It's really not that complex.
No one (in the west) wants Russia...
Everyone (save perhaps China, with their own approach to desiring elasticity in their boundaries, and who clearly expected greater benefit than apparent from "let's you and him fight") wants Russia to stay in Russia.
But, Russia didn't... and, still, no one (save China, et al) has any interest in Russia other than having Russia stay in Russia.
The fact in change... with the invasion by Russia (clearly a massive miscalculation)... largely makes the preliminaries irrelevant... as always... until the fighting stops. I'm sure we can easily enough find things to disagree about re the preliminaries... but probably not that much... as there's plenty enough ability to criticize all sides in fostering the fact of the failure(s) we now see. If all Russia had done was take the east, where Russians lived... and avoided a larger land grab... etc., etc. The what ifs and shoulda, woulda, coulda stuff all subsumed by the fact that... that's not what happened... and with the preliminaries, now made irrelevant by the reality. The new reality is there is a war... and "be careful what you ask for, because you might get it"... as always... which again is agnostic in its universality.
The rest in "complexity" you posture... also isn't really that complex... with essentially no difference between what you see on one side and what you see on the other, in the conduct of the war... and, on the battlefield, essentially not much has happened to change anything very much in the last year. Things are being blown up now and then, a lot of people being killed on both sides... "the lines" move a few meters this way or that now and then... this or that happens in the internal grinding of gears here or there. Life goes on, pretty much everywhere not in the active war zone... only with conflict conducted at some level below that violent threshold, with everyone a little worse off than before, in result. And, as always, there's a whole lot of noise being generated by both sides... to justify the massive effort made and its costs... all for very little real result in "progress" or "change"... other than that we have a war going now... that appears set to continue going... benefitting no one... with neither the war itself... nor any of the complaining about any bit of it, it one way or the other... having much apparent influence in leading to any resolution.
The west isn't going to invade Russia... rather than defend against Russia's invasion of the west... even if doing so, by whatever means they might choose, is fully justified by the choice Russia has made to go to war. That risk of expansion is obvious, and real... but hasn't happened, yet ? But, you're not wrong in noting that it could still easily morph from a largely contained intra-regional conflict between neighbors, into WW III and a massive nuclear exchange... if Putin were to go stupid, or if Biden slipped and fell and accidentally hit the red button, etc. That might change, too, if China (along with other suggestions) ignores "the obvious" in (clearly a massive miscalculation), as "let's you and him fight" fails to deliver hoped for gains... as perhaps were expected to allow China to follow Russia's successes, to stretch its own fictionally elastic boundaries as they desire, without opposition. Xi's ego seems it requires feeding on his neighbors blood every bit as much as Putin's. Or, as you note, its simply irrelevant to them if they kill millions... as we've seen in history often enough. China's caution apparent in fostering "let's you and him fight"... instead of moving first... likely driving a new calculus, today ? Putin's failure is near absolute... even without the conflict created having gone "full" or "modern"... which, having failed, doesn't mean the cost of that failure is being fully paid, yet ? I expect Russia has more to fear from China, now, who wants the fight, than they do from the west... who are ready for it, but don't want the fight.
It still looks to me, barring anyone figuring out what "the problem" is, in a way that makes a solution more likely... leaves the only obvious path out of this stupidity... in the crazy old men driving it... to just die off, and let the world get back to "better things to do" than catering to tyrants egos and concerns with "legacy".
If you won't define the problem(s) properly... in the context of the agnosticism of reality and its proofs in history... you won't be able to solve it ?
It surprises me how people generally are unconcerned with other people being murdered, and even themselves and their families. They trot out a few cliches and slogans and are willing to die for those beliefs as though those slogans and cliches are reality.
