And there it is - the Marvel comic book picture of international politics. — StreetlightX

I asked for your solution and it was just a bunch of nothing. This is then your response.

Earlier this month the UK - land of populist Brexit - was already looking to provide government loans to cover energy bills in an out of control energy market. That was before any of this started, proper. Can European governments afford to drive up those prices further? Not even asking rhetorically, but as a genuine open question. — StreetlightX

They have some cover now and I expect they'll print/borrow more money for more subsidies, spreading the additional inflationary effects out to the broader economy. Most likely, governments, especially the UK, will consider this an opportunity to accrue 'moral' capital to offset their unpopularity on the economic front.

If it was the USA doing this (like in a faraway country like Irak), all western leaders would support the USA.

I can understand Putin more than the Bush back then.

Understand why you feel strongly about this, but a solution will come from a sober analysis. If you don't try to understand your opposition's perspective, you won't be able to deal with them effectively. It's like being in a poker game and thinking throwing your cards in your opponent's face is going to help you beat him.

Understand why you feel strongly about this, but a solution will come from a sober analysis. If you don't try to understand your opposition's perspective, you won't be able to deal with them effectively. It's like being in a poker game and thinking throwing your cards in your opponent's face is going to help you beat him. — Baden

I feel strongly about passive attitudes where the only thing going on is circular arguments that boils down to "all of your solutions are wrong because others are also bad in the world" or "all your solutions are wrong because we cannot do anything - all hail Putin!"

I've asked for additional solutions when someone thinks mine is "simplistic" or "stupid" or whatever label I get, but so far I get no solutions.

In a time when theoretical philosophy becomes totally irrelevant and practical philosophy is everything. What's the practical thing do to here? Because so far all I've heard seems to be Putin apologists trying to justify what's going on in Ukraine, and it is downright disgusting to hear.

I would like to hear some practical solutions to Ukraine, how to deal with the nuclear threat, how to deal with Belarus getting nukes, how to deal with the fallout of economic sanctions, how to deal with China's relation to Russia, how to deal with Putin himself.

It might be that my proximity to these events makes me more passionate for a solution, but I'm so sick and tired of passive attitudes and nonchalant dismissal of the current suffering. Can people just stop making their arguments with the prefix of "I know people are suffering and getting killed but...."

this is all Putin. This is part of the Russian tradition of being assholes to whomever they think is their possession. To argue that "the west" pushed Putin to this is a fucking delusional point of view. — Christoffer

A position literally no informed commentator holds.

There's debate around just how much culpability the US and Europe have. There's disagreement as to whether the risk was worth it.

But literally no one takes the view that the situation arose entirely because of Putin and the US an Europe played no part.

...

And you've not answered my question. What is the advantage? Let's say you're right, its all Putin's fault and were all delusional for pointing to any role the US and Europe played. Why would you need to fight back against that delusion with such passion? What does it achieve?

I'm quite happy blaming the US, even if I'm wrong this time. It's a good side to err on because it makes the governments I have influence over more careful, less reckless about any possible future complicity.

But, you want to make absolutely sure they are absolved of all blame here. You're passionate about ensuring any attempt to apportion blame to the US and Europe is quashed in the strongest possible terms.

Why?

"I know people are suffering and getting killed but...." — Christoffer

...maybe let's not engender more people suffering and getting killed?

Wouldn't that have let to war with every NATO member? — EugeneW

If Ukraine survives this attack as an independent state, next thing it does will be to join NATO. Russia will then come in direct geographic proximity with NATO, and it will be all thanks to Putin.

If Ukraine does not survive as an independent state and is absorbed (formally or not) into Russia, then Russia will de facto come into geographic contact with NATO (since Poland, Ukraine's western neighbour, is part of NATO). And it will be all thanks to Putin.

So Russia is now going to be neighboured by NATO, no matter the result of this war. Stances stiffen, neutral states like Finland are chosing their camp. Next time the Americans or the Russians fuck up, it'll be WW3.

Welcome to Cold War 2.

As for apportioning blame, I don't see the point of whining about Obama's actions or inactions while folks are getting killed by Russian bullets and missiles. Only Trump and @Isaac do that kind of obscenity. I trust the rest of us have some decency left.

