I was more stating what I think will happen rather than wat we should be doing.
In terms of pure physics it is ofc easier to turn off the metaphorical tap, but in terms of power and politics we seem unable to transition to renewables. And I’m afraid once we switch on the geo-engineering button we still won’t transition. Only once oil is priced out of the market completely, be it fusion or abundant solar and wind (with energy storage), will we make the transition. But again I might be too pessimistic.
If it was possible I would put quite some money on that geo engineering (like stratospheric aerosol injection) will be seriously discussed on a UN level within ten years. Climate change seems only to speed up and co2 emissions are still rising. At one point there is simply no alternative.
This is such destructive rhetoric, everything you disagree with is Russian propaganda. Yes of course Russia is trying to influence western opinion with war propaganda, because that is what countries at war do. But the US has shown so clearly in the past that they can not be trusted to be the single source of truth, because spoiler alert: they are also a country (de facto) at war.
The US has done everything you (correctly) accuse Russia of in Iraq, Vietnam, and South America (either directly or via proxies). What does that make the US?
Imperialist states do imperialist things, the least we can do (coming from a European perspective) is to try to maintain peace by a combination of international law and pragmatic ad hock peace deals where international law is unattainable.
This is not a whataboutism, I’m saying two imperial states are destroying a country as part of their power politics, as a counter argument to Russia are the bad guys and the US can be trusted.
I’m not trying to represent all of Hexbear, my views differ from the norm (just as yours seems to differ from the lemmy.world norm).
Second, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m certain on everything. It just seems very clear to me that the current narrative is dangerous and risks leading to escalation beyond Ukraine and has already caused a lot of suffering, (I think in this I echo Mearsheimers views, see the recent interview on the Spectators Americano podcast). Wether it was intentional or accidental I purposely left open in my original comment because, like I said, it’s very hard to judge at this point. But given the US trackrecord it’s probably a healthy dosis of both overconfidence in their power as well as cynical intent.
To me it’s hard to imagine that after Russia put their army on the border and explicitly said, Ukraine stays neutral or war, that the US wasn’t aware of the consequences. Clearly Ukrainian lives were not on the forefront of their decision making process at that point. So then the question is what was.
But these are my personal opinions, and I’m happy to be convinced otherwise (but calling me a Russian bot is not very convincing I find).
You switch cause and effect, realism tries to describe the word as is and not as it should be and then bases policies on that. Of course basing your policies on realism changes the world, but US policy has mostly been based on liberalism for the last 30 years, and yet the world is still made up of poker chips and superpowers.
Of course the policies you choose based on realist principles can be used to increase your power as a country (and thus use poker chips cynically) or it can be used to build a prosperous and peaceful world (given the limitations of the natural anarchic state of international politics).
As a Dutch person I accept that the US can decide to turn the Netherlands into a nuclear testing ground whenever it wants and there is nothing we can do about that, but given this fact we should still try to create a peaceful world.
What do you think started, and kept WWI going, narrative. Every party believed or was sold that they could win this thing if they just kept climbing the escalation ladder. With the result that an entire generation of boys and men was gone for basically nothing.
What if I put a couple of my friends on the border of your house, and explicitly said, hey if you try to do X Y or Z then I might have to kill you.
For a start I would not do X, Y and Z, this is the whole idea of realism, accept the world as is. Threats work, I’m sorry. If your response is to call the police, there is no police in the world of international politics, you have to play the hand you’re dealt.
And in the case of Ukraine this was sadly a very bad hand, that is why I don’t blame Ukraine for much. You could of course blame Ukraine for being lured by the power of the US, and that they could thus safely ignore dire warnings from Russia. But as they say, with great power comes great responsibility, so I choose to put the blame at the hands of Russia and the US.
You seem to conflate questioning a narrative with banning a narrative, I have the intent nor the means. I value being able to have an open discussion on topics as important as war, especially based on substance rather than resorting to personal insults and such.
If this is a honest question I will try to give some honest context, I do not represent a Hexbear, so these are just some views that I have that make me sceptical of the narrative that currently exists.
After the cold war there were calls to establish a common security structure including Russia to try to ensure peace in Europe. Instead the US (with pressure from past satellite states of Moscow, Poland, Czechia, etc) chose to maintain NATO and on top of that invite everybody except Russia, many foreign policy experts already warned that this was a recipe for war, but wether it was malice or incompetence they were ignored.
Fast forward to 2008 the US suggests inviting Ukraine (and Georgia) to NATO, and Russia makes extremely clear that this would not happen, that this was a red line for them. Now you can disagree with Russias right to say anything about the military alliances of its neighbours, but the fact that Russia is a military regional power with nukes is something you need to deal with. Again wether it was incompetence or malice is hard to say but the next 14 years are basically a chain of escalatory actions by the US combined with a series of stronger and stronger warnings from Russia that this would lead to war.
