There isn't a being who is being forced to exist when they had a desire to not to do. — DA671

Clearly there is a being who is being forced. At the point of birth I don't think you can dispute that anymore.

And while we know little about a baby's desires since they're not yet capable of expressing them, they're clearly conscious and have little wills of their own. So again, there's an imposition based on a fundamental ignorance here that I don't think you can avoid.

But if creation can be an imposition, it can also be a gift that gives positives that one had no way to solicit before they existed. — DA671

Certainly. But how does one know beforehand? And if one conceeds that one doens't know beforehand, how does one justify going ahead with it anyway, knowing the dire consequences one's actions may have, however benevolent the intentions?

I think we're outside the matrix. :snicker:

It's not an imposition. — DA671

An imposition means to force something on another.

By being born something (life) is being forced (the physical act of birth, to which a child cannot resist nor consent) on another (the child).

Which part of this do you not agree with?

If it can be seen as one, it can also be seen as a gift. — DA671

What we call it does not change the nature of the act.

A gift can be an imposition too, and before one gives someone a 'gift', isn't one morally obliged to ensure this gift does not hurt the recipient?

If one pushes someone out of a plane but their parachute doesn't open, could one justify themselves on the basis of what you've put forward? I think not. Giving gifts can be immoral too, regardless of its benevolent intention.

If not "imposing" is good, then not bestowing happiness is quite problematic. — DA671

Apart from those responsibilities that one has taken upon themselves by their voluntary action, I think inaction is always morally permissable. That is to say, if one's inaction prevents good from happening, then that is not immoral. As such, in the face of overwhelming uncertainty it may be better not to act.

A view within which 'not doing good' is immoral would require everyone to spend their every waking moment doing all the good they possibly can. What sinful creatures we would be, indeed.

I don't think that an act that doesn't go against the interests of an existing person can be an imposition. — DA671

Being born clearly is an imposition by the parents on the child.

If such a monumental imposition is morally permissible, then on what basis can be said that other impositions aren't permissable?

A few big drops cannot annihilate billions of other ones, even if they are smaller (and here, we are going to simply ignore Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Albert Einstein, etc.). If one knows that their action would cause more harm than good, then it would obviously be wrong to go ahead and act in that manner anyway. However, since we don't know for sure, one has to act on the basis of reasonable probabilities. — DA671

I disagree, and here's why:

We cannot hide behind probability. It would mean nothing other than playing dice with other people's well-being. Probability simply hides ignorance. An attempt to appeal to probability is simply a concession that not only is one imposing, one is imposing in ignorance.

And that's exactly so! Because no parent has the ability to foresee the consequences their actions will have on the child or on other people.

You state that one has to act. I disagree. Not acting ignorantly on the behalf of others is much better.

Along the lines of, before one seeks to do good unto others, ensure one isn't doing harm, because no one is forcing you to get involved in the first place. A solid guide to moral behavior in virtually any other circumstance, and only contested here because we're predisposed to like the idea of having children.

It's certainly a monumental decision. Whilst I agree that it can be a disastrous one, it can also be one that results in joys that many would consider to be miraculously powerful and beautiful. If suffering matters, then so do the positives. — DA671

Well, in that case a one-sided portrayal of all that is positive also will not suffice.

Not only is there a lot of suffering in the world, there are also a lot of immoral people, all of which were birthed and raised because their parents felt they had the right to do so.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all the people that followed them, were all two people's gift to humanity. What right did those parents have? Because they were ignorant to the consequences of their actions? Ignorance cannot function as a justifcation, though perhaps it can lessen their blame.

I don't believe that there are souls floating around in the void who have an interest in not existing that we are ignoring by creating them and deciding on "their" behalf. — DA671

This is a flimsy shield.

One ought to take into account the consequences for one's actions, and if the consequence of one's action is the birth of another individual, one should take into account that individual's behalf before one acts.

We do this on moral grounds all the time, especially in regards to childbirth.


