What a difference two years of bloody, inconclusive war makes. When this war in Ukraine began, with the Russian invasion, the conversation was mostly in absolutes, and you still hear that. Ukraine’s foreign minister says that back then some of his allies “were wrongly convinced it was necessary to negotiate with the devil.” In fact, they seem more sure of it now than they were at the start.

U.S. security honcho Jake Sullivan said this week that despite the vaunted resumption of U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine, it’s “possible Russia could make additional tactical gains.” The New York Times, a faithful mouthpiece for the State Department, says a “question remains whether the new technology will be enough to help turn the tide of the war” when Russia has “momentum.” Sounds like someone’s getting ready for negotiations instead of total victory. Why now?

Albanian philosopher Lea Ypi takes this topic on quite bravely, given the consensual rhetoric. She says most wars begin like the First World War, with vast optimism and overstatement. But very few end up being worth the fighting. Painful compromises ensue, which often could’ve been had without the war. This is the core of the mindful pacifism of Bertrand Russell or Immanuel Kant.

(The Second World War is an exception that had to be fought and won, but it was the result of the stupid war before it and the ugly “peace” the victors imposed.)

The likely........

© rabble