Yes :) or at least some elective office would be cool, but I'm more concerned with getting to the truth than trying to be popular because I believe in the power of example over the power of electioneering.
It won't be possible end the Russo-Ukrainian War by making Ukraine give concessions, and Ukraine will *not* stop defending its territory if NATO and other countries were to stop supplying the Ukrainian military. If NATO pressured Ukraine to sign a peace treaty with Russia, Russia would simply invade Ukraine once more several years later (Crimea in 2014, Ukraine in 2022-23, and Ukraine again in ~2027), and Ukraine would be in an even worse position because they would've completely lost the Donbas, Crimea, strategic/defensive territories, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, most of their Black Sea ports, and international recognition of much of their territory.
NATO countries like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania and most of Eastern Europe would never tolerate allowing Russia to keep the Ukrainian territory that they have now. Russia invading Ukraine endangers *their* national security too, especially if a Russia-occupied Ukraine reached their national borders. NATO cannot risk letting that possibility happen. If NATO wants to guarantee a stable buffer zone against Russia, then they have to keep supplying Ukraine. The reason why *all* NATO countries are so willing to send weapons and supplies to Ukraine is because it's in their self-interests.
The Russian government has very strong geopolitical, national, cultural, defensive, and political incentives to keep invading Ukraine until they conquer the entire country, even if this is not aligned with the interests of the average Russian citizen. Most countries are aware of this.
The only way to end the war for good is to make Russia lose, most likely by starving their war budget into oblivion. The alternative is that Russia waits a while, and attacks again, just like how they waited 8 years after stealing Crimea to strike again. The world should've already learned that appeasement doesn't work after Germany invaded Poland in 1939, a year after they annexed Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938.
If Ukraine accepts a deal that involves them giving up some of their land and Russia doesn't then reinvade "several years later" will you admit you were wrong?
You've stated your opinion here so emphatically that to then be wrong in this regard should therefore logically cause you to reevaluate your entire worldview.
> If Ukraine accepts a deal that involves them giving up some of their land and Russia doesn't then re-invade "several years later" would you admit you were wrong?
Why wouldn't I? Of course I would. Just like all the other times I've admitted that I was wrong, before I finally reached a stable and consistent philosophy and worldview. https://zerocontradictions.net/misc/philosophical-journey
> You've stated your opinion here so emphatically
It's better described as a reasonable prediction based on the historical failures of appeasement, Russia's known geopolitical motives for invading Ukraine, and the reasons why Ukraine and NATO countries (especially Eastern European ones) don't want Russia to steal any more territory or people from Ukraine.
Just think about it. If you're proposing that we should end the Russo-Ukrainian War by guaranteeing that Ukraine will never join NATO and that Russia gets to keep most or all of the occupied territory that it has now, then that's a really, really good deal for Russia. They get to keep all the progress that they made, they get a few years to recover, their economy rebounds as sanctions are lifted, they won't have to pay any money to compensate Ukraine for their damages, and they have nothing to stop them from trying again once everything has settled for a while.
Ukraine wouldn't have any NATO membership to defend them, and they would be in a weaker position than before, so Russia would probably invade them again if they were willing to do so the first time. Russia would also have a better chance at defeating all of Ukraine because they would be stronger from what they've already gained/stolen, especially if Russia manages to annex their Belarus puppet state and they gain more geopolitical leverage from the Wagner Group's combat in Africa (e.g. the recent pro-Russian coup in Niger).
> [If you're wrong, then you should] reevaluate your entire worldview.
Fair enough. I think the more certain we believe in something that turns out to be wrong then the more we must peel back our own philosophical layers since we can’t be so sure of our sureness.
Not all sanctions should be lifted, e.g. my tyranny tariff / censorship sanction. We should also go harder on energy, which will hurt Russia's economy long-term.
The West would help Ukraine rebuild so it has even better defenses + a more united alert population. We should also have the GTFO Act to deter future aggression.
You said Russia will “simply invade Ukraine once more,” but following the dissolution of the USSR, Russia recognized Ukraine as an independent country. Putin has said conquering it isn’t his goal either and even if it secretly was he won’t be the president forever. You’ve posited your own feeling that Russia wants all the land perhaps because it’s the Georgist in you projecting an overvaluation of land. ;)
No approach is perfect, but I think my systematic approach is better than a never-ending war of attrition.
If it's not appeasement, then what would you call it?
Those are good proposals.
> You've posited your own feeling that Russia wants all the land perhaps because it's the Georgist in you projecting an overvaluation of land.
It's not entirely clear why Russia chose to invade Ukraine, but whatever it is, they're clearly willing to double-down on it no matter what it takes. It's probably just as much about conquering the people as conquering the land. Both Russia and Ukraine have declining populations, so neither really needs more land, but it is nice to get more of both.
I doubt it would be "never-ending", especially with declining populations. I think rapid attrition would be quicker than letting everything drag on, but either way, the conflict won't last forever.
Any dreams of running for president in a few decades?
Yes :) or at least some elective office would be cool, but I'm more concerned with getting to the truth than trying to be popular because I believe in the power of example over the power of electioneering.
