I absolutely love the ending of WWII—the dangerous enemy totally defeated, their government dismantled, nuclear program halted, and then given ample help to restore the economy. This is how friends are made I suppose?
Note, however, whom this did not include. At the end of WWII, what dangerous opponent was not defeated, their (oppressive, totalitarian) government not dismantled, nuclear program not halted, “war criminals” not “prosecuted”, ample help to restore economy not given, not made into a friend?
There is another, however—namely: what happens if we map that distribution of policies, and of outcomes, to the current situation?
Suppose we give Russia the “Germany & Japan in WWII” treatment. We may hope to thereby ensure that Russia ends up as did Germany and Japan. Fine and well.
But the obvious question is: if Russia is the new Germany/Japan, then who is the new Russia? (Or, more properly, the new Soviet Union?)
If such a player exists, then to what extent will the game proceed as it did before, with all the old roles mapped onto the new players?
But the obvious question is: if Russia is the new Germany/Japan, then who is the new Russia?
A hypothetical country that attacked Ukraine together with Russia, but later got backstabbed by Russia, then with NATO support helped defeat Russia, got control over a part of Russian territory + a part of Ukraine territory + for some weird reason also a part of Finland territory, then three years later developed its own nukes and decided that NATO is actually its true enemy (but also everyone else)...
Dunno, does Lukashenko have any ambitions of this kind?
Not that I’m particularly fluent in history or geopolitics, but I’d image the natural course of events would have Russia’s old role taken up by the other communist superpower in the world. It’d be super strange if Russia wound up being a member of NATO, wouldn’t it?
I’m also not necessarily advocating for the full “Germany & Japan in WWII” treatment (nor am I advocating against it, just using it to think about what happens when wars end).
Rather, I’m advocating for thinking of Russia as villains only so long as they are actually playing the role, as they currently are. If they stop being bad guys, it’d be nice to have a coordination mechanism to stop treating them like bad guys.
I wonder how North Korea became what it is—would it still be the same if others didn’t treat them like a monster? What they probably still would have is the iron curtain keeping the population from fleeing to wealthier lands and from seeing that there are better places. Though they might be slightly wealthier themselves so the curtain would be somewhat less strict.
I’m trying to imagine how people in Russia would feel after the war if Western countries kept or raised the sanctions. And I cannot find a strong difference. What they will know is that all the demolishing of tower blocks in Ukrainian cities was done by the Ukrainian army to massacre Ukrainian Russians, and that Western countries helped them do it. They’ll probably want revenge and taking back Ukraine plus all the Eastern European territories where there are Russians being harrassed by the local Nazi governments.
I don’t know the relevant history to comment on North Korea, but I do think there’s something of a self-reinforcing cycle going on there: the “west” disapproves/punishes the country, which makes the leadership despise them, which drives them further away from western values.
As for how the Russian people feel, I can only hope that the internet is sufficiently unblockable that they’ll figure out the truth eventually. It just won’t help if, after the war, all they see on the internet is how awful everything Russian is.
Note, however, whom this did not include. At the end of WWII, what dangerous opponent was not defeated, their (oppressive, totalitarian) government not dismantled, nuclear program not halted, “war criminals” not “prosecuted”, ample help to restore economy not given, not made into a friend?
Exactly.
One of the sentences I cut from the draft:
“Treat someone like a monster for long enough, and they become one in truth.”
or similarly:
“There’s only so long you can treat someone as an enemy before they become one.”
Which isn’t to imply responsibility, necessarily; just that how a person or society behaves in victory matters.
That is one perspective, yes.
There is another, however—namely: what happens if we map that distribution of policies, and of outcomes, to the current situation?
Suppose we give Russia the “Germany & Japan in WWII” treatment. We may hope to thereby ensure that Russia ends up as did Germany and Japan. Fine and well.
But the obvious question is: if Russia is the new Germany/Japan, then who is the new Russia? (Or, more properly, the new Soviet Union?)
If such a player exists, then to what extent will the game proceed as it did before, with all the old roles mapped onto the new players?
A hypothetical country that attacked Ukraine together with Russia, but later got backstabbed by Russia, then with NATO support helped defeat Russia, got control over a part of Russian territory + a part of Ukraine territory + for some weird reason also a part of Finland territory, then three years later developed its own nukes and decided that NATO is actually its true enemy (but also everyone else)...
Dunno, does Lukashenko have any ambitions of this kind?
Not that I’m particularly fluent in history or geopolitics, but I’d image the natural course of events would have Russia’s old role taken up by the other communist superpower in the world. It’d be super strange if Russia wound up being a member of NATO, wouldn’t it?
I’m also not necessarily advocating for the full “Germany & Japan in WWII” treatment (nor am I advocating against it, just using it to think about what happens when wars end).
Rather, I’m advocating for thinking of Russia as villains only so long as they are actually playing the role, as they currently are. If they stop being bad guys, it’d be nice to have a coordination mechanism to stop treating them like bad guys.
Granted, they have to stop being bad guys first, but sometimes defeat can mean friendship!
I wonder how North Korea became what it is—would it still be the same if others didn’t treat them like a monster? What they probably still would have is the iron curtain keeping the population from fleeing to wealthier lands and from seeing that there are better places. Though they might be slightly wealthier themselves so the curtain would be somewhat less strict.
I’m trying to imagine how people in Russia would feel after the war if Western countries kept or raised the sanctions. And I cannot find a strong difference. What they will know is that all the demolishing of tower blocks in Ukrainian cities was done by the Ukrainian army to massacre Ukrainian Russians, and that Western countries helped them do it. They’ll probably want revenge and taking back Ukraine plus all the Eastern European territories where there are Russians being harrassed by the local Nazi governments.
I don’t know the relevant history to comment on North Korea, but I do think there’s something of a self-reinforcing cycle going on there: the “west” disapproves/punishes the country, which makes the leadership despise them, which drives them further away from western values.
As for how the Russian people feel, I can only hope that the internet is sufficiently unblockable that they’ll figure out the truth eventually. It just won’t help if, after the war, all they see on the internet is how awful everything Russian is.