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.

Yes and the US is threatening to withdraw their support if we don't coöperate to get a peacedeal. That is the situation we are in. We can either coöperate, or try to go on without them with no other plan than to just keep Ukraine afloat... which in all likelyhood means we have to accept a similar or worse peacedeal a couple of years, and thousands of lifes, later.

We can quibble over who is the cause of what, and who is in the right. You say it's all Russia's fault, I say its the result of the two reacting to eachother... whatever. I don't think it matters nearly as much as what the actual situation is on the battlefield. We are not in a position to enforce the demands we want, there's really not much more to it.

And we used the "nuclear bomb" of financial measures against them. Of course they will use what they have against us... we are trying to break them, they are trying to break us.

We are at war, what do you expect? That Russia would just say, go ahead Europe, you can freeze all our foreign assets, throw us out of the global banking system, give financial and military support to our enemy we are at war with?

Yes, there would be turmoil, but not catastrophic and assets in the form of gold or property will retain their value. — Punshhh

Yes, as per usual it will be the bottom and lower middle classes who will bear the brunt of it... and cost of living is already becoming a problem for them as we speak.

Add to that climate change related issues like mass migration out of Afrika or crop-failures all over the world, an ageing demographic that needs more and more care, increasing geo-political instability, technological disruptions like the AI-revolution, fossil energy-depletion etc etc... and you have a recipe for something really special!

The younger generations will have nothing to look forward to, and if history is any lesson they will not go quietly in the night. We need to give them some perspective for a future Punshhh, getting stuck in an endless war is the opposite of that.

You know what I meant.

Trump is not going to side with Russia in attacking Europe. They only real care about China, which is the only one who can compete. If they have an interest in Russia it's to drive a wedge between Russia and China who are helping eachother in this war.

And Russia isn't going to attack Europe on its own, because they can't.

Non of this is real.

I think sooner or later the paper money system will collapse. But it's not the end of the World. Debts are then either defaulted or repaid by inflation and those that do have their savings in bonds and cash will lose that wealth. But then life goes on. — ssu

There would be massive social and political upheaval the likes we haven't seen in our lifes... but sure life would eventually go on I guess, after all the dust has settled.

It's really something, how blinded most Europeans are by imagined threats so they can't see the real danger right in front of them.

I think it's a bit more complicated... but I don't have the time now, have to go.

I mean it's difficult isn't it, because already I'm hesitating to say what I think because of all the taboos surrounding it.

If it is purely racism in the narrow sense, based on skin-colour, then I would say sure forbid it, but if it's about ethnicity and culture, then I think we should be able to discuss that.

The problem is the definition of what is racism has become so wide, that it typically also has come to include restricting speech about culture and the like.

And I think that is the point, that these things tend to shift and expand further than the original goal that may have been perfectly benign initially.

But here's a real life example. In a lot of western countries a lot of these restrictions to free speech have been set in place after the horrors of world war II. Very understandably so, and I'm sure they had all the best intentions. But what has happened after a couple of decennia is that some political parties have weaponised these restrictions to make otherwise perhaps legitimate concerns of other political parties undiscussable.

I just think, like T Clark, that there are worse things than allowing speech that may hurt feelings.

It can... I don't think we should suspect Jamal in this instance, but it won't always be Jamal in charge.

The point is that it is an argument to not have restrictions on free speech, because it can and will be used by those in power to consolidate their power.

Bit of a non sequitur. The fact that it can be applied to anything doesn't make it any less true.

This draw down happened only after the Cold War ended. That is 30 years ago, not 80 years. And naturally the threat that Putin's Russia poses is far smaller than what the Soviet Union did. — ssu

Yes I was overstating the case a bit, it is 30 years of no threat... the result is the same though, the military hasn't been taken seriously.

That would be the European objective, not Trump's objective, who is basically doing the bidding of Russia here. — ssu

But then we should take some initiative towards realising that objective, instead of merely antagonising like we are doing now and for the past 3 years. And I don't think Trump is doing Putin's bidding, he just wants out because he thinks that is in US interests... and for that he needs to find some common ground with Putin. Just repeating over and over how evil Putin is, isn't going to get us closer to a peace deal.

Which has been supported by the largest alliance in history, up until Trump. But cut off that aid, and Russia can take Ukraine. And once there's a cease-fire, then Russia can build up in few years the armament that it has lost. Also it drafts hundreds of thousands of conscripts annually.

When Russia says it's at war with NATO and the West, we should understand that he means it. — ssu

I think he says that because we keep pretending like we are not in the war, i.e. that we're only providing help "to protect Ukraines soevereignity".

But yes we need to find a workable security arrangement for Ukraine, I do agree with that because otherwise you have the same problem in a few years. That is the single most important thing we should be aiming for, and to achieve that we will probably need to make some other concessions. And it will take a lot of time and effort to get there, so we better get started to move the conversation in that direction.

Yes, it's not going to end well.

The system is just going to default in some way or another. That simple.
You can default or then you can pay it with inflation. — ssu

And then what, we end up in a Weimar Germany kind of situation? You don't think that is something we should be trying to avoid at all cost?

This is what I don't understand, rhetorically we have our mouth full of warnings about the looming dangers of fascism, but then in practice we are doing exactly the things we know leads to extremism.

We need to borrow more money because COVID, because Russia, because climate change, because an aging demographic, because there is allways a reason!

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GG_DEBT_GDP@GDD/CAN/FRA/DEU/ITA/JPN/GBR/USA

It's not going to end well.

Why do you think so?

There's far enough resources, technological ability and I would say unity to defend the union. Going on in out of the area peace enforcing or other stuff isn't going to be popular, but the simple fact of defending the member states from outside aggression is an reachable goal.

