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.

Please, do not forget my country and Poland and Sweden and Lithuania and... the goddam 30 countries or so involved in this! — ssu

All of those are part of the EU and/or Nato, so from the perspective of Russia it does look like its rival is in the process of overwelming them... that's what Thucidides traps is about.

And sure reality is allways more complex, it's just a model of how these situations tend to evolve, and can help us to think about these situations in more long term strategic ways.

I'm not claiming that it is our fault exclusively, I'm only claiming that it isn't Russia's fault exclusively.... it is the relation, the dynamic between to two, that got us to where we are. And it is that relation that you have to manage if you want to make some progress in a better direction.

Everybody caught in information bubbles left or right. Look at how much confusion there is, there’s a source for every diverging fact. I think the actual facts of the matter are less important than the future we aspire to. If everybody just keeps looking back to figure out which way the future is going, then there’s nobody looking ahead to create the future we want.

Well, I like to call it the confederacy that desperately wants to be an union. Member states aren't anything like the states in the United States or somewhere else. These are sovereign nations states with distinctive unique cultures, languages and history. They naturally have different objectives and agendas as they are situated politically and geographically in different situations. If the English could lure the Welsh and the Scots to all unify under being "British", there is no program of making a German, an Italian, a Greek and a Swede to be similarly "European" as being British. — ssu

The point of Thucydides trap is that it's not about how we view ourselves, but about how the rival percieves us. Sparta felt threathened by rising power Athens building a defensive wall... we expanded the EU and NATO, a defensive alliance.

I'll write a plan for Europe tomorrow.

Europe, the EU, after the fall of the Iron curtain.

We are the rising power.

Thucydides Trap

Ok I see, I was originally talking about ideologies and what policies they tend to go for in practice (and the implications of those policies in relation to the OP), as a description, not as an attempt to find alignment in goals, and/or policies.

One of the main goals will allways be, to be the ones in power, so they have diametrically opposed goals from the start, no?

Ideologies are designed to give simple answers to complex questions in an appealing narrative, to get as much people to vote for you. What gets parroted arround is usually some form of that, that's right.

But then you have these ideologies in peoples heads - that weren't really meant as real solutions but more as propaganda - creating expectations that you have to take into account when choosing policies, because it's on these created expectations that you get evaluated as a politician in elections.

The space for alignment of goals and policies is already resticted by ideologies and the political proces, is what i'm getting at.

On the other side of the argument is the idea that NATO expanded eastwards. Which brings us to the argument of whether peoples should be able to choose their own futures. All the countries that joined NATO following the fall of USSR asked freely to join, for purposes of defence. Because they as small states would be vulnerable to defeat by a strong Russia. Why would European countries deny them this opportunity to secure their safety and future as free countries? — Punshhh

Because we said we wouldn't do it. And because Russia allways has signaled that they view eastward NATO expansion as a thread to their security. And to me that seems reasonably because NATO was an alliance against Russia afterall. That's how you build up good diplomatic relations, by taking into account each others concerns.

Liberal democracy isn't much better than communism on the imperialism scale. Both claim universality, because they are both offshoots of Christianity... it was all Jesus fault!

Because the world ultimately revolves around geopolical power and spheres of influence? Should Canada freely have wanted to become a communist country and ally itself with Russia in the cold war, the US would have never allowed it. Why is that? It would seem that soevereignity is a bit of a pretence that we use when it suits us.

I think the methodology you are proposing is not the right one, because if you lift out one policy or one goal, and look at it in isolation, you are missing something important. These things hang together in whole worldviews and ideologies, which includes ideas about what groups should be in power etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said, but I do think one should add to that, that on the other side the plan of the US was allways a unipolar world, total dominace.. and so they tried installing favorable regimes all over the place close to Russia, in Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine.

So was Russia imperialist, or was it reacting to the US being imperialist? Probably both, but one has to note that Russia was not the one meddling in other countries affairs on the other side of the globe.

From what I gathered from sources that seem reliable to me - and boy is it hard to find information that isn't extremely biased on one or the other side at the moment - we do seem to have managed the relation with Russia very badly. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered anyway, because Putin is indeed a ruthless dictator, but you don't know if you don't really try.

And that is the logic I want to counter a bit here. If we have already decided that Putin is the devil incarnate that will break any agreement we sign with him anyway, then there is no reason to try diplomacy or negotiations, and if we don't try that you can never have peace... the only option left is to fight until one party is destroyed, or both in case of use of nuclear weapons.

At some point we will have to try to de-escalate. And that's why Trump pushing for peace isn't the worst thing IMO, whatever else one may think of the man, it at least creates some space for something other than an ever escalating cycle of destruction and violence.

They think AGI will land in Trumps term, another wildcard.

No that's not exactly what I'm thinking. To me it seem wildly unstable right now, because they are so disruptive you would expect a backlash eventually. In a more hopefull scenario they are just a transition, a slegdehammer that creates space for something new. And I do think there needs to be something new, not just reform of the same.... because the direction we were going was never going to work, it was the direction to the last man.

We probably won't yeah... it's a damn shame.

But Chattering Monkey, what dost thou sayest, that up is now down and left now right? How can that be?

Brethren, stop looking down at thou tracks in the sand, and lift up thy heads. Hast thou not seen that the night sky has shifted, around a new axis the world will churn.

I tell you brethren, out of the old world we were born, towards the new world we must turn. Verily I ask you, stop chasing the dimming light, the other way is the rising sun.


Or maybe I read to much Nietzsche.

The history of the West, a footnote to Plato.

Have you followed the discussion JD Vance had with Rory Stewart about Christianity On X?
·

Jan 30
JD VANCE: There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world

Rory Stewart
@RoryStewartUK
A bizarre take on John 15:12-13 - less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians become theologians, assume to speak for Jesus, and tell us in which order to love… — X

I don't know how deliberate all of this is, but he's essentially trying to remove the platonism, the universality from Christianity.

I'd say the opposite is true. Christian morality, especially the protestant version, is uniquely personal. All morality has some claim to objective and universal application. Indeed that's a common definition for morality — Echarmion

That's how we typically view morality because of the Christian origins of our culture, And chirstianity took its inspiration from platonism that was in vogue in the Greek Hellenistic world at the time of its devellopment.

Instead of morality being tied to a certain group living in a certain place, it became abstract and universal, applicable to everybody (Plato's ideal forms).

Russia has 6000 nuclear bombs, but sure let's just brush away the stability of the region like it's a nothing burger.
— ChatteringMonkey

The region has no stability. A Putin-Trump divvy will not provide one. What the hell are you on about? — Vera Mont

You know you really have to look at this in a bit of a wider context. We are part of the reason why the situation has evovled the way it has because we excluded Russia from participating in the western world after the second world war. We stabbed them in the back after they had lost millions of people fighting on our side... because communism became the new big bad. And after the Iron curtain fell there was another chance to normalise realtions with them, instead we just pushed NATO (an alliance specially designed to keep them in check) up to their border, breaking our word that we wouldn't do it.

Maybe it's time to rectify that mistake? You have to create the conditions for stability, if we never try we will never have it.