During the events themselves it is hard to judge as a civilian what exactly is happening in geopolitics, the US has a very clear trackrecord of treat inflation or simply lying about its true intentions or the truth on the ground. It could of course be that this is one of those rare cases where the US are truly the Good Guys™️ or it could be that this is a ploy to weaken a rival with the only price being the destruction of a country they don’t care about and the death of hundreds of thousands of military age males they don’t care about.
I’m not saying Ukraine doesn’t have the right to defend itself, but the west is not Ukraine and has a broader responsibility (and seems currently mostly concerned with destabilizing Russia regardless of the cost of Ukrainian lives).
Russia made clear that it had the intent and means to stop Ukraine from joining NATO, and yet the US kept promising. This was dangerous and escalatory, the West knew this (this is also the reason why France and Germany were originally against it when the US proposed this) and yet they kept promising. Even after Russia annexed Crimea and started fighting Ukraine in the east the US kept promising NATO, de facto forcing Russia to keep fighting. Even when Russia made it 100% explicit and clear, they would not take NATO of the table.
This war was preventable, and further conflict is still preventable. But the US has shown that apparently Ukrainian lives are not worth a lot compared to their geo-strategic plans.
And of course Russia doesn’t and didn’t have the right to invade Ukraine, but if the US are truly ‘the good guys’ then it’s time to act that way and find a peaceful solution (given the situation at hand).
And finally, while it’s up to Ukrainians to decide in what kind of country they want to live, I can imagine they would rather live in a neutral country than a destroyed one.
The world of geopolitics is a world without police, so I agree that the invasion is a war crime, but in practice there is not much we can do that doesn’t make the situation worse.
In my opinion the best we can hope for is peace by means of a balance of power.
The lack of credible enforcement of international law is made very clear by the Iraq war, a war of aggression where the perpetrators were never held to account because the US was powerful enough to prevent that.
I don’t think it’s morally bad to be pragmatic in that sense, if trying to punish Russia leads to nuclear annihilation.
But they are not gonna leave, and we can’t make them without risking worse (for Ukraine and the world at large).
And of course we can’t force Ukraine to stop resisting (nor should we, it is their right), but I have the impression the west does not want this to end (regardless of the cost of Ukrainian lives), and sees this as an opportunity to weaken Russia.
If the West keeps escalating, at some point Russia has to respond to not loose credibility. The fact that western politicians are convinced they are morally right seems to blind them to this. Russia is capable of doing real damage and has thus far threatened but also shown restraint, clearly they do not want to escalate this beyond Ukraine. Nobody, not the West, not Ukraine, and not Russia, has an interest in WW3 but every day we seem to blindly walk closer and closer. Making it all the more astonishing that not more mainstream voices confront the harsh realpolitik of the current situation.
100% agree, no longer being oil dependent would make the middle east a saver place (as well as having many other advantages).
But even the green revolution needs cheap labor, recourses, and rare-earth metals. Countries that do not want to play game and want to nationalize key industries for instance, will be coerced financially or militarily by greater powers (be it the West, China, or Russia).
So the idea of one country being worse than the other is not really relevant and moreover a known strategy for getting war support. I am happy that I don’t live in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but escalating conflict with either of them will not improve anybody’s life. Look at Syria or Libya.
Remember kids: Iran is the bad Middle East autocracy and Saudi Arabia is the good Middle East autocracy.
US foreign policy has always been and will always be interest based rather than value based, but they will use moral arguments and threat inflation to drum up support for their misadventures abroad.
PayPal plans an ad network built off your purchase history (www.theregister.com)
Beautiful but worrying 🌍 (jlai.lu)
I am genuinely confused by hexbear's opinion on the Ukraine war (lemmygrad.ml)
What I have learned:...
UK Labour Under Pressure for Reselecting Climate Denial Group Director as Election Candidate (www.desmog.com)
Prime Minister of Estonia: NATO troops training in Ukraine will not lead to an escalation of war (westobserver.com)
Archived link...
Israel-Gaza war live: ICJ orders Israel to halt Rafah offensive in new ruling (www.theguardian.com)
On self-driving, Waymo is playing chess while Tesla plays checkers (arstechnica.com)
New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity (www.theatlantic.com)
Two decades of U.S. policy appear to be rooted in a mistaken understanding of what happened that day. archive
A very confusing graph posted by the GovBC account (lemmy.ca)
I appreciate the graphics that they post, but this one was… Bad....