The central question wasn't answered:

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else? — Tzeentch

Perhaps by what you've said, I should assume you would in fact not consider it immoral to push someone out of an airplane under the conditions I listed? It would certainly be a first that someone is willing to take that position!

Something isn't vain just because it eventually ends. — DA671

Something is in vain if it's goal (the 'survival of the human species') is fundamentally unachievable.

However, due to the fact that most people do seem to cherish their lives (and optimism isn't inherently bad as long as it doesn't affect our overall analysis), I believe that it wouldn't be good to cease/prevent all the positives. — DA671

Why should the fact that many people enjoy their lives give them a right to impose it on others?

How does this argument not then turn into a moral imperative to create as many new persons as possible? — Tzeentch

Because we can be smarter than that. — universeness

Mental gymnastics?

If you're not interested in the moral argument then that is fine, but obviously any moral argument put forward should be sound.

If one believes as long as the ratio of happy to unhappy lives isn't getting close to 1:1000,000, then I guess you have a lot of work to do. Or did I miss the part where a million people's suffering is worth a single person's happiness, but your own convenience is not?

The difference is that following the antinatalist suggestion means extinction for our species. — universeness

And if people were to do that by their own voluntary will, why would that be a problem? Should they be morally compelled to prolong the species*, and if so, on what basis?

Not that there's any real danger of the entirety of mankind suddenly seeing the light. If there's anything humanity has never had a shortage of it's unthinking procreators.

Human suffering is an issue that humans have to deal with, ... — universeness

We don't 'have' to continue that cycle, so we don't 'have' to suffer, unless one believes the human endeavor is one that needs to be prolonged at any cost. But suffering isn't at the base of my argument.

We also have to deal with the knowledge that we will die but we are NOT ALONE, We can comfort, love, encourage, share, laugh, learn, change, grow, experience, ask questions, cry, complain, ask for help, give help etc etc.
What a wonderful life! — universeness

I'm glad you feel that way. There's also a lot of misery though. There are many individuals who don't feel comforted, loved, encouraged, etc. They are alone, and sadly, they are many. Withering away, some even broken by the very parents that made the choice to have them in the first place.

On what basis do you believe these people are living "a wonderful life" - and do you believe they would agree with you? Did their parents have a right to saddle them with this fate?


My central question remains unanswered:

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else? — Tzeentch

* Something which is an effort in vain to begin with. Just like death is inevitable, so is the eventual extinction of the human species. If you're of the opinion that all moral boundaries should be thrown overboard in order to prolong it I would disagree wholeheartedly.

I disagree because in the final analysis, for me, the single case of the person who honestly states on their deathbed that they have had a wonderful life and they would be happy to 'do it all again.' Outweighs the person or perhaps even persons who honestly state on their deathbed that they have had a terrible life and they are glad it's over. — universeness

How does this argument not then turn into a moral imperative to create as many new persons as possible?


Honestly, I think the way this thread is going is the wrong way to approach antinatalism.

The issue raised is unmistakenly a moral one, and moral problems must be dealt with on the level of moral agents, ergo individual choices. Any attempts at generalizing or externalizing moral issues fall flat.

In the case of two persons deciding they wish to have a child, it is between them and their future child.

The simple question is, where do they get the right to make such a monumental and potentially disastrous decision on behalf of someone else?

Intuition speaks clearly here - should I push someone out of an airplane when I know there's a ten percent chance their parachute doesn't open, a ninety percentage chance that it does open and a fifty percent chance that they enjoy the experience?

The answer is clearly no. You should not push someone out of an airplane. Why not? Because such is not your risk to take. What makes child-having different?

Is the ego really concerned with self-preservation?

Isn't it easy to come up with examples in which ego-driven behavior is self-destructive, and purpusefully so?

Would it have been possible to avoid the ongoing horror in Ukraine? If Ukraine had yielded some territory and agreed not to join NATO - would that have led to a long term peace? — EricH

The United States has been moving towards incorporation of Ukraine into western power structures since at least the Bush administration without pause. Every subsequent administration has doubled down on this policy.