It won't be possible end the Russo-Ukrainian War by making Ukraine give concessions, and Ukraine will *not* stop defending its territory if NATO and other countries were to stop supplying the Ukrainian military. If NATO pressured Ukraine to sign a peace treaty with Russia, Russia would simply invade Ukraine once more several years later (Crimea in 2014, Ukraine in 2022-23, and Ukraine again in ~2027), and Ukraine would be in an even worse position because they would've completely lost the Donbas, Crimea, strategic/defensive territories, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, most of their Black Sea ports, and international recognition of much of their territory.
NATO countries like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania and most of Eastern Europe would never tolerate allowing Russia to keep the Ukrainian territory that they have now. Russia invading Ukraine endangers *their* national security too, especially if a Russia-occupied Ukraine reached their national borders. NATO cannot risk letting that possibility happen. If NATO wants to guarantee a stable buffer zone against Russia, then they have to keep supplying Ukraine. The reason why *all* NATO countries are so willing to send weapons and supplies to Ukraine is because it's in their self-interests.
The Russian government has very strong geopolitical, national, cultural, defensive, and political incentives to keep invading Ukraine until they conquer the entire country, even if this is not aligned with the interests of the average Russian citizen. Most countries are aware of this.
The only way to end the war for good is to make Russia lose, most likely by starving their war budget into oblivion. The alternative is that Russia waits a while, and attacks again, just like how they waited 8 years after stealing Crimea to strike again. The world should've already learned that appeasement doesn't work after Germany invaded Poland in 1939, a year after they annexed Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938.
If Ukraine accepts a deal that involves them giving up some of their land and Russia doesn't then reinvade "several years later" will you admit you were wrong?
You've stated your opinion here so emphatically that to then be wrong in this regard should therefore logically cause you to reevaluate your entire worldview.
> If Ukraine accepts a deal that involves them giving up some of their land and Russia doesn't then re-invade "several years later" would you admit you were wrong?
Why wouldn't I? Of course I would. Just like all the other times I've admitted that I was wrong, before I finally reached a stable and consistent philosophy and worldview. https://zerocontradictions.net/misc/philosophical-journey
> You've stated your opinion here so emphatically
It's better described as a reasonable prediction based on the historical failures of appeasement, Russia's known geopolitical motives for invading Ukraine, and the reasons why Ukraine and NATO countries (especially Eastern European ones) don't want Russia to steal any more territory or people from Ukraine.
Just think about it. If you're proposing that we should end the Russo-Ukrainian War by guaranteeing that Ukraine will never join NATO and that Russia gets to keep most or all of the occupied territory that it has now, then that's a really, really good deal for Russia. They get to keep all the progress that they made, they get a few years to recover, their economy rebounds as sanctions are lifted, they won't have to pay any money to compensate Ukraine for their damages, and they have nothing to stop them from trying again once everything has settled for a while.
Ukraine wouldn't have any NATO membership to defend them, and they would be in a weaker position than before, so Russia would probably invade them again if they were willing to do so the first time. Russia would also have a better chance at defeating all of Ukraine because they would be stronger from what they've already gained/stolen, especially if Russia manages to annex their Belarus puppet state and they gain more geopolitical leverage from the Wagner Group's combat in Africa (e.g. the recent pro-Russian coup in Niger).
> [If you're wrong, then you should] reevaluate your entire worldview.
If I was wrong, I wouldn't have to reevaluate my *entire* worldview. Just the part(s) that I was wrong about as they pertain to geopolitics. Belief networks are more complicated than that. https://zerocontradictions.net/epistemology/difficult-to-change-minds
Fair enough. I think the more certain we believe in something that turns out to be wrong then the more we must peel back our own philosophical layers since we can’t be so sure of our sureness.
It's not appeasement (https://www.anthonygalli.com/p/how-to-end-the-russo-ukrainian-war-af3).
Not all sanctions should be lifted, e.g. my tyranny tariff / censorship sanction. We should also go harder on energy, which will hurt Russia's economy long-term.
The West would help Ukraine rebuild so it has even better defenses + a more united alert population. We should also have the GTFO Act to deter future aggression.
You said Russia will “simply invade Ukraine once more,” but following the dissolution of the USSR, Russia recognized Ukraine as an independent country. Putin has said conquering it isn’t his goal either and even if it secretly was he won’t be the president forever. You’ve posited your own feeling that Russia wants all the land perhaps because it’s the Georgist in you projecting an overvaluation of land. ;)
No approach is perfect, but I think my systematic approach is better than a never-ending war of attrition.
If it's not appeasement, then what would you call it?
Those are good proposals.
> You've posited your own feeling that Russia wants all the land perhaps because it's the Georgist in you projecting an overvaluation of land.
It's not entirely clear why Russia chose to invade Ukraine, but whatever it is, they're clearly willing to double-down on it no matter what it takes. It's probably just as much about conquering the people as conquering the land. Both Russia and Ukraine have declining populations, so neither really needs more land, but it is nice to get more of both.
https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2022/03/russia-and-ukraine-statistics.html
> a never-ending war of attrition.
I doubt it would be "never-ending", especially with declining populations. I think rapid attrition would be quicker than letting everything drag on, but either way, the conflict won't last forever.