> In my corner of the US (more Republican than one might think) majority opinion is that the Ukraine is an intra-European matter that US/NATO would be well advised to stay out of.

That's for Putin to decide, like it or not. Just like Hirohito decided to bring the United States into WWII.

That's what I mean, this kind of decision is made at highest levels of government, and meanwhile the rest of the country is fed propaganda to drag it along. (The conspiratorially-minded amongst us notice the weak state of American defenses at Pearl Harbor in 1941. If the Pacific Fleet had decisively repelled the Japanese attack US isolationism might have continued.)

Propaganda is one thing, the simple facts by themselves sometimes suffice. I'm pretty sure if the true scope of what Germany was up to had been revealed to the United States at an earlier point in time that they would have jumped in unprovoked.

> The conspiratorially-minded amongst us notice the weak state of American defenses at Pearl Harbor in 1941. They knew that something was up, but not what was up.

> If the Pacific Fleet had decisively repelled the Japanese attack US isolationism might have continued.

No, then they would have been at war. That's with acts of war: they change the status from not being at war to being at war, regardless of whether that is then affirmed by a declaration of war. Plenty of historical examples for this. What the response would have been is anybody's guess but it certainly would have moved the US out of the 'neutral' column with respect to the Axis countries.

Russia has plenty of brilliant, highly skilled people. Get as many of them to abandon the nation as possible (and make their journey to a new home as easy as possible). The US, EU and their allies can easily make this happen.

Confronting Russia obviously has to be a many front effort. Oil and gas are valuable resources, yes, and they get a lot of attention in terms of how to best constrain Russia. A well organized brain drain against the Russian economy would also hurt enormously across the next decade.

I see rationality in what you say in principle, but the window of opportunity for applying that method was lost in nineties, after the West disengaged from trying to make Russia a normal country, and left it to become a rouge state.

The West stopped propping up democratic politicians in Russia shortly after they felt that "job's done," and, bizarrely to 16 years old me 15 years ago, started working for the anti-democratic camp. What's the point I asked myself? And this was the time when I discovered the "our bastard" theory, practised religiously by some Western politicians.

Similarly to how Putin turned into "our bastard" for the West 20 years ago, NSDAPers were once propped up into power on hopes of getting pliable "our bastards" for major powers in light of their own problems.

Other than that, most scholars would disagree: the treatment of Germany after WWI (notably no destruction due to the war, Germany capitulated before the war reached German borders) in Versailles is what made Hitler's rise possible in the first place.

Rebuilding (Marshall plan) rather than destroying (Morgenthau plan) made Germany what it is today after WWII. Japan shows that one could have skipped the whole 2nd act in Europe: Japan wasn't destroyed at all, but rebuilt after WWII, and seized to be a threat to the world.

Ideal outcome may be that Russia ends up with different leadership after this disaster, and a strong, healthy democracy, with more of a stake in the global order - similar to Germany post WW2. Wishful thinking at this stage perhaps...

Can they? These days, China looks a much better option for a young ambitious scientist than the US. That said, if the war for control in the Ukraine brings more competition between the major powers I'm all for it, monopolies never did anyone any good, this includes the Wolfowitz doctrine.

No joke at all.

It's not even intended as a strawman, I cannot honestly see how any of that would have positive impact: In the history of mankind, having an external force that makes people's lives worse, will, if anything, give the autocrat more support. Also, it's not like well-trained Russians aren't already leaving the country.

Edit: I am honestly asking. Thanks for giving a comment. But to me, the above comment looks almost comically naive. What am I missing?

Mikhail Fridman : https://www.ft.com/content/9b3ab6bb-f782-43fb-8afc-42d937147...

Oleg Deripaska : https://t.me/olegderipaska/372

I guess that sanctions are effective after all.

They've had this effect: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-orders-nuclear-dete...

But I might be terribly wrong, of course, and you are right. Mr. Madman might be out is his mind for a very long time, and he does not listen to anyone.

But no word from Roman Abramovich...

"Piece is very important! Negotiations should start as soon as possible!"

It is compatible with the official (is TASS official nowadays?) Russian position

https://tass.com/politics/1412389

Hard to tell if it represents a genuine will to back out of a terrible situation or an effort to weaken the Ukrainian resistance. Could be both off course.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/vladimir-putin...

Anybody still feel that this is just a Ukranian or European problem?

Other than that, I doubt there will be any nuclear action. We'll be back at the Cold War show where the script is: everybody dies and the question is who's first.

This is the reason why we should always reduce the fuckup tools in peace times and that goes not only for nuclear weapons. Things like huge data sets could end up