Russia has since 2008 made clear that turning Ukraine into a western bulwark would be a considered an existential threat to Moscow, and a red line.

If the United States was completely committed to incorporating Ukraine, how much agency did the Ukrainians really have?

In my opinion, it should have been the European nations to veto both NATO and EU membership to Ukraine, and force the United States to cease stirring up trouble in their backyards.

I think this conflict was entirely avoidable if the United States had accepted the fact that Ukraine was a bridge too far.

Would it have led to long-term peace? We can't be sure, I think it's certainly possible. In the time between 1989 and 2008 relations between Europe and Russia were improving, economic ties between the two regions were expanding. Ironically, Putin was seen by many western politicians as a sensible leader.

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine, sacrificing all of this good will, if it did not have sufficient reason to fear Ukraine would slip into the western sphere? This is admittedly conjecture, but I don't think so.

You're supposed to consider it and respond to it, not diverge off to something else. — jorndoe

Unless you genuinely don't think such changes would do a thing. — jorndoe

I don't think my opinions on what changes to Russia would turn it into a more preferable state are in any way relevant to the question of Ukraine, and how it could have been avoided.

(Name-calling and such is perhaps telling.) — jorndoe

You are referring to yourself that called me a Kremlin propagandist, I assume?

, ...but you live within the sphere of influence of the Kremlin ... — Olivier5

I don't live anywhere near Russia, but whatever makes you feel better.


Maybe you two should lay off the copium and come with some actual positions supported by arguments, instead of this parade of nothings.

And if you can't, maybe it's time to draw your conclusions and save yourselves some time and effort?

↪Tzeentch
, everyone already knows, yet you keep diverging to the party line when asked something else. — jorndoe

Party line? What kind of cheap rhetorical tricks are these? I go against your preferred narrative so I must be a Kremlin propagandist?

Up yours.

How about you come with a single coherent argument to support your position, instead of all this babble?

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, oppressing freedom (press, expression, critics, association, assembly, Internet), doing away with political rivals/opposition, discriminating (homosexuals, minorities), implementing laws that can mean whatever + hefty sentencing, assassinating (allegedly, true, yet then there are plausibility assessments, process of elimination, and such), with little accountability, embodying corruption, eroding trust, ...

If you keep denying/skirting that stuff, ... — jorndoe

What are you expecting me to respond to that?

That I believe those things are bad and regrettable?

Sure it has caused action and distrust — it has critics criticizing all over the place, ... — jorndoe

... it has nations looking elsewhere, as we've seen — except there are less critics criticizing in North Korea, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia (theocracy), Iran (theocracy), ... — jorndoe

By the way, the US/Saudi Arabia relations have also been criticized by people all over (including in the US). — jorndoe

Freedom of speech is a great thing, but it's far from the only measure one could use to determine a nation's development. In fact, I would argue that the amount of death and destruction a nation exports is a far better measure, and for that the United States takes the cake, and it's not even close.

Earlier you shared an article calling Russia's actions in Ukraine 'genocidal'. How would the United States' conduct in say, Vietnam, compare? 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians and 1,100,000 North Vietnamese / Viet Cong fighters dead by official estimates.

But at least the benevolent United States allowed its citizens to openly criticize this butchery. How fortunate the Vietnamese must've felt to be murdered by such a free and open society.

Sure it has caused action and distrust — it has critics criticizing all over the place, including in European countries and the US (the former of which you say is subject to a nefarious "divide and conquer" plot), ... — jorndoe

The Grand Chessboard: American Grand Strategy and It's Geostrategic Imperatives

I would recommend reading it fully, but read chapter 2 titled "The Eurasian Chessboard" to understand the underlying geopolitical landscape that to a large extent dictates how great powers act on the world stage, and especially the actions of the United States in relation to Europe and the Eurasian continent.

If the idea of the United States using divide & conquer sounds like a 'nefarious plot' to you, that tells me you haven't read enough on the subject.