As for apportioning blame, I don't see the point of whining about Obama's actions or inactions while folks are getting killed by Russian bullets and missiles. Only Trump and Isaac do that kind of obscenity. I trust the rest of us have some decency left. — Olivier5

:yikes:

I do not think Putin is stupid enough to start a nuclear war... — FreeEmotion

If Russia's policy is to use nukes to defend the homeland, and Putin claims Ukraine as Russian, then any military assistance provided to the Ukrainian resistance by a NATO country, will justify a nuclear response. Of course that would constitute a declaration of war against NATO, under the claim that NATO attacked Russia.

My point is that tanking the economy is probably never a push towards other solutions, — ChatteringMonkey

This is doubtful. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention (not talking Zappa here, who was extremely creative himself). Take The Manhattan Project for example. When you get hundreds, or even thousands of scientists working together, in a network, there is a lot more efficiency than a handful of scientists here, and a handful there, with intellectual property guarded by secrecy. Fusion, or other new ideas, might not be as far away as you think.

I'm not talking about you, as I hope was clear.

A position literally no informed commentator holds. — Isaac

So, you basically mean that whenever you hear someone actually saying it, you can brush them off as being just uninformed, convenient.

There's debate around just how much culpability the US and Europe have. — Isaac

I guess Ukrainians won't have time sitting at the table discussing this at the moment? So, while we're at it here's an analogy...

Who's to be blamed when a rampage killer shoots up a mall? Let's say that the upbringing was both tough; with borders and discipline, but also loving, inviting, leaving room for the killer to have options in his life. But he chose to kill, shoot up the mall, kill children and adults, security guards, and the police. Then he says that if anyone interferes he will blow up a bomb somewhere in the city. Who's to blame here?

If the upbringing was harsh, really extreme, getting beat down and tortured, it would be easy to see the deterministic causality towards the events. However, if the upbringing was perfectly loving, everything as perfect as possible, then many would argue there isn't a strong causality between that and the act, which would mean the killer was broken, some chemical imbalance or something. But if not that, if the upbringing was balanced, strict, but also loving, would that mean there was a choice? Choice or chemical imbalance?

Do you mean that Russia has been treated unfairly? The Soviet Union collapse wasn't really "the west" fault, it happened from the inside. So what then? Did we treat them badly in that we fucked their economy? No, that was a natural consequence of a state that fell. The economy started to recover over the years. Was it "the west" fault that when Putin came into power he consolidated the wealth and power into him and the oligarchs?

Now let's say that this killer had friends. These friends don't really like him that much, but they're still his friend and he, their friend. They have some chats sometimes, but even more, their relatives and other friends love each other. Everyone is like a big family, brothers. But then the killer really just wants these friends to be with him all the time. They, however, have grown into adult independent people who want to have their own life, but the killer doesn't want that, he wants them to live at his place, like the good old days. All their surrounding friends and relatives get confused, they just want things to cool down, but the killer gets angry and he beats them all up. No one likes it and they don't want to be with him anymore. They feel so threatened by him that they file for police protection. This is something the killer really doesn't like, so he threatens everyone, he threatens his friends, he threatens the police, he threatens any bystander, any civilian including children, and people he doesn't know at all. So he starts the killing, he kills them all.

Who's to blame?

The future is looking grim my friend... The question many, if not most, are asking is if nukes will be used. WW3 almost seems a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe we should have stuck to living in small groups.

If they nuke the fridge you can always hide in it though...

...maybe let's not engender more people suffering getting killed? — StreetlightX

And how do we do that? By staying silent and letting Putin do whatever he wants?

Who's to blame here? — Christoffer

The scientists who invented the weaponry.

The future is looking grim my friend... — EugeneW

Yes, although if the Russians lose this war, a ray of hope will briefly shine on us all.

The scientists who invented the weaponry. — EugeneW

Sure, they can be blamed for opening the door to the severity of the situation. But even if he didn't have a bomb, he still had the gun. If he didn't have a gun he could have used a kitchen knife. If not any of that, he might use his own hands or picked up a rock. Is the rock to be blamed?

. Is the rock to be blamed? — Christoffer

No, off course not. But rocks and knifes don't have the potential that invented weaponry has. If you construct such a bomb, you know what it can do. Finding out the secrets of the universe can be nice, but at which cost? Wasn't it Oppenheimer thinking he had become death, the destroyer of worlds? After the fact... You can ask, but what if they invent one before us? Of course...

