[refurb]

Yes, I would bet highly against that.

The US is not "aligned against the West". The US is simply breaking from the ideology it's had since WW2 that it's in the US' best interest to get involved in every international conflict in the world.

You'd think that the left would be ecstatic about that considering how much it's criticized US involvement in other countries conflicts, but here we are - it's the left that is trashing the US for not wanting to get involved.

[Supermancho]

> The US is simply breaking from the ideology it's had since WW2 that it's in the US' best interest to get involved in every international conflict in the world.

The publicized ideology, is not always the reality. The US has always been involved with every international conflict. The CIA was the formalization of the interest.

[4ndrewl]

I mean that ideology is, practically speaking, what "the West" is.

But certainly in the UK it was a party of "the left" that invaded Iraq with the US. It was a party of "the left" that invaded Afghanistan with the US. And it was a party of "the left" that is now bolstering the military after a decade of decline by a party of "the right".

"The left" were fighting fascism across Europe in the last century, from the International Brigade in Spain to the Soviets against Hitler.

The actual problem The West has now is that the guarantor of military power has gone. Trump and Vance were literally shouting propaganda from Russian state media to Zelensky (look up starting WW3, or VIP tours) and making false equivalency between being invaded and defending your country.

Trump has carried out the biggest rug-pull in history and aligned the USA with Russia. Against The West.

[refurb]

> I mean that ideology is, practically speaking, what "the West" is.

This makes no sense. The current ideology is only 70 years old. The "West" has existed for centuries before that.

Maybe you're young and you think there are no options but the current path, but I can assure you there is.

The truth is that the US (or Europe) is not willing to go head to head with Russia. They have neither the public support or the willingness to take the economic hit.

So if they aren't willing to defeat Russia, what is the only possible outcome? A negotiated peace.

So rather than grinding up another few hundred thousand human lives in the war and end up in the same place a few years from now, why not just finish it now?

[4ndrewl]

Because appeasing aggressors never works? I mean, we literally took the appeasement route when he annexed Crimea. A few years later and here we are. Guess what happens when we appease him now?

The term The West applies to those countries born out of European heritage which _assumed_ semi-direct lineage from the Graeco-Roman empires of Antiquity (notably the Late Antique split in the early church across Eastern/Western lines). Like all political terms it's in constant flux, but yes, today it largely means the superset of NATO + Five Eyes countries.

Vance's Munich speech and the Whitehoust confrontation yesterday confirms that the USA has turned its back on the west - you only have to see the reaction of world leaders to see that - outside of Orban, the only people congratulating Trump were Putin and Lavrov. Who could singlehandedly stop the war - right now - by pulling their troops out of a sovereign, democratic state.

Not sure what my age has to do with anything but I was bought up during the Cold War if that helps.

[refurb]

> Because appeasing aggressors never works? I

Who said anything about appeasing? Fighting for the best peace deal you can is not "appeasing".

NATO is never going to escalate with Russia to the point Ukraine gets all it's territory back - and Putin knows that. NATO isn't stupid - Ukraine isn't worth expanding the war beyond Ukraine into Eastern Europe. They have neither the financial resources nor the support back home. They are willing to sacrifice Ukrainian lives, but not their own grip on power.

So if we know how this all ends - Ukraine giving up territory in exchange for peace, then why not pursue that instead of throwing another million lives and hundred billion dollars into the chipper and getting the same deal in 3 years instead?

> Vance's Munich speech and the Whitehoust confrontation yesterday confirms that the USA has turned its back on the west

No, it means the US is turning it's back on the neoliberal geopolitical position that grinding down competing powers through proxy wars is always worth it in the end. George Kennan died long ago, and it's time to let his geopolitical strategy die too.

It's a position that only existed since WW2, and one that has gotten the US involved in dozens of wars since then, often at a greater cost than the benefit in the end (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq).

[zejn]

How is it not appeasing when "finding the best peace deal" equals "letting an agressor state keep a chip of neighboring state", even more so when this repeats every few years?

[4ndrewl]

Read again what Putin's stated aims are. Hoping for a peace deal with a totalitarian, expansive state does not work. It didn't work when it was "just Crimea", it won't work when it's "just some towns they took by force".

It's utterly naive, given all his history, to think Putin will just acquiesce.

Even if your geopolitical assumptions are correct, Trump and Vance's behaviour yesterday - humiliating a war leader in front of the worlds media, using the rhetoric and tropes of the invaders he is facing was unbelievably disgusting.

[4ndrewl]

Also, please don't forget what Putin's stated aims are - reconquest of Russian border back to pre 1930 limits (maybe you understand why Polish defence spending is at 5% GDP) and the breakup of the EU. These are his aims - he doesn't just want that little bit of Ukraine he has - parts of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia all are at stake.

[ashoeafoot]

The paths ran before all led to endless war. ever bigger, ever more world war.