Although the EA forum seems to be literally raising funds for war material, I doubt the uneven reception to David’s post is driven by emotion or ignorance (although I agree it didn’t help that the post initially seemed to favor the Russian narrative).
I think “realism” or “consequentialism” is dominant (whatever that really means).
From that perspective, I don’t think anyone believes NATO had an option to close the door on Ukraine. Also, the characterization of Russian behavior and irredentialism seems incomplete, and the value of the current situation is unclear.
In your other comments, you knocked down some bad takes. While I think you are right, you’ve only knocked down bad takes.
Great power conflict is important and neglected in EA, especially how to better bridge and communicate that peacefully. I’m less sure what that has to do with Russia.
There is a vast apparatus to study Russia already, it would be good to hear clearly what EA’s contribution would be and why it should be increased by these events.
Although the EA forum seems to be literally raising funds for war material, I doubt the uneven reception to David’s post is driven by emotion or ignorance (although I agree it didn’t help that the post initially seemed to favor the Russian narrative).
I think “realism” or “consequentialism” is dominant (whatever that really means).
From that perspective, I don’t think anyone believes NATO had an option to close the door on Ukraine. Also, the characterization of Russian behavior and irredentialism seems incomplete, and the value of the current situation is unclear.
In your other comments, you knocked down some bad takes. While I think you are right, you’ve only knocked down bad takes.
Great power conflict is important and neglected in EA, especially how to better bridge and communicate that peacefully. I’m less sure what that has to do with Russia.
There is a vast apparatus to study Russia already, it would be good to hear clearly what EA’s contribution would be and why it should be increased by these events.