Suppose for the sake of argument that Putin or Russia abandoned that crap, took substantial measures, let trust build, then what do you think would happen (semi)isolation-wize? — jorndoe

So, what do you think? — jorndoe

That's what Russia did prior to 2008, and things were looking good. As I said before, Putin has been moving towards Europe since he came to power. He was liked in the West until 2008, and even until 2014 to an extent.

Why do you think Russia and Europe built all these pipelines? Why did Merkel and Marcon for the longest time try to stop the Americans from provoking the Russians?

The question you ask has already been answered in recent history. Cooperation is possible. The actual question is: what changed for the situation to get where it is now? And in my view that has had to do primarily with the United States.

It so happens that very few like authoritarian regimes, ... — jorndoe

That never stopped the United States from getting along with anyone.

Is the point you're going to make really that if only Russia were to act more like the United States that things would be better?

Where do you think Putin learned all of this?

Or is it a "Do as we say, not as we do" kind of deal?

In retrospect, how accurate were Rumer and Weiss (Carnegie, 2021)↗? Goemans (Rochester)↗? — jorndoe

The article by Rumer and Weiss was good. I especially liked the point that was made about the situation being such that neither side is likely to back down, and also that a Russian military invasion is likely to be limited in scope (something that was confirmed by the number of Russian troops deployed).

Goemans's article not so much. It is filled with references to 'the Russian Empire' and 'Tsarist Russia' - unscientific, inflammatory nonsense that reeks of bias. His prediction was also that Russia would make a bid for the entirety of Ukraine - something which, again, is unlikely given the number of troops Russia has deployed being a magnitude below what would be required to invade all of Ukraine.

The reality on the ground is that, with Putin's Russia looming on the horizon, security↗ was + is everyone's concern↗; — jorndoe

Russia is most definitely not acting "genocidally" in Ukraine.

I understand that the violence inherent to war is repulsive. It should be to everyone. But to call Russia's conduct in Ukraine 'genocidal' is tasteless and tone deaf.

Did Russia seek↗ protection from, say, China? — jorndoe

Russia under Putin has at least until 2008 looked for closer ties with Europe. Which is no surprise. Neither Europe nor Russia has much to gain from conflict and a lot to gain from cooperation. However, Russia is a big country and a former super power, so it's not surprising it didn't accept US vassal status that NATO membership amounts to.

What (if anything) would it take for Russia to come out of (semi)isolation? — jorndoe

For the United States to stop backing it into a corner. The United States doesn't want Russia and Europe to get too cozy - that's part of the US's strategy of keeping the continental powers split up and fighting each other, so they cannot push back against the United States.

Neither does your opinion that Russia attacked Ukraine only because of NATO enlargement as a defensive manner. — ssu

That's not an opinion I hold. But if you want to make the claim it's territorial greed there's a burden of proof on you, not me.

If Mexico would want that military alliance with China, wouldn't it then have to feel threatened by it's northern neighbor in order to try such a desperate Hail Mary pass? — ssu

None of that matters.

If that nothern neighbor is powerful, Mexico will have to take into account its northern neighbor's interests or face the consequences.

Your opinion of that northern neighbor does not matter.

Whether you believe the interests of that northern neighbor are legitimate does not matter.

All that matters are actions and their consequences. And every party involved was aware of the likely consequences of their actions in regards to Ukraine. Russia even explicitly stated what the consequences would be, and the fools went ahead anyway, and now Ukraine is in ruins.

The fact you're unable to see how we arrived at this disaster does not speak to your merit.

By the way, the opinions/analyses of Mearsheimer matter as well, giving more angles; that being said, they're not the be-all-end-all of the situation.) — jorndoe

I would genuinely love to see some quality material that offers a different perspective.

Implying certain individuals inherently require assistance because of their demographic is patronizing and discriminatory in more ways than one, not to mention affirmative action has essentially failed across the board.

Do you believe Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine were acts of "unprovoked agression"?