You could secretely roll a stone ball up a mountain. And release it. But if you are seen doing it, people will stop you. How to stop Putin from waging his war? Trying to stop him literally, by taking him captive, or killing him? What will happen?

If you construct such a bomb, you know what it can do. — EugeneW

So, the person taking the scientist's knowledge and making their own bomb. Is he to blame? Or still the scientist? If the knowledge is out in the world and someone chooses to construct and use that bomb. Is he innocent?

You could secretely roll a stone ball up a mountain. And release it. But if you are seen doing it, people will stop you. How to stop Putin from waging his war? Trying to stop him literally, by taking him captive, or killing him? What will happen? — EugeneW

So the person pushing the stone is innocent because he isn't seen?

We see the killer, do we stop him? Or let him do whatever he wants? If he shoots up the mall, killing innocents, children, maybe even blowing up the bomb, should we be proud in waiting it out, not doing anything? I mean, if it was his parents' fault, his upbringing, maybe that is enough? If we blame them and ignore the killers actions, that might be enough to make us feel that we did our best?

But who was to blame? Is Oppenheimer to blame for Putin's action? Or who's to blame for what Putin is doing?

My point is that tanking the economy is probably never a push towards other solutions,
— ChatteringMonkey

This is doubtful. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention (not talking Zappa here, who was extremely creative himself). Take The Manhattan Project for example. When you get hundreds, or even thousands of scientists working together, in a network, there is a lot more efficiency than a handful of scientists here, and a handful there, with intellectual property guarded by secrecy. Fusion, or other new ideas, might not be as far away as you think. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think the saying really applies here because there's no invention that can deal with that necessity short term. It's not like there is a lot of unexplored territory in energy-physics where one might expect radical new technologies just around the corner. Every new development costs exponentially more resources now, in fundamental research, in time and R&D, precisely because so much has already been put in over the years. All the 'low hanging fruit' is long gone. If some new technology could provide us with more energy, I'd fully expect it to take 50 to 100 years to develop. By then we'll be living in a totally different world I'd expect.

But sure, long term maybe it will spur the EU to reconsider it's energy-strategy. I'd argue that this is already happening, as climate change is putting pressure on fossil fuels and people are starting to realize that renewables can't really replace them. This is one more argument for nuclear, which seems to be the only technology (maybe with fusion in the future) that can provide us the energy we need. In short I'd argue that the necessity is already there, but we need time and resources to do it. A severe economical crisis with no doubt nasty political consequences, would probably not help, is my guess.

:up:

So the person pushing the stone is innocent because he isn't seen? — Christoffer

I mean that he can be stopped easily, contrary to atomic bombs being used.

The scientists who have constructed and concocted bombs have ultimate responsibility.

Take The Manhattan Project for example. When you get hundreds, or even thousands of scientists working together, in a network, there is a lot more efficiency than a handful of scientists here, and a handful there — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. With the great result we have atomic bombs.

We've had the technology for many decades. The only reason it's not fleshed out is because there wasn't any weapon capability as a byproduct. You know, if you have a normal nuclear power plant, you could use some of the nuclear matter used for nuclear weapons as a side gig. Thorium is too good for bad nations. — Christoffer

The main reason I'd say is that the government isn't embarking on big societal projects like it used to, the socio-political climate has changed ;-). I doubt that technology is ready to start building actual functioning plants, but I'm not an expert so I could be wrong on that.

It's a push in that it demands another solution. And "scramble" to stay afloat is not really true. An economic crisis may look like the one in 2008, but did that "scramble to stay afloat"? There's still plenty of capital to invest in new solutions, it's just that the financial world always need to balance the entire economy so as to not break regular folks. However, since regular folks seem to not care about climate change and politicians are not willing to do what it takes, a crisis that pushes everyone out of their comfort zone will lead to hard times in the short terms, but better times after a few years. Also remember the jobs that gets created by investing in new technologies. — Christoffer

This is all assuming the crisis won't be much worse and debilitating for years.

And this is what I think gets pushed when we can't rely on oil and gas. People feel the ground shake under them and they will start investing much quicker. — Christoffer

Gasprices rose something like 400% last year without the war or sanctions, one would think that would be incentive enough to try something else.

