This is a good point. I will edit and try to respond. Broadly speaking, my answer is that once an aggressive expansion turns into a frozen conflict, it's best to refuse recognition but not try to reverse it by force. Wait for a point when international pressure can force reversal, as happened with East Timor after 20 years.
This seems like a great set of rules, as long as it's not applied retroactively. (I don't want to give back California.) It is interesting though and it does have a nice deterrence to it. I did always think there should be a housekeeping law, where whoever is to blame has to go and pick up all the mines and uxb's and so on.
Ukraine has a strong chance to not only defeat but destroy the Russian Army in Ukraine! Hertling outlines why. Taking it a little further than Hertling does, it seems likely that the Russian Army in Ukraine can only avoid total defeat by retreating into Russia or using, heaven forbid, nuclear weapons. If threatened with loss of Crimea would Putin use at least tactical nuclear weapons? My guess is yes. What about if threatened with loss of the Donbas? At some point an enraged Ukraine (about Russia's war crimes, atrocities etc.) will likely have to hold back because of these risks. One would not wish that this criminal Russian regime could retain any prizes from this conflict but... well who knows what will happen?
"Back in 2010, I argued that the best rule was ‘status quo ante bellum’. That is, (a) having defeated an aggressor, a country is not justified in seizing territory, unilaterally exacting reparations or imposing a new government on its opponent."
I'm confused as to why you don't support reparations for the wronged party. When I think of the phrase status quo antebellum in my mind, I think of tort law, which aims to, as far as possible restore the plaintiff to the position they were in before the tort occurred. Isn't that a sensible principle here?
The pro-Putin commentary from various quarters is revealing. It seems to include extreme right-wingers from the US and elsewhere, plus extreme left-wingers. Colonel Macgregor from the US and John Pilger are respective extreme right and extreme left examples. The offensive realists like John Mearsheimer also support, if not Putin, his offensive realism capacity (not right) to do what he did.
Left wing Marxists and socialists like the Month;y Review editors and writers and other international "socialist" bodies also seem to have no problems with what Putin is doing. All of these commentators seem to blame the US for everything (admittedly the US is to blame for quite a lot) and to completely exonerate Russia and Putin for everything or else completely omit critical commentary of Putin. It's quite extraordinary.
The doctrinaire leftists seem to have failed to notice that Putin and Putin's Russia is neither Marxist, nor socialist, nor democratic. They have the same old knee-jerk reactions left over from the days when the Soviet Union was Marxist (in a claimed sense) but neither socialist nor democratic even then. It was even then a state capitalist party dictatorship.
A consequentialist ethic would judge systems by their outcomes not by their claimed adherence to theoretical doctrines which are breached more than observed in practice. What the extreme right and extreme left supporters of Putin show is their deep support of and admiration for aggression, violence and machtpolitik: simply the politics of brute force power. Their fascination with achieving what they want by violence and even cruelty clearly runs deep. When the siren of violence comes to tempt them, they simply cannot think clearly.
"it's best to refuse recognition but not try to reverse it by force" seems very valid, since one major trigger of this war may have been Ukraine rapidly approaching the capability of retaking Donbass by force unless the Russian military went fully into it. The TB2 drones plus improvements to Ukrainian military were getting to that point, as Azerbaijan demonstrated in Ngorno-Karabakh.
Yes, use confiscated oligarch wealth to rebuild Ukraine. Don't fully revoke sanctions on Russia until Ukraine rebuilt and status quo ante bellum restored. Generally speaking, don't reward aggression. Gains from aggression should not be retained except where going full monty on status quo ante bellum would likely create more injustice, poverty and war than it alleviates.
Just removed some pro-Putin commentary. Nothing more like this please.
Why do you start the war this year? I think it started in 2014.
This is a good point. I will edit and try to respond. Broadly speaking, my answer is that once an aggressive expansion turns into a frozen conflict, it's best to refuse recognition but not try to reverse it by force. Wait for a point when international pressure can force reversal, as happened with East Timor after 20 years.
This seems like a great set of rules, as long as it's not applied retroactively. (I don't want to give back California.) It is interesting though and it does have a nice deterrence to it. I did always think there should be a housekeeping law, where whoever is to blame has to go and pick up all the mines and uxb's and so on.
How this war may end militarily:
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1511098952933945347
Ukraine has a strong chance to not only defeat but destroy the Russian Army in Ukraine! Hertling outlines why. Taking it a little further than Hertling does, it seems likely that the Russian Army in Ukraine can only avoid total defeat by retreating into Russia or using, heaven forbid, nuclear weapons. If threatened with loss of Crimea would Putin use at least tactical nuclear weapons? My guess is yes. What about if threatened with loss of the Donbas? At some point an enraged Ukraine (about Russia's war crimes, atrocities etc.) will likely have to hold back because of these risks. One would not wish that this criminal Russian regime could retain any prizes from this conflict but... well who knows what will happen?
"Back in 2010, I argued that the best rule was ‘status quo ante bellum’. That is, (a) having defeated an aggressor, a country is not justified in seizing territory, unilaterally exacting reparations or imposing a new government on its opponent."
I'm confused as to why you don't support reparations for the wronged party. When I think of the phrase status quo antebellum in my mind, I think of tort law, which aims to, as far as possible restore the plaintiff to the position they were in before the tort occurred. Isn't that a sensible principle here?
The pro-Putin commentary from various quarters is revealing. It seems to include extreme right-wingers from the US and elsewhere, plus extreme left-wingers. Colonel Macgregor from the US and John Pilger are respective extreme right and extreme left examples. The offensive realists like John Mearsheimer also support, if not Putin, his offensive realism capacity (not right) to do what he did.
Left wing Marxists and socialists like the Month;y Review editors and writers and other international "socialist" bodies also seem to have no problems with what Putin is doing. All of these commentators seem to blame the US for everything (admittedly the US is to blame for quite a lot) and to completely exonerate Russia and Putin for everything or else completely omit critical commentary of Putin. It's quite extraordinary.
The doctrinaire leftists seem to have failed to notice that Putin and Putin's Russia is neither Marxist, nor socialist, nor democratic. They have the same old knee-jerk reactions left over from the days when the Soviet Union was Marxist (in a claimed sense) but neither socialist nor democratic even then. It was even then a state capitalist party dictatorship.
A consequentialist ethic would judge systems by their outcomes not by their claimed adherence to theoretical doctrines which are breached more than observed in practice. What the extreme right and extreme left supporters of Putin show is their deep support of and admiration for aggression, violence and machtpolitik: simply the politics of brute force power. Their fascination with achieving what they want by violence and even cruelty clearly runs deep. When the siren of violence comes to tempt them, they simply cannot think clearly.
"it's best to refuse recognition but not try to reverse it by force" seems very valid, since one major trigger of this war may have been Ukraine rapidly approaching the capability of retaking Donbass by force unless the Russian military went fully into it. The TB2 drones plus improvements to Ukrainian military were getting to that point, as Azerbaijan demonstrated in Ngorno-Karabakh.
You say most other sanctions would be withdrawn. Which sanctions should remain and why?
With or without sanctions, international investment will drop sharply. Putin has shown that any dealing with Russia is high-risk.
Sanctions on transfers of technology with military applications. Aim to stop Russia rebuilding its armed forces.
Yes, use confiscated oligarch wealth to rebuild Ukraine. Don't fully revoke sanctions on Russia until Ukraine rebuilt and status quo ante bellum restored. Generally speaking, don't reward aggression. Gains from aggression should not be retained except where going full monty on status quo ante bellum would likely create more injustice, poverty and war than it alleviates.