that a protracted war is in their view not an option and that they need to pursue peace and not "bleeding Russians". Macron's comment on security guarantees is interesting though because so far Ukraine asked for that and every county refused. They do not want to commit to another "article 5" promise and NATO says "no". I haven't given it much thought yet but I'm not sure how such security guarantees would look like.

At the same time, Russia would pursue some negative security guarantees. So the interests seem to be opposed but that's what negotiations are for, figuring out a win-win.

What do you think a solution would look like?

FYI, Russia and the US continually breach air space (usually very nearly and then turn away at the last moment) to test scrambling time of fighter jets, scouting and radar effectivity. This is really not a thing. Dutch air space gets breached by Russia every month or so.

It happened 350 times in 2020 and 290 times in 2021 with respect to Russians testing air space alertness of NATO members, including the US but mostly the Baltic states.

Wow, and I'm being called simplistic and black and white. Seriously. — Christoffer

That's almost a response to what I said. It's nice to see how the cognitive dissonance is getting you to foam at the mouth though. From the "mind your manners" to swearing and ad hominems. Well done.

Shit, you really do know nothing about our situation. And you really do not understand how slow the EU is. You really do not understand why the act to seek security needs to happen now and not in a few months or years. — Christoffer

I obviously know more than you do which is why you get aggressive without offering any type of argument.

Sure, but the presumption is that under a truly laissez-faire economy it would be worse than it is now. — Michael

It's not a presumption. We have historic evidence that where people are left to their own devices their greed will lead to limiting consumer choice through anti-competitive behaviour. No EH&S regulations would directly lead to deaths due to contaminated foodstuffs because it's cheaper to make. The absence of labour law will increase the exploitation of labourers, which in the US is already bad enough as it is.

You don't give a fuck because you don't want to accept the choice you're making is between two evils. It is and you'd be better off not joining NATO and lobby for an independent EU military alliance in which all EU members and their citizens would have a democratic say.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/under-trump-u-s-military-ramps-cyber-offensive-against-other-n1019281

And breach of air space is something that has been going on for decades. The US does it too. Both countries test response times of fighter jets and radar range.

Nato alliance is an alliance of 30 nations, 32 with Finland and Sweden. It's you people who conclude it to be led by the US only, because that fits your narrative better. And you can also just say that we prefer that alliance because Russia are brutal and unpredictable. That we seek such alliances because Russia is an actual threat, compared to the US. Who the fuck wants to be friends with Russia? — Christoffer

Your inability to realise the US leads and other nations follow reflects a poor understanding of the inner workings of NATO. The only country in NATO involved in the militarisation of space is the US (against international treaties). When Trump (who nobody takes seriously) says "spend more", NATO members saluted and spend more. Where the hell do you think this sort of things come from?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_190862.htm

Attacks on space assets (e.g. taking out one or more satellites) may lead to article 5 invocation.

You underestimate to what extent the US sets NATO's agenda.

The only reason to prefer a US alliance over a Russian alliance is because the US is our thug.

I'm convinced that will bite us in the ass when eventually US power truly wanes and they will be juxtaposed against China. I do not want to be pulled into that war just because we're in the same "defensive" alliance when we're fully aware the US warmongers are only too happy to wage war on the flimsiest of grounds.

The best thing for the EU members is to leave NATO and get our own central army and create an independent, third force.

One is a fallacy, the other is a description of my own behavior. — NOS4A2

Why share your own behaviour if it is meaningless to this discussion? What's the point?

I did and that's what I understood it to mean, so if you mean something else, I'm asking you to explain it.

Yes, I get it, a boss may act immorally towards an employee just like a state can act immorally towards a citizen. Yes, one has the option of quitting a state just as one has the option to quit a job. People do both all the time, for economic and moral reasons, at least when they are not fleeing because they fear for their lives. — Nos

How should we interpret that other than "you can quit your job"?

Then why have those problems not been solved? There's enough money in the hands of the wealthy to house, feed and clothe everyone. There's sufficient available solutions to the environmental crisis for it to be, at least, patched up. The government is neither preventing, nor even discouraging people from acting. Jeff Bezos could feed most of Africa tomorrow if he so wished. The fact is that charitable efforts are currently below what is required. It's therefore ludicrous to argue that such efforts would be adequate to deal with state-funded management tasks too. — Isaac

Let alone that back in the day we had a lot less government, we had no poverty whatsoever. Right?

That really depends on what you're counting. If you consider each Indian tribe a separate nation then the US is build on around 300 wars with a like number of treaties broken. And since the US treated with them separately we should impute some sovereignty there.