You seem to believe that everything I've offered in terms of context are just pretenses that the Kremlin has used to disguise banal territorial greed.

I think such a stance is foolish, and even the sources or "proof" you have presented so far explicitly state they are part of this wider context which you seem to dismiss in favor of your view this was a 30 year old Russian scheme to expand their borders.

You've got it backwards.

Your position hinges almost entirely on the idea that the Russians act out of territorial greed (the "madman Putin" argument), and not on the protection of key strategic interests. Obviously the protection of Sevastopol and the Russian power projection in the Black Sea and the Middle-East cannot be classed under "territorial ambition".

Also, why don't you respond to the contents of my post?

The vice president of Russia saying in the 1990's that Crimea is part of Russia?

The Duma deciding that the joining of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950's was an illegal act?

If those aren't proofs of territorial ambitions on the highest level, I don't know what is. — ssu

When you say "territorial ambitions" I take it to mean as much as territorial ambitions brought about by imperialism or some such.

I don't think you've shown any proof of that. Nor have you made any attempt at linking what was said in 1992 to what is happening today. To me it shows that the same concerns that prompted Russia's invasion of Ukraine today were what created tensions back then.

Access which Russia actually has even without Crimea. — ssu

Hence your argument would make more sense if it would be to have control about the Sebastapol naval base. — ssu

Sevastopol is Russia's access to the Black Sea, and the source of its influence in the region.

It's no surprise that over the course of history many nations have attempted to hold the Crimean peninsula.

The question why the Russians don't simply carve a new Sevastopol out of the mountainside in Krasnodar Krai is simple; not only would it cost a lot of time and money, it's also a strategically inferior position. It's located on the edge of the Black Sea instead of in the middle, and it's seperated from Russia by a mountain range which makes it vulnerable.

(21st Apr 2010, the Guardia) Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovych, today agreed to extend the lease on Russia's naval base in the Crimea, in the most explicit sign yet of his new administration's tilt towards Moscow.

Indeed. Yanukovych signed that deal. Yanokovych was then removed from office during the Maidan Revolution. Isn't the significance of that event already made clear by the fact that Russia's invasion of Crimea was launched in response to it?

I can't spell it out more clearly than I already have. You're basically spelling it out yourself at this point. It's up to you to connect the dots.

It's worth keeping in mind that Ukrainian NATO membership would primarily mean limiting Russia's ability to move/act freely. — jorndoe

It would limit Russia's influence in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the Middle-East significantly. That's the importance of Crimea and Sevastopol, Odessa and land bridges to these areas.

That's what's at stake here.

Maybe it's your opinion that it's not worth fighting a war over, but the Russians disagree and so they have made clear since 2008.

Sweden and Finland seeking membership as protective measures (like Ukraine) have been met with a casual, yet vaguely ominous, response from Putin. — jorndoe

Because Sweden and Finland aren't all that relevant to Russia strategically.

When Putin and compadres started rattling the nukes, NATO responded by dropping Ukraine's NATO membership application, and, after a bit of whining, Zelenskyy conceded the membership. — jorndoe

You call it a pretext, but after the 2008 NATO summit and 2013 Maidan protests, 2017 legislation being passed expressly stating that it is Ukraine's objective to become part of NATO, and continued attempts at incorporation into the European Union, isn't it more than obvious that the Russians take such words with a grain of salt?

I've already argued that all of this context matters, and that NATO / EU's role in this cannot be ignored. And you don't have to take my word for it, since this comes from independent experts like Mearsheimer and Chomsky.

I'd love to hear an expert make a serious case for why the invasion of Ukraine is an act of unprovoked Russian agression / imperialism, and why all this context should be ignored. I've yet to see anything of the sort.

I appreciate that you're bringing some sources to the table, but this hardly constitutes proof of territorial ambitions.

If you read the articles you'll see that it's exactly the same concerns that lead to tensions then as today - Russian access to the Black Sea.