Look, my country wasn't part of NATO, was left totally to the sphere of Stalin and yet we had enough deterrence to stay independent. Why now would we have less deterrence when we are in an alliance and when Europe is pouring 800 billion into defense procurement? — ssu

Assuming the US bows out of the war, we are weak at this particular moment because they did a lot of the coördination, the intelligence, logistics, tactical support etc... I think we need some time to get those things in order.

We also lack the battle experience. Russia is already fighting the war for 3 years now, they have a military economy going, and probably would want to keep it going because they are allready geared for it now. We're only just getting started.

I'm talking about the Ukraine war specifically... because to turn arround that war you essentially need to take back territory. Deterring Russia in the future is another matter, I think we could do that if we can prepare for it. Defence is generally a lot easier than offence.

Nonsense. We are talking of military strength and deterrence. Just look at what a basket case is Russia itself. And look how poor actually the Chinese are compared per capita to us. One has to understand that the NATO countries (minus US) spend more than China and Russia COMBINED in defense. It's really a simply an issue of having will here to really to put serious investment into defense. — ssu

I think you maybe don't fully appreciate how much a lot of European countries are in debt allready, because you live in a country that is doing really well compared to the rest. You also probably have a military that was taken seriously because of the Russia threat that was allways there for Finland... in Western Europe there hasn't been a serious threat for 80 years, and as a consequence the military has suffered. Large investements are needed, with money that isn't really there.

Russia is maybe a basket case in the overall, but they probably can keep a war economy going pretty easily because of the abundant natural resources they can allways export.

Russia isn't winning. Ukrainians can decide if they want to fight for their country or not. It is up to us if we want to give them support. For example: over 70 F-16 fighters have been pledged to be given to Ukraine. Now only 18 have been sent, I guess. We in Europe have to understand that Trump is hostile to us, he isn't our friend. — ssu

They are winning because they have conquered territory from Ukraine. Since they already occupy the territories they are asking for, they don't really need a peace deal... why would they settle for less if we can't get them out anytime soon?

How?
By giving into Putin's demands? By sidelining the Ukrainians here, just as Trump does? — ssu

Zelenski will have to listen to us because without our support he's losing the war anyway. We support him to get the realistically best possible peace deal, not to fight on indefinately. And yes that will mostly be giving into Putin's demands, i.e. no Nato, giving up the occupied territories for the most part, new elections in Ukraine... the one thing I would push for is a good enough security arrangement for Ukraine so Russia can't just start over. That is called cutting your losses.

And Chamberlain was praised at the time as “the benefactor of the world” while Chamberlain’s critics were “‘war-mongers“. That people "felt a very proper reluctance of sending young men of this country” to war, especially as there were no personal feelings of “ill-will” between British men and “their German and Italian contemporaries.” — ssu

Russia is in no way in a similar position as Nazi-germany. They have trouble conquering a small part of a neighbouring country. The fear that Russia will invade the rest of Europe is irrational from a practical point of view, and also contradictory with the idea that we should keep the Ukraine war going because we think we can just conquer back the territory.... you can't have it both ways.

Human nature isn't the explanation for who we are and what we do. It's part of the answer. We aren't blank slates. — T Clark

Fair enough, and I do agree with this.

I don't disagree, but I think Lao Tzu sends a much more extreme message than that. — T Clark

Could you elaborate on this, I'm curious what you mean with it. Is it something along the lines of the Chuang Tzu quote?

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.
— Chuang Tzu — Chuang Tzu

This seems remarkably similar to what Nietzsche is getting at. Goodness as springing from the body, from the particular physiology of an individual... as opposed to Goodness coming from the holy spirit or the logos, imposed from the outside via the 'word', universal and abstract, and therefor not geared to the individual.

While I certainly would agree that the former is better for the individual, this still seems like a bit of a problem for society, because what society needs is not necessarily allways congruent with what is best for the individual.

I was just trying to figure out what is going on with the recent cultural, ideological and political devellopements in the US, as these usually spill over into Europe the years thereafter.

But sure let's play, suppose we agree on the goal that we should do something about the enormous public debt. Don't you think you will get wildly different policy answers depending on which side one is on, or what position one has in society? People do have different interests.

There's been enough of "resets" and understanding of Putin's Russia. As long as Putin's Russia is as hostile as it is, we should treat it as a threat, just like the West treated Soviet Union. Appeasement now will just show that Europe is inherently weak and can be forced with the threat of violence to give everything up. — ssu

It think the problem with this line of thinking is that we are in fact weak. Instead of trying to hold up a facade of strenght by not giving into Russia, maybe we should try to actually be strong. And to be strong you need to have a good economy, and for that you need cheaper energy...

I think these psychological considerations matter a whole lot less that we might think, it's the facts on the ground that matter most, and there Russia is winning.

Please do understand that Putin's Russia wants to dissolve the European Union and hence is a genuine threat to it. Someone that is your adversary really isn't your friend and you won't improve your security by going along with it. China isn't such aggressive as Russia. — ssu

I don't deny this, they are our adversary now and we should treat them as such for the forseable future. That doesn't mean we can't try to de-escalate and work towards having a less destructive relation.

And as long as Russia sees itself as a Great Power that should have it's sphere of influence in Europe, that long it's an existential threat. It can have a revolution and understand that the time of it's Imperial greatness is over, just like the UK understood and even France was forced to understand. — ssu

It think it's going to be difficult to get them that far, the break up of the USSR is still etched in their minds as one of the most damaging things that has happened to them in history... they lost as much people as in World War II in that period. Putin was and is the one holding the oligarchs in check. I don't think you can just have a revolution and expect things to go swimmingly for them.