The objections to Laissez-faire are ethical, not economic. — Banno

They're also economic. Anti-competitive practises as a direct result of deregulation lead to less efficient use of resources and more expensive goods. Efficient free markets only exist where buyers and sellers have equal bargaining power, information is freely available and the market is mature and unlikely to be disrupted by new entrants. Those markets you can leave alone.

Maybe explain bargaining power (which individual employees don't have) and that profit maximisation leads to minimising consumer choices through anti-competitive actions. It's not as if we've not seen laissez faire at work in history.

Workers didn't "just go elsewhere", they revolted, went on strike, started unions and broke machinery to enforce fairness.

States create and control corporations. ... You and I can create a corporation. We cannot create a state.... — NOS4A2

This doesn't make sense.

US is one player, but when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, it's a minor reason. — ssu

As you keep reiterating and I have clearly stated why I disagree with it. It goes nowhere. It's fine though, I don't mind disagreeing with you and I understand why you believe this. You put a lot of weight on things I believe can be discounted.

Let's do that. Because Putin might be viewed really then in different light as before. — ssu

I didn't mean this war, which is really not that important in the bigger picture, I mean the fascist direction of the US and Europe and it's decline and probably even higher rates of wealth transfers to our own oligarchs.

I think we all know every country has a Nazi problem. Ukraine and Russia have a serious Nazi problem, because unlike most other countries, they like to give them arms.

I'm not interested in going through these arguments again. My reasons are well documented and you calling it nonsense doesn't really mean anything to me. The US is slowly deteriorating into a fascist state, spends an insane amount on war equipment and pays for it through an extractive process that had subjected a large part of the world to hellish circumstances, not to mention its own people. Europe is, as always, trying to emulate that system, in love with power as all politicians are, so slowly gliding in that direction.

The idea that the US isn't involved or only minimally in my view is a gross underestimation of the involvement of the US intelligence and military across the world. I assume I don't have to list all it's current bases resulting from continous "wars", eg. the war on terror and the war on drugs. Next we will have militarization of space, for which the groundwork is already laid. It's about control, bringing everything within the sphere of influence of the US. And it's NATO allies are useful idiots in furthering its agenda with zero risk and only benefit to the US.

But carry on. We'll revisit this in 5 or 10 years or so when we'll be dragged in the next war or at least have to pretend aggression isn't aggression because one of us is the perpetrator. .

That's an interesting dichotomy. Where have I suggested we should be aligned with Russia or that NATO's role during the Cold War was misplaced?

Your assumption Ukraine needed NATO against Russia is one that results from ignoring the view of principled neutrality that has been argued by plenty of experts since the late 90s. If the US had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened.

So in all fairness it's the combination of two nuclear parties that compete for influence, one of which we're unfortunately aligned with, that results in an existential threat to Europe.

I stand corrected on the research. The assessment of the US being a fascist country though, is one I stand by. Just look at the development of minimum wage, the level of wage theft (minimum wage, off the clock, overtime and rest break violations) by corporations is higher than other types of theft but only results in companies being closed instead of people ending in jail. Meanwhile regular theft means jailtime. Profit over people.

Not paying a minimum wage, forcing people to rely on government benefits is an effective subsidy for companies paid for by everybody else. Profit over people.

Taxes are mostly paid by regular people since the rich and companies avoid paying taxes. Corporate taxes make up only 3.9% of US tax revenue. Profit over people.

PPP loans are forgiven but personal student loans aren't. Profit over people.

Bailing out banks isn't a problem but poor people need to be policed. Profit over people.

And the research still shows an inordinate amount of influence by the rich. Your "requirement" for that control to be absolute is silly. It isn't absolute in Russia either but we have no problem recognising it for the shithole it is.

All this is supported by a political and oligarchic elite which makes it a fascist political system. We have a highly militarised society - see defense spending, police outfitting (thin blue line flags) and incarceration rates -, a rejection of liberal democracy (compared to other societies, there's no meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans), effective one-party rule (eg. rich oligarchs) and ultra-nationalism.

That's a nice story you can tell yourself to sleep better. Meanwhile, actual research already shows that there is no relationship between what a majority of people actually want and what laws get passed. Of course, there's a clear correlation between what the rich 10% want and what gets passed. More importantly, there's a 1 on 1 correlation between what a majority of rich people don't want and what then doesn't happen. But don't let facts bother you why you go off on wild interpretation of how you think American politics appears to you.

That's nothing Manichean by the way but systemic. It's a shit system that only values money and not people.