And lowe and behold, after 2008 and 2013 can't we objectively state the Russians were right to view Ukraine as an unreliable partner when it came to such a crucial strategic matter as access to the Black Sea?

This doesn't support your view of Russian imperialism. In fact, drawing lines all the way back to 1992 (I didn't know they existed, to be fair, so thanks for that) pulls the rug under all of this "Madman Putin" rhetoric. Apparently this issue has existed for three decades already and, sadly, it has now reached its boiling point.

Sad that without a tit-for-tat strategem, good folks will be culled from the herd. — Agent Smith

We all have to die some day.

Better to die a human than live as an animal.

But just why is it so utterly difficult for you to admit that Russia has all along had territorial objectives for it's war in Ukraine (starting with Crimea)? — ssu

What are you talking about? I outright stated it:

Right now it's clear Russia is going to take every strategically relevant region from Ukraine by force, ... — Tzeentch

If you want to argue that Russia has had these territorial ambitions before 2008 then you'll have to provide some proof.

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective.

After 2008, when it became clear the United States would not back down from incorporating Ukraine into NATO, and especially after the Maidan protests in 2013, Russia has sought to protect its strategic interests in Ukraine by force.

Previously, Russian strategic interests were protected by treaties between Ukraine and Russia. With regime change looming in Ukraine, and the United States expressly stating it wished to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, those treaties could no longer be relied on.

Right now it's clear Russia is going to take every strategically relevant region from Ukraine by force, and that map is likely a pretty accurate depiction of the territories they're after - predictably all linked to (access to) the Black Sea; Russia's primary strategic interest in Ukraine.

It's not rocket science. In fact, it's pretty obvious. The reason no one talks about the elephant in the room is because that elephant (the United States) controls the narrative in the west.

Why would they do that? — Olivier5

To avoid being dragged into a war they are not willing to pay the price of victory for.

What we wish for: Ahimsa in all its glory - the complete abolishment of violence of all kinds.

What we actually get: Violence as a necessary evil - under existing circumstances, renouncing violence is madness/stupidity/both.

The best we can do: Violence, always a last option! — Agent Smith

Why think in terms of 'we'?

There's nothing stopping you or I from living according to principles of non-violence.

It gets more complicated when one seeks to have others live in accordance with those principles too. It seems desires to impose such principles on others are fundamentally at odds with the principles themselves.

Says who? — Olivier5

Mearsheimer, for one, in the video I linked you.

All this talk about future threats is nice but there is a very immediate threat right now in Russia... — Olivier5

If the United States wanted peace with Russia they could have it tomorrow. If they guarantee Ukraine will remain a neutral state and will not join NATO or the EU this war would be over.

But they can't. Not anymore. After 15 years of targeted foreign policy, plus all the rhetoric they have been using, it would be considered a humilation for the Biden administration and the United States as a whole.

That's exactly what makes this war so tricky.

Either in NATO or with it's own nuclear deterrence, Ukraine would have prevented an all out attack from Russia. — ssu

Nuclear deterrence for Ukraine is a ship that has long since sailed. No point in discussing that.

As for joining NATO as a means to prevent a Russian attack - Russia attacked Ukraine precisely because it tried to join NATO. Since 2008 it was clear to all involved that NATO membership for Ukraine would mean war.

So if your point is, "they should have joined NATO to avoid conflict" - they tried, despite Russia's warnings, and now their country is devastated.

A disguised moral argument is still a moral argument, and using 'realpolitik' to justify your moral argument is not actual realism.

You are dealing in justifications and shoulds / should nots.

Your stance seems to boil down to: Ukraine is justified in wanting to join the EU / NATO, because it prefers the EU / NATO and you present an argument as to why that is the case.

Therefore, Russia should not prevent Ukraine from joining the EU / NATO.


Yet here we are. No justifications and 'should nots' have prevented Ukraine from being invaded by Russia.

Moral judgements and idealism don't matter.


If I didn't represent your position correctly then please clarify what it is, because if this isn't it then it's completely unclear to me what is.

