This is true, but Europe and Russia would also anyways benefit from mutual peace. — boethius

Indeed. And Russia understands this, which is why they are trying to get a diplomatic solution to the crisis. The problem is, Europe does not.

Europe's naivety is the real risk factor here. Zero geopolitical awareness makes them irrational and a willing pawn.

And if there was no US-China war then Europe, Russia and China would benefit from the peace. — boethius

The US strategy may not be to get into a war with China, just containment and slowing China down as much as possible while the US consolidates imperial domination where it can. — boethius

Personally, I don't think the eventual war can be avoided, because the US has pressed itself right against China's doorstep where it poses an existential threat by threatening to cut off all Chinese sea trade. (Quite comparable to the situation it created vis-á-vis Russia)

So basically it has created a completely unacceptable situation for the Chinese, and any attempt by the Chinese to resolve it will result in war.

And I think you're right that if there is no war, China would surpass the United States naturally.

This is why I disagree with your view that we may be looking at the multipoles working out their new respective spheres of influence in a somewhat civilized fashion. The United States doesn't show any signs that it will respect a sphere of influence of the challenging powers.

The status quo favors the challenging powers, which is all the more reason for the former hegemon to seek to bring things to a head before it is surpassed.

What I think is driving US foreign policy in Ukraine is the following:

1. Russia and Europe are in prime position to benefit from a war between the US and China.

2. Russia and Europe will both fill a critical role for China in said war, since China will need markets it can reach over land when its sea routes are blocked. Note that conflict in Iran and Eastern Europe would seal Europe off from China entirely.

3. European populism threatens to slip Europe from Washington's grasp, turning it from a vassal into a potential rival. (In terms of potential, Europe even surpasses the US and China)


So, being the United States, what do you do?

NATO will be useless in a conflict with China, especially if the Europeans start thinking for themselves.

You look for a way to leave NATO while simultaneously getting your two rivals (Europe and Russia) to fight each other.


A hypothetical scenario (not necessarily the most likely, but just to show how easily one can imagine this escalating):

Trump becomes president, and leaves NATO. With the US ditching Europe, European war paranoia will spike - keep in mind the Ukraine war may still be going on. This creates opportunities for trickery. A false flag attack on a base or ship, an assassination of some high-profile political figure, etc.

Wars have been started over less, and it wouldn't be the first time the US fabricates a casus belli.

Of course the US doesn't intend to be involved in this conflict at all. It will be its parting gift to Europe.

Sometimes there's just a war too far. — boethius

Lets hope so.

The way I am reading Washington's behavior is that they are "shaping the battlefield" - the current Ukraine crisis isn't the grand finale. It was a tool to decouple Russia from Europe, remilitarize the region, and sow adversarial sentiment.

This creates fertile soil for conflict in the future.

With how dim-witted the Europeans are, I sense that we are one crisis away from war. Is it within the United States' power to initiate or even stage such a crisis when it suits its agenda? I believe so.

Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic

And somehow it just keeps getting worse. :lol:

You would think the Poles of all people would understand the potential cost of playing games with the Russians, though when I look at their behavior I am not sure.

Haven't they, just like the Romanians, mentioned Art. 5 when supposed missile debris landed in their borders?

Now both of these countries are planning to base Ukrainian F-16s within their borders, which makes them legitimate targets. This would in effect make them direct participants in the war.

If they had no intention of getting directly involved, the US seems to have been successful in dragging them ever closer.

The thing I am increasingly worried about, is for the US to do something extreme - something that will create a crisis that takes all these nations that have positioned themselves close to the precipice and plunges them in.

That's like saying that the power of the oil lobby makes the green energy transition a problem for the US. The fact that there are lobby groups pushing an agenda in US politics doesn't make it our problem. That's just corruption. — Mr Bee

It is a problem for the US. You might call it corruption, but what the US-Israel lobby does is completely legal, and yes, many believe this state of affairs is not in the US' best interest.

If you are unaware of the workings and scope of the US-Israel lobby, I would recommend watching something like this:

That's more Israel's problem, more specifically Netanyahu's. — Mr Bee

The power of the US-Israel lobby makes it the United States' problem as well.

If the administration doesn't appease the lobby, it will get gutted in the press. Especially now, with Biden's position being extremely weak.

I'd say fears about a blowback are the reason why they're so eager for a deal. — Mr Bee

The US isn't eager for a deal.

A deal right now would mean "Hamas won", Netanyahu would be chased out of office and probably jailed. Israel will have to live with its stained reputation for the foreseeable future and it will have nothing to show for it.

Israel will not let that happen, and if the US pressures Israel into accepting such a deal Biden would be gutted in the press and his re-election chances would vanish.

The US is eager to keep up appearances, nothing more. This is what US-Israel relations have always looked like.

The US doesn't care about peace. The only thing it cares about is whether unconditional support for Israel blows back on Biden and ruins his chances at re-election.

Of course, pissing off the US-Israel lobby by pushing Israel into an undesirable peace would be another, even more effective way of ruining Biden's chances.

So all of these peace talks are just windowdressing. I'll believe it when they put a neutral country in charge of the peace process.

