Thank you, Alexander. Valuable insights and strong analysis. I didn't know about the scale of Labour's loss in Caerphilly, but I can well believe it. I'm Irish, but live in Spain. Lived in Russia for many years as well, so generally my work and writing focuses on IR and world politics. Thank you for that.
Trump's reality distortion field, where he thinks he can push anything through be sheer force of will and charisma, doesn't work on Russia. Nothing short of the acceptance of the realities on the ground as they are can bring peace to Ukraine.
But the megaloliberals, as I term them, prefer war to any peace that is in any way favourable to Russia. Trump has shown himself wholly unable for the long game of world politics and conflict settlement. The land of perpetual peace becomes the land of perpetual war.
The inertia of belief, Elena. They believe in their worldview so doggedly that they can't see the world has changed and the liberal order has neither the power nor the legitimacy to continue to tell and force countries what to do.
Our age is one of moral compromise, but the megaloliberals are absolutists. They also won't accept that everything they've done has made everything worse, and Z and his Government continue to force their citizens to die in an unwinnable war that only makes Ukraine lose more land and lives.
Of course the war is wider, never said it wasn't. But it is centred in Ukraine at present. Zelenskiy bought into the role written for him so much that he has become a factor in all this. An analyst called Richard Sakwa talked a few years back about the Ukraine crisis and the Ukrainian Crisis. The former is what you're saying, the latter relates to the internal dynamics of U itself. We have a case of perverse incentives here too. What's good for Z and his Government is not what's good for Ukraine and its people. A peaceful resolution with the transfer of land involved in it is the end of Z and his Government one way or another.
My penultimate sentence is hugely relevant, but you're right, it's much bigger than Ukraine. The megaloliberals, as I term them, but we can call them whatever we like, cannot compromise. They built a world of black and white with them at the top, with the US as the judge, jury and executioner. Liberal states represented all that is fair, reasonable, enlightened, peace-loving and good, and everything deemed illiberal was the very opposite. It follows that war to transform these societies was justified because it was in aid of making the world better in every way. This is largely what I mean by megaloliberalism. It has become much like a religion for western liberals.
But the twin pillars of the Liberal Order - power and legitimacy (the twin pillars of all political orders) - have been seriously compromised (the second as been bulldozed into the ground). Yet, instead of adapting to the multipolar world to stave off global war and do what's best for the West, there are still many that simply can't break from their belief in their big idea. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but also grand ideas.
Trump has the nature of the shyster, but the Democrats, leaders of Europe and most of the American Establishment are zealots who believe in their grand vision till the last. Russia, Ukraine and the stand-off with the West is one manifestation of this, but it's much bigger. Whatever balance of powers takes shape it will have to have moral compromise at its core as no single power is strong enough or legitimate enough to impose its ideas on the others. This is what I mean.
The word 'centred' and the word 'central' do not mean the same thing. Not sure why you think they do. I never said 'central', I said 'centred'. Conversations don't work when one party doesn't take the time to read what they other is saying.
I never said it would compromise. I called it absolutist, do you know what that means? I said 'Whatever balance of powers takes shape it will have to have moral compromise at its core as no single power is strong enough or legitimate enough to impose its ideas on the others.' The precise problem is that the west cannot do this, hence we're having all these wars and stand-offs. We are talking about the balance of powers that emerges from all this. That will contain some form of moral and political compromise at its core.
Anyway, you're not reading what I'm saying at all. I think you're just regurgitating what you've said to other people in other conversations. Bye.
Thank you, Alexander. Valuable insights and strong analysis. I didn't know about the scale of Labour's loss in Caerphilly, but I can well believe it. I'm Irish, but live in Spain. Lived in Russia for many years as well, so generally my work and writing focuses on IR and world politics. Thank you for that.
Trump's reality distortion field, where he thinks he can push anything through be sheer force of will and charisma, doesn't work on Russia. Nothing short of the acceptance of the realities on the ground as they are can bring peace to Ukraine.
But the megaloliberals, as I term them, prefer war to any peace that is in any way favourable to Russia. Trump has shown himself wholly unable for the long game of world politics and conflict settlement. The land of perpetual peace becomes the land of perpetual war.
εὐλογία
Thanks for your great work Alex!
We've shared this link on 'The Stacks'
https://askeptic.substack.com/p/the-stacks
The inertia of belief, Elena. They believe in their worldview so doggedly that they can't see the world has changed and the liberal order has neither the power nor the legitimacy to continue to tell and force countries what to do.
Our age is one of moral compromise, but the megaloliberals are absolutists. They also won't accept that everything they've done has made everything worse, and Z and his Government continue to force their citizens to die in an unwinnable war that only makes Ukraine lose more land and lives.
It's all us dumb as it is dangerous.
Cheers Elena.
Of course the war is wider, never said it wasn't. But it is centred in Ukraine at present. Zelenskiy bought into the role written for him so much that he has become a factor in all this. An analyst called Richard Sakwa talked a few years back about the Ukraine crisis and the Ukrainian Crisis. The former is what you're saying, the latter relates to the internal dynamics of U itself. We have a case of perverse incentives here too. What's good for Z and his Government is not what's good for Ukraine and its people. A peaceful resolution with the transfer of land involved in it is the end of Z and his Government one way or another.
My penultimate sentence is hugely relevant, but you're right, it's much bigger than Ukraine. The megaloliberals, as I term them, but we can call them whatever we like, cannot compromise. They built a world of black and white with them at the top, with the US as the judge, jury and executioner. Liberal states represented all that is fair, reasonable, enlightened, peace-loving and good, and everything deemed illiberal was the very opposite. It follows that war to transform these societies was justified because it was in aid of making the world better in every way. This is largely what I mean by megaloliberalism. It has become much like a religion for western liberals.
But the twin pillars of the Liberal Order - power and legitimacy (the twin pillars of all political orders) - have been seriously compromised (the second as been bulldozed into the ground). Yet, instead of adapting to the multipolar world to stave off global war and do what's best for the West, there are still many that simply can't break from their belief in their big idea. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but also grand ideas.
Trump has the nature of the shyster, but the Democrats, leaders of Europe and most of the American Establishment are zealots who believe in their grand vision till the last. Russia, Ukraine and the stand-off with the West is one manifestation of this, but it's much bigger. Whatever balance of powers takes shape it will have to have moral compromise at its core as no single power is strong enough or legitimate enough to impose its ideas on the others. This is what I mean.
Absolutism and multipolarity simply don't mix.
Anyway, hope that helps to clarify.
The word 'centred' and the word 'central' do not mean the same thing. Not sure why you think they do. I never said 'central', I said 'centred'. Conversations don't work when one party doesn't take the time to read what they other is saying.
I never said it would compromise. I called it absolutist, do you know what that means? I said 'Whatever balance of powers takes shape it will have to have moral compromise at its core as no single power is strong enough or legitimate enough to impose its ideas on the others.' The precise problem is that the west cannot do this, hence we're having all these wars and stand-offs. We are talking about the balance of powers that emerges from all this. That will contain some form of moral and political compromise at its core.
Anyway, you're not reading what I'm saying at all. I think you're just regurgitating what you've said to other people in other conversations. Bye.
В этом я уверен!