There's no reason to 'pivot' anywhere. The US is perfectly capable of chewing gum and walk at the same time. — Olivier5

That may have been the case during what is called the "unipolar moment": the time after the Cold War ended where the United States was the most powerful country in the world by a large margin.

This is no longer the case, and the world has moved towards multipolarity: a situation in which there are several world powers who are roughly equal in power.



(Note this particular video is twelve years old. That's how long this transition has already been underway.)


The United States will need to apply a great deal more, if not all, of its power if it wishes to contain China.

If China poses no immediate security threat, if they are not going to invade anyone militarily, why 'pivot to China'? — Olivier5

A pivot to China doesn't simply mean a military pivot, since the United States does not have only military means. It would mean the United States would shift it's entire focus away from Europe towards Asia, military, economic, political, etc.

Those things are connected. Having to fund Ukraine with armament, billions of dollars and potentially future troops means all of those resources can't be spent in Asia, not to mention that domestic politics can only handle so much conflict. Money spent on military means cannot be spent to secure Eurasian, Oceanian and African markets, etc.

But so far their power is mainly economic. — Olivier5

The power they've been using is mainly economic. China has the largest army in the world by active personnel, so clearly their power is also military. Also the number of aircraft carriers the PLAN has been producing suggests it has overseas ambitions, because that's what aircraft carriers are for - overseas power projection.


You could say something like: if China rises to hegemony peacefully, what's the problem?

To which I would answer: what makes you think the United States is willing to peacefully give up its position as hegemon?

Explain.

This scenatio seems too pessimistic to me. China has historically been a peaceful nation, ... — Olivier5

Regardless of the validity of this statement, China does not need war to become the world's most powerful nation, and thus deprive the United States of its hegemon status.

In fact, a serious argument could be made that unless it goes to war it will surpass the United States economically and rise to become the world's most powerful nation. If one accepts that premise, it's not unthinkable the United States will seek to drag China into some kind of conflict and force China's hand.


And the question is also whether China will remain peaceful once its rise to the world's leading power gets stifled by nations like the United States and US allies in East Asia. Tensions and flashpoints aplenty in East Asia.


However, none of this changes the fact that China is a peer competitor to the United States and Russia is not. Pushing the Russians into the arms of the Chinese may prove to be a costly strategic blunder.

From your realist perspective, this would be a smart strategy to follow, don't you think? Draw Russia into a costly conflict, and bleed it. — Olivier5

It's absolutely foolish, from a European perspective and from an American perspective.

The United States needs to shift its focus to China, which is an actual peer competitor that can challenge the United States' position as hegemon. Not Russia.

What the United States has done by provoking conflict in Eastern Europe is not only guarantee years of conflict and tensions that benefits no one (not to mention the risk of large-scale/nuclear war), it has also bound itself to the protection of Eastern Europe because no other country in NATO is able to stand up against Russia.

And that's not all. This conflict and the reaction by NATO / EU have driven the Russians straight into the arms of the Chinese and given them even more incentive to create a balancing coalition against the US / NATO - something which the Russians were not keen on before this conflict. The Russians and the Chinese have never been fond of each other, but United States meddling have given them a common enemy.

This conflict is disastrous from any perspective, but especially from a western perspective. China is the laughing third.

Now you are confusing several things.

My point has always been that from a realist perspective Russia's actions were entirely predictable, that the United States were aware of this and provoked Russia intentionally, perhaps thinking they were bluffing.

You are making a moral argument, that the United States is better than Russia, and therefore should have the priviledge to pursue its foreign policies whereas Russia does not. Or that it is preferable that the United States lords over countries instead of Russia.

To that I say, one's moral judgement is completely irrelevant. All the moral indignation in the world didn't stop Russia from invading Ukraine, did it?

That's because moral judgements don't matter. What matters is power, and states will do whatever is in their power to pursue their interests, and moral judgements only matter to the extent that they're backed up by power. That's realism.