In my opinion, war has a tendency impose conditions on its participants. Especially when one of the most powerful nations on the planet, the United States, is pushing for it.

Furthermore, the Europeans seem utterly politically clueless, so I highly doubt Europe as a block will be able to push back on the United States' desire for chaos.

There's virtually zero risk of blowback for the Americans, as long as they can mislead the Europeans into doing the dirty work for them (in effect keeping the US out of the (nuclear) crosshairs).

What all of this tells us is that the Americans will push for chaos in Europe, because they have no reason not to. The Russians will at some point likely feel forced to react by striking NATO bases, and that will provide fuel for further escalation.

I see no reason why this should change, unless the US comes under serious threat. Until then it can simply keep pushing forward its pawns as it pleases. The only thing it needs to avoid is a general nuclear war.


PS: As I wrote this post, news hit about the Russians carrying out missile drills off the coast of Cuba. This is a clear signal that they are trying to change the situation in which there is no risk for the United States.

US says Hamas seeks changes to ceasefire plan; Hamas denies proposing new ideas


Notice the dirty game this administration is involved in:

It pretends to broker a peace deal in order to placate US progressives, only to subsequently come up with excuses, to placate Israel and the US-Israel lobby.

Is anyone still fooled by this bullshit?

This is toddler-level diplomacy. Maybe it's time for adults to take the wheel again?

While that is certainly true, if the US manages to slowly expand the state of war that already exists, it is a matter of time before Art. 5 can be claimed.

As I've been arguing for a while now, the US objective is to provoke a large-scale conflict between Europe and Russia.

The latest step in this process is the basing of F-16s in Poland and Romania, which makes the bases in these countries legitimate military targets.

This is of course what the US is hoping to provoke - a Russian attack on NATO soil, after which it can invoke NATO Art. 5 and forcefully drag Europe into the conflict.

Biden should get the same treatment, by the way.

European Commission President accused of complicity in Israel's war crimes at ICC

The Geneva International Peace Research Institute (GIPRI) filed a complaint against EU leader Ursula von der Leyen in which it stated:

Reasonable grounds exist to believe that the unconditional support of the President of the European Commission to Israel – military, economic, diplomatic and political – has enabled war crimes and the ongoing genocide in Gaza, [...] — GIPRI

Even though I think it's highly unlikely this case will lead to anything substantial, it's good to see the European hypocrites are being called out for their complicity and tacit approval.

I think people are overworked.

You can only milk the cow for so long.

I think a case could be made for a policy of non-interference, but that case falls apart when the numbers get extreme. — RogueAI

It also falls apart when the scenario is accidental / incidental and hasn't been engineered by some evil agent. — Apustimelogist

How so?

It doesn't matter whether one is asked to murder to save five, a million or the rest of the human race. There's no onus on the bystander to involve themselves.

There's no magical number at which participation becomes mandatory and murder becomes a moral deed.

I notice that in the paper the situation is portrayed as "killing one or killing five",but that would be an inaccurate representation of cause and effect. The omission of pulling the lever does not kill anyone.

The question really is, does one involve oneself by pulling the lever, thus killing one and saving five, or does one refuse to get involved (and thus omit to pull the lever).

Negligence, culpability, these are legal terms, and I think under most legal systems you would be charged with second-degree murder if you pushed some innocent bystander on the tracks, regardless of your intentions.

If you are talking about these terms in a moral sense, I think they need to be explained in more detail. When is one morally culpable? Negligence implies a failure to do a duty - what duty are we talking about here, and when can one be said to be morally negligent?

Just "Thou shalt not kill" - most people fulfill that moral obligation without even thinking about it, so that's pretty realistic, isn't it?

Not sure why you've suddenly started linking railway death statistics.

And I think you are confusing moral obligations with legal ones. — unenlightened

Hmm. No. Legality has nothing to do with anything.

Of course moral obligations are impossible. — unenlightened

How so?

"Thou shalt not kill" seems like a perfectly realistic moral obligation, for example.

Yes. I challenge the idea that we have no obligation to strangers. We have a small obligation to do something if we reasonably can to make another's situation better if they are in difficulty. — unenlightened

You're suggesting that you feel a sense of moral obligation to all strangers, are you not? And yet I'll go out on a limb and assume that you don't spend the majority of your time trying to fulfill that moral obligation.

This is starting to sound like "I have an 'obligation', but only when I feel like it."

And that's the thing about moral obligations: whether we feel like it or not, we should abide by them.

I think you're throwing the term around too loosely, and in the process either claiming the existence of moral obligations which are impossible to fulfill, or 'obligations' which are so vague and subjective that they lose all their meaning.

Thanks for the kind words! Always nice to hear someone finds my comments insightful.

Ah, gotcha.

Well, the interesting development is that big US media outlets are now pushing the lableak theory and seem to be pointing their arrows at China, even though the US has obviously been implicated as well.

It smells of the US trying to exculpate themselves, probably because evidence is starting to pile up in the background. (Some compilations of which were shared a few posts above)

I thought the smoking gun was the fact they found big jumps in the development of the Covid strain - gaps in the natural evolution process, so to speak - that are the hallmark of biological tampering. The phases of the evolution that can't be retraced are then thought to have been carried out in an isolated lab environment.

