I wonder about the issue of how cost-(in)effective current interventions really are—it’s true, that current interventions in the war zone can seem cost-ineffective in terms of immediate help to affected populations, however there is one larger game at play—Russian Federation’s (and Belarussian) aggression against Ukraine effectively demolished the current peacekeeping balance in Europe and across the world, and it seems that responding to worldwide defence challenges in case of Russian victory can be much more costly and time/attention consuming, than in case of Ukrainian victory, see a possible analysis here:
Therefore, it seems to me (curious to hear your thoughts), that supporting Ukraine’s defence/humanitarian response, even if seems less cost effective at the face value than other possible EA actions, can actually save a lot of money/time/attention in the long-term perspective (not sure how to quantify how it exactly measures up to other existential risks etc., but my first reaction is that with new Cold War going on in case of Russian victory, responding globally to any other existential risks will be much more complex and difficult—however, how one’s indivitual contribution/donation plays into all of this is one tricky question).
I do worry about the Free World’s response not being strong enough, and I’ll be donating to some kind of Ukraine cause regardless of effectiveness. Still, I’m frustrated about not seeing an effective intervention. I’m in Canada btw, and the government is matching all donations to the Canadian Red Cross specifically, but the Red Cross has a “low impact” rating from Charity Intelligence. Hmm. Plus, Canada has generous tax deductions for donations to Canadian charities, so I’ll probably dump some money in the CRC even as I doubt its effectiveness.
I worry about follow-on effects. The more easily Putin succeeds in Ukraine, the more Xi Jinping might think he can succeed in Taiwan. The West may have enough resolve to sanction Russia, but sanctioning China would be much harder and many/most countries will be very tempted to defect. If Taiwan is invaded, the free world may weaken and the chance of World War 3 will increase. This historian analysis that I linked above encourages people to demand strong sanctions (I’m glad to see the SWIFT banhammer brought out btw):
[...] That does not mean Ukrainian resistance is pointless here. Instead, both the initial, conventional stage of resistance and the likely secondary insurgency phase push towards the same objectives: making Russian occupation so costly in blood and treasure that it cannot be maintained. Here the Ukrainians have a real chance of eventual success if they remain committed to the effort, while the challenges for Russia are immense.
[...] As I write this, it is not yet entirely clear what the scale of Western sanctions on Russia will be or how effective they will be; harsh sanctions have been promised and are being implemented, but I lack the expertise to really assess just how effective those sanctions will be. The major variable here is political will; consequently if you are a citizen of one of those Western countries, one thing you can do here is signal to your representatives that you, in fact, are willing to accept a degree of economic pain in order to send the message to Russia that wars of conquest will not be tolerated.
Sanctions work much better when everyone acts in unity (though we can assume China will not participate). It concerns me the most that India abstained from supporting the UN resolution against Russian aggression, and has not announced sanctions, and isn’t acting even mildly bothered about the invasion AFAICT. But again, I’m not sure EAs have any leverage here beyond the standard “call your representative”.
(Best case scenario: sanctions and Ukrainian resistance are severe while Russian military morale is low; Putin reconsiders, and to save face moves all forces to Donbas, claiming that the invasion was a cover and that Donbas was the real target all along. An unlikely outcome, but if anyone can pull that off that pivot, Putin can.)
I wonder about the issue of how cost-(in)effective current interventions really are—it’s true, that current interventions in the war zone can seem cost-ineffective in terms of immediate help to affected populations, however there is one larger game at play—Russian Federation’s (and Belarussian) aggression against Ukraine effectively demolished the current peacekeeping balance in Europe and across the world, and it seems that responding to worldwide defence challenges in case of Russian victory can be much more costly and time/attention consuming, than in case of Ukrainian victory, see a possible analysis here:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-02-18/what-if-russia-wins
Therefore, it seems to me (curious to hear your thoughts), that supporting Ukraine’s defence/humanitarian response, even if seems less cost effective at the face value than other possible EA actions, can actually save a lot of money/time/attention in the long-term perspective (not sure how to quantify how it exactly measures up to other existential risks etc., but my first reaction is that with new Cold War going on in case of Russian victory, responding globally to any other existential risks will be much more complex and difficult—however, how one’s indivitual contribution/donation plays into all of this is one tricky question).
Michael, I’m very much biased but that’s a brilliant point: aggression can’t be tolerated and normalised
I do worry about the Free World’s response not being strong enough, and I’ll be donating to some kind of Ukraine cause regardless of effectiveness. Still, I’m frustrated about not seeing an effective intervention. I’m in Canada btw, and the government is matching all donations to the Canadian Red Cross specifically, but the Red Cross has a “low impact” rating from Charity Intelligence. Hmm. Plus, Canada has generous tax deductions for donations to Canadian charities, so I’ll probably dump some money in the CRC even as I doubt its effectiveness.
I worry about follow-on effects. The more easily Putin succeeds in Ukraine, the more Xi Jinping might think he can succeed in Taiwan. The West may have enough resolve to sanction Russia, but sanctioning China would be much harder and many/most countries will be very tempted to defect. If Taiwan is invaded, the free world may weaken and the chance of World War 3 will increase. This historian analysis that I linked above encourages people to demand strong sanctions (I’m glad to see the SWIFT banhammer brought out btw):
Sanctions work much better when everyone acts in unity (though we can assume China will not participate). It concerns me the most that India abstained from supporting the UN resolution against Russian aggression, and has not announced sanctions, and isn’t acting even mildly bothered about the invasion AFAICT. But again, I’m not sure EAs have any leverage here beyond the standard “call your representative”.
(Best case scenario: sanctions and Ukrainian resistance are severe while Russian military morale is low; Putin reconsiders, and to save face moves all forces to Donbas, claiming that the invasion was a cover and that Donbas was the real target all along. An unlikely outcome, but if anyone can pull that off that pivot, Putin can.)