Your preference for the United States is clear. However, if states behave on the basis of their own moral judgements and completely disregard other states' power and interests, it's a highway to trouble.

Ukraine preferred the United States, and chose to ignore Russia's interests and power, and now it's being devastated. Regrettable, to be sure. But also predictable.

Türkiye is not in the United States' sphere of influence. — Tzeentch

Umm...but isn't in a NATO country? — ssu

The United States has no real means to unilaterally influence Türkiye, that is to say, it has no power to force Türkiye to do anything, shy of a military invasion.

Yet if you argue to be a realist, you should observe that the tactics that the Soviet Union held to it's part of Europe didn't work so well. The Warsaw Pact collapsed. You can make a throne from bayonets, but it's difficult to sit on them. The only actual operations the Warsaw pact did was to attack and occupy one of it's members. That's not a "personal fancie". — ssu

I agree, but that's not what we're debating here. I'm not making a judgement about whether Russia's policies are effective or not.

Whereas the US empire by listening to Europeans themselves and favoring for example European integration has worked well: Europeans like to have the US here. — ssu

I think the Europeans mainly like not having to spend much on defense.

But I suppose your point is that US - European relations have been more cooperative, and thus better. That's a moral judgement, and realists don't deal in moral judgements.

The question is what conclusions does one draw from such a moral judgement?

Is the US/NATO better than other states and therefore gets to ignore other states' strategic interests in line with "American exceptionalism" or "Idealism"?

You're free to hold such a view, but we can see where it leads: war.

What I described was just facts what was included with the Soviet Union in "refraining from opposing the former's foreign policy rules". — ssu

You framed it as something highly undesirable. I don't think "Finlandization" is undesirable. It seems to me a very rational way in which small nations interact with big nations.

And I'm waiting for you to share a definition of 'Finlandization' that shows why it is so undesirable in your view.

For some reason you think that it's equivalent to be under US spehere of influence and under Russian / Soviet sphere of influence. — ssu

I don't think that.

But suppose we say it's better to be under the US sphere of influence than it is to be under the Russian sphere of influence. (A moral judgement)

Does the US now gain a right to incorporate every nation that is under the Russian sphere of influence?

We know where that leads: war.

They have quite a lot more to say than with being under Russian sphere of influence, that's for sure.

Just look at Türkiye. — ssu

Türkiye is not in the United States' sphere of influence.

Your genuinely saying that voluntariness of joining organizations by independent countries isn't a factor? — ssu

Yep. In geopolitics power, not our personal fancies, is what matters. That's the realist point of view - not because a realist likes it that way, but because a realist recognizes that's how geopolitics works.

Actually Cuba didn't join the Warsaw Pact.

And it did make the difference that the US didn't and hasn't invaded Cuba. The US has Guantanamo Bay base since in 1903 newly independent Cuba and the US made lease agreement, which has no fixed expiration date. Yet Cuba hasn't been invaded by the US. It surely has tried all kinds of ways to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro, yet Cuban deterrence has worked. — ssu

It threatened nuclear war, and as a result the USSR and the US came to an agreement about Cuba.

Cuba is under sanctions to this very day, over half a century later.

And are you aware of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion?

I also hope you're not trying to make the point that the United States would never do something like invade another country whenever their foreign or economic policy doesn't suit them. The list is too long to mention.

So you copy paste what wikipedia says Finlandization and then say I have opposing views about Finlandization? — ssu

Your use of the term "Finlandization" seemed contradictory to what I believe the term means. Tell me then, what definition of the term are you going by?

And you haven't answered my question.

What is the problem with "Finlandization"?

That small countries adjust their foreign policy to appease their more powerful neighbor in exchange for maintaining a degree of political independence seems no more than the logical thing to do.

Do you think European countries, being part of NATO, are free to pursue their own foreign policy if it conflicts with United States' interests? I can assure you they're not.

Yes, yes. And you then apply that standard one-sidedly and cry foul when other nations react negatively. That's is indeed exactly your position and it's hopelessly confused.