Are you saying that any time someone is threatened, extorted, or coerced they should give in to avoid harm?

Are you saying that the harm the Ukrainians are currently undergoing is more important than their national independence?

I'm not saying that, but some people are. Richard Hanania, for instance, IIRC, was previously making an argument along these lines. Specifically that Ukrainians should quickly fold because resistance is futile anyway.

Philippe Lemoine on Twitter also argues that we should give in to Russia's nuclear threats over Ukraine, etc. since the alternative to this would be risking nuclear war. I wonder if he would apply the same logic back in 1914 and 1939.

Anyway, what do you think? — Xanatos

I think it is inappropriate to take concepts developed to deal with personal and community health (like harm reduction applied to sex or injectable drug use) and apply the concepts to international relations, or visa versa. Governments and nations operate differently than individuals and small groups. Nations are not, for instance, "addicted to oil". Oil is sought after because it is the most portable affordable high energy fuel, par excellence.

Germany was not interested in negotiating with Poland over anything. They intended to wipe out Poland and Poles, just as they intended to eliminate Jews and Slavic people.

True enough, a Serbian-backed terrorist killed the Archduke and his wife. the Austro-Hungarian (A-H) Empire couldn't overlook an assassination of the heir to the throne. But Serbia didn't cause WWI, and once the fatal shot was fired, harm reduction was not an option Serbia could pursue. The A-H Empire was backed by Germany. Serbia's ally was Russia. Russia's ally was France. Britain sided with France. Turkey sided with Germany, War was declared on once side then the other.

The population of Serbia was about 3,000,000 in 1913. The number of dead soldiers and civilians in WWI was about 20,000,000. Nobody thought that Serbia was worth 20,000,000 deaths and another 20,000,000 injured, if they thought of Serbia at all. A lot of people were not clear as to WHAT WWI was about. One very clear thing is that WWI was continued 20 years later in WWII.

The Triple Entente (Britain, France, and Russia) fought the Central Powers (Turkey, Germany and A-H.) Serbia did not play a large role in the war.

Governments are made up of individuals who form a collective policy making/executing body. Governments, nations, don't have friends. They have interests. Which interest is most important determines policy.

For Ukraine, my guess is that they, individually and collectively, have a much greater interest in independence than the peace of the conquered. Ukrainians had been ruled by Russia before (1919-1990), during the Soviet era, and they didn't like it. They were the first formerly Soviet Republic to announce they were leaving the Union after it collapsed 30 odd years ago.

Peter Ziehan (author, The End of the World is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization) thinks Russia wants to repossess the Ukraine as part of Russia's long term strategy to establish secure western borders and buffer states between itself and (now, NATO). Interests, again, rather than individual obnoxiousness.

Had Serbia accepted Austria-Hungary's ultimatum towards them, it's possible that Austria-Hungary would not have invaded Serbia in 1914.

Of course it's possible. BUT, the politics of Europe were unstable before the assassination. To some extent Serbia provided more of a pretext for powers like Russia and Germany to make and urge bellicose action, and less of a good reason.

It has been said that the leadership of 1914 Europe stumbled into WWI, and once it started couldn't achieve an outright victory in battle. The two power groups just ground against each other in really bad trench warfare which was lethal without being effective.

I don't view all wars as pointless, but WWI certainly was.

WWI was very useful for redrawing the map of Europe in a more ethnic manner. The problem, of course, is that this involved a very high cost, for everyone but especially for Russia, which descended into Bolshevism and was thus unable to help maintain this new European order, thus subsequently helping lead to WWII twenty years later.

Peter Ziehan (author, The End of the World is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization) thinks Russia wants to repossess the Ukraine as part of Russia's long term strategy to establish secure western borders and buffer states between itself and (now, NATO). Interests, again, rather than individual obnoxiousness. — BC

Good post. TIL about the roots of World War I. "TIL" is what all us hip youngsters say instead of "today I learned."

One thing that I keep thinking about during the Ukraine fighting - The US shares culpability for how things have turned out. Once the Soviet Union folded, the US and Europe started allowing, encouraging, former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO. Suddenly Russia found itself surrounded by potentially hostile neighbors with military backing instead of subservient client states. I don't blame them for feeling resentful and threatened.

Now I worry we have entered another period like the time before WWI. The lines are drawn, people have chosen sides, nobody will back down, and things are playing out as they will. A little miscalculation could set off very bad things. And then, around the block, there's China which might be heading in the same direction. Frightens me.

I'm a (reluctant) utilitarian. It makes sense to reduce harm, but I fear that was exactly what Warsaw had in mind when it made the decision not to cede beautiful Danzig and same goes for Berlin (under Hitler) when the Blitzkreig was unleashed.

Now I worry we have entered another period like the time before WWI. — T Clark

Your worries are why "The End of the World Is Just the Beginning" is such a great book title. And the book, which is about Mapping the Collapse of Globalization is full of TIL moments.

"Here's the deal" the US said to the world. "We'll keep the peace and maintain open trade on the high seas. Our stateside market will be open to your exports. You can become richer. In return, you will, ah, cooperate with us. (In other words, do what we want you to do).

This deal was on offer after WWII and was gradually extended. Nixon invited China into the deal. They did very well as a result. Was NATO's expansion the last part of that, after the USSR collapsed? The US made globalization happen because (surprise) it was in our best interests. But, according to Peter Zeihan, the era of globalization is over because the US doesn't need it.

It isn't hard to see why Mother Russia didn't like having her former client states sucked up into somebody else's embrace. It is also not hard to see why her former client states switched partners between waltzes. The western powers (the US & Company) have, of course, been unkind to Mother Russia ever since the Bolsheviks.

And to be frank, Mother Russia has not been the ideal parent for ages, what with serfdom, despotic Tsars, Siberia, KGB, etc. Plus, Mother Russia was so XXX large nobody could swallow her up. What to do, what to do, what to do? Fence her in!

[It should go without saying, but it has to be said, great nations don't become great without stepping on as many faces it takes. The US is no different.]

My initial thought was that Ukraine is very brave but Russia is very big. If NATO stays on the side lines and "only" remains the supplier of weaponry, my guess is that Russia will still be able to eventually grind them down and win. After that, God only knows.

Ukraine doesn't seem to be releasing its own fatality figures, but anybody can see that the war is costing Ukraine many many billions of dollars worth of damage to essential infrastructure and (in time) to its agriculture and industry.

Meanwhile, deglobalization will change the global economy -- drastically for many nations which are doing well now because they can import adequate food in exchange for their raw materials. Once world trade starts shrinking, adequate food imports will dry up.