Take The Manhattan Project for example. When you get hundreds, or even thousands of scientists working together, in a network, there is a lot more efficiency than a handful of scientists here, and a handful there, with intellectual property guarded by secrecy. Fusion, or other new ideas, might not be as far away as you think. — Metaphysician Undercover

When experts are required for a project then adding less skilled workers will get the job done faster but it will increase waste and decrease overall efficiency. For example, how many old scientists does it take to replace a light bulb?

I would like to hear some practical solutions to Ukraine, how to deal with the nuclear threat, how to deal with Belarus getting nukes, how to deal with the fallout of economic sanctions, how to deal with China's relation to Russia, how to deal with Putin himself. — Christoffer

Likely, there are just three reasonable scenarios regarding the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
First, the compromise will be reached, and things will come to normal as it was before Russia invaded. Second, Putin will be ousted from power. Third, Putin will stay, and there will be a profound transformation of his regime and the world’s geopolitical order. If the first two scenarios are inseparable, what is at stake now is Putin’s defeat and surrender.

First, the compromise will be reached, and things will come to normal as it was before Russia invaded. — Number2018

Likely, we will know what the talks led to at any minute now. But it will not return to normal, the west has lost trust in Putin and even if the worst sanctions get lifted, the trading sphere might be damaged for a long time.

Second, Putin will be ousted from power. — Number2018

If sanctions do their job and the war is a bloody stalemate for Putin, the people of Russia will not let Putin off the hook. This is what I hope for, not the bloodshed in Ukraine, just one person's blood, by the people of Russia who had enough of this shit.

Third, Putin will stay, and there will be a profound transformation of his regime and the world’s geopolitical order. — Number2018

This is the most likely outcome. Putin is too stubborn and Kreml has spent years creating an image of him as a tough guy. So he will try and spin the narrative so that a loss is still a win in Ukraine and then because of the broken trade and probably some sanctions left as a punishment for his actions, he will isolate Russia more, going in the direction of North Korea's relation to the world.

Fourth: He will never surrender, never ever, ever. He will not go out without a bang and he orders nukes on big capitals in the west. Either people just accept his order and do it, or they refuse, as has happened during the cold war. He will then spin the narrative in some way, or shoot some of his staff to blow off steam.

So, you basically mean that whenever you hear someone actually saying it, you can brush them off as being just uninformed — Christoffer

I don't know, I haven't yet had the opportunity since you've offered zero citations to support the notion. Cite one of these experts and we'll see if I'm inclined to 'brush them off'.

Who's to be blamed when a rampage killer shoots up a mall? — Christoffer

As you allude to - the killer, poverty, social exclusion, gun control, parenting, schools, video games, erosion of social value, government deafness, corporate dehumanising...

And what would we discuss in such cases? Not the killer themselves, there's nothing we can do about that, some people just go wrong. We'd discuss everything else... The bits we can actually do something about.

If you want to create some fabrication where none of those factors apply then you're simply asking "if the only person to blame is the killer, then who's to blame?" That's just definitional, the question is whether this is such a case.

But we're out of sync. I've answered your question but you've not answered mine. What is the advantage of exculpating the US and Europe? Even if they're completely innocent (which has yet to be shown), what is gained by so passionately ensuring their innocence is made clear to all? They're all big boys, they can handle a bit of misapportioned culpability, so why the fervour?

And how do we do that? — Christoffer

I don't know. You want easy answers, and then get mad when the world doesn't offer them to you. It is not so crazy to not want the advent of nuclear war. I'm quite willing to admit that 'what needs to be done' is the kind of thing more suited to others better versed in the situation. Some principles of action include minimizing harm, stopping war, and deescalating as much as possible - how they can be, and are translated, I'm not so sure. But what I know for sure is that it is not suited to fantasists like yourself who dream of putting Putin in the Hague, or paint him like a cartoon villain who 'shoots staff to blow off steam'. Your need for some kind of 'punishment' or 'payback' and 'blame' - which seem to be the principles animating what you say - is literally genocidal. No one who treats the world like a fucking Disney movie ought to be offering any opinions whatsoever.

Agreed.

I hope cool heads prevail.

This week might prove crucial, depending on how much more resistance Ukraine has left.