No, I'm on the other side of the lever pulling in theory, [...] — unenlightened

Well, you were challenging my comment and I worked with what you gave me.

I can respond to something on the tv by various means, usually involving my bank account so as to pay someone else to do something. — unenlightened

Does that really count, though? :chin:

How do you know that money doesn't disappear into some embezzler's pocket?

And if it does, have you fulfilled your moral obligation?

But if I did that too often I'd have to sell the tv and then I wouldn't even have that option. — unenlightened

The idea that the bystander is morally obligated to involve themselves creates all sorts of strange situations.

But if you don't believe there exists such an obligation then that's fair enough.

If the lab leak theory is correct, which seems likely, then the US and China have the blood of millions on their hands. How exactly is that not relevant?

Well, that's not an answer to my question, but this is getting more interesting by the minute.

Apparently there exists a moral obligation to save people from dying, even if it requires the murder of bystanders, but this obligation is limited by distance and now seemingly also does not include acts that exceed the effort of a lever pull.

Fascinating!

Distance has something to do with it?

Even if one assumes it is moral to literally murder someone in order to save others, why would there be an onus on the bystander to get involved in this type of business?

If one argues the bystander is morally obligated to get involved, then I suppose whoever argues this has a massive to-do list, and the question is why they are wasting their time on this forum when they're supposed to be getting involved!

All of us are after all bystanders in countless numbers of situations which are just begging for a hero.

And the cover-up attempt is still in full swing, by the way:

Fauci denies suppressing COVID lab leak theory before US House panel

There has been a lot of evidence supporting the lab leak theory for years, so much so that I figured it to be accepted fact by now. I guess I was wrong, and apparently this is still a surprise to people.

Given the fact that the US likely shared in responsibility through their funding of the very lab where Covid is said to have originated, it's rather rich they're now trying to shift all the blame on China.

I am not sure that I agree. For simple, totalizing moral theories, such as classical utilitarianism, it is very much relevant (perhaps as a reductio).

In other cases it depends on degree of similarity and how that factors into your moral thinking. Most of us at least contemplate public policies. Public policies not infrequently involve life-and-death decisions. Do we do this and save this many lives, or do we do that and save that many, or do we do nothing? How about emergency room or field hospital triage? Battlefield decisions? Relatively few people are directly involved in those, but it's not a negligible number. — SophistiCat

The real world parallels indeed seem apparent and relevant.

In the case of triage there's an essential difference in the fact that every person there will die unless treated, and the medic uses triage in order to save as many of them as possible.

So while the medic must choose who lives and who dies, anyone they save is a life won.

In the trolley problem, one must actively kill innocent bystanders in order to save.


There's potentially much substance here to talk about, and moral principles to test. I'm not sure why people dislike the trolley problem so much.

As far as criminals go, Trump is far from the worst the American political class has to offer. The difference is that most of them never were held to account for their crimes.

The United States is practically ran by war criminals.

My action killed one, but your inaction killed five. — unenlightened

Ah, but I'm afraid that's an inaccurate representation of cause and effect.

My inaction didn't do anything. Whoever put those people there is the one responsible for their deaths, and not me.

I think it's morally relevant, but not in the way it's usually portrayed.

The dilemma doesn't state the person has to get involved. The person has a third choice: do not get involved. So why would they choose to get involved in business that only has bad outcomes?

It's a dimension of morality that isn't explored often, but which in my opinion is a critical part of any coherent moral system: when is it morally acceptable to choose non-interference?

That would make you a murderer, not a savior. And you're the one calling me callous? :chin:

Callous? You're the one suggesting you'd like to actively participate.

Well, I did not put the people on the track, nor am I responsible for their well-being.

So really it's none of my business. I would keep walking. Whatever weird game they're playing over there, I want none of it.

Modern politics is a giant clown car any way.

The best thing you can do is get off and laugh at the spectacle.

I wish we could laugh about our politicians, but over here in Europe it's not even funny anymore. It's just sad.

So I guess American politics beats European politics in that regard.

The rest of the world would surely look upon the US as a broken democracy that has lost its ability to function through the framework of a healthy democracy, [...] — Christoffer

Is your impression that this isn't already the case? :chin:

The Western approach doesn't make sense on any level, does it?

They commit fully to the military option, even though there is no chance of victory.

Meanwhile, they categorically refuse dialogue and diplomatic negotiations, while Russia keeps signaling it wants a diplomatic settlement.

Why would the West insist on fighting a war it is clearly losing?

Victory was never the goal.

And if victory was never the goal, then what is?


My two cents: the US is using this war in an effort to decouple Europe from Russia, and to remilitarize Europe.

Why? Because both Europe and Russia will be crucial to China in the upcoming power struggle between it and the US, and both Europe and Russia stand to profit from said power struggle.

But not if the US manages to embroil the two in a war with each other.

I think this has always been the reason, ever since the US started pushing in Ukraine since 2008, when it was already clear its actions would lead to war.