I think you're smart enough, and aware enough of history, and reality, to not be surprised that people are easily entrained into participating in conflict... another "agnostic" bit of universality in reality. Obviously, it is not that they are "unconcerned" as you pose it, since it is exactly "that concern" that has them so willing to participate in the fight. And, there's nothing in there that is unique to any participant... it is as obviously true of Russians as of Ukrainians... another "agnostic" bit of reality shared all around. But, any awareness of history and human nature requires being not surprised that people will fight when bad neighbors or masked bandits steal their chickens, or otherwise encroach upon their property or their rights in other ways. And, in the element that "appears" as "lack of concern"... the still obvious explanation for that... is that, just as there has never been any shortage of people willing to fight to defend borders, there has never been any shortage of people willing to cross them, or steal chickens, or otherwise take control over their insufficiently prepared neighbors property, by hook, crook, hostile takeover, or armed invasion. People aren't shocked by it... because its routine... to the degree that we deem our history to be defined by it.
Civilization prospers... when preparedness, social cohesion, and 'the rules" work to prevent the success of or punish masked bandits and marauding chicken thieves... or those defining "elastic" boundaries for themselves at neighbors expense... and civilization fails when "the rules" (or the respect for and adjudication of them) are corrupted to benefit the chicken thieves, or to otherwise subject the population to the depredations and tyranny of the uncivilized. And, again... there is no conflict between angels and demons in play... reality... requires agnosticism in truth... which also disrespects those boundaries some may seek to impose, to prevent others seeing that "obviousness" where it exists...
The nature or scope of the "value" put at risk... when society errs in empowering chicken thieves... and chicken thieves err in over-reaching... isn't really situationally dependent ?
Civilization, and its success or failure, always boil down to "values" in the end... rather than "value" ?
The fact of conflict going hot... is already proof enough of failures having occurred... not a proof that the violence in result is capable of correcting the failures driving it ?
Given the pace of social and technological change in the last century... it hardly seems a big ask... to expect societies (and their leaders) to learn from prior history... that boundaries matter, and boundaries and neighbors should be respected ? But, it appears, what some bad actors have learned... instead... is that people of good will focused on self interest... are often overly tolerant of abuses... as when the costs are seen as a calculation in "value" instead of "values"...
The war in Europe has totally failed in fostering solutions to any of the problems purported to be its cause... which should make it clear enough now... that the war we have is not going to create workable solutions... as reality imposes that can only be enabled by... respecting neighbors boundaries.
I also doubt there's any viable path to peace... other than that I note... in that the conflict appears it is largely driven by self-aggrandizing extremes in individual egos... rather than any realistic national concern with national self interest...
If reason were to be restored to control in positions of leadership, rather than the mass of ego driving events toward the edges of cliffs, today... ?
I don't expect that will happen... or that it will matter... anywhere other than in Russia...
When Putin dies... it will probably come to an end, allowing him to own the legacy he has earned... or perhaps that will only foster an internal fight for control... that might make things far more dangerous... for a time, at least ?
I don't expect similar change elsewhere to have any of that potential... China's self imposed myopia in Xi's imposition of dictatorial control over "one right way" to see things... brooking no variation in opinion or any others concerns... will impose failure in China... but it will not inherently impose changes in the leadership imposing rigidity and control. China's myopia less virulent than North Korea's, still appears intent on mimicking it to the extent it can... while China exactly reverses the progress it has made in the last 40 years, over the next 40...
Not an optimist about Europe, either... as it continues to weave a cocoon of bureaucracy in which to bind itself into hibernation for the next few decades... "succeeding" only in the degree "not as bas as Russia"...
The U.S. long history of always doing exactly the right thing, only after having tried everything else... is unlikely to change...
So, perhaps... looking to the future requires looking beyond the "big powers" conflicts of today... to anticipating the big powers conflicts of tomorrow... with Europe, the U.S., and China having disqualified themselves as participants...
Some might expect that to usher in a "golden era" of growth in "the rest of the world"... and I expect there will be some of that... in those few and isolated instances where there is leadership capable of enabling it...
But, if you think any of that we see today is likely to result either in "global rule" being imposed, and that imposing peace... or peace breaking out as an emergent phenomena... along with a general expansion in prosperity (creating more things for people to fight over)... I think you're not paying attention to what history and reality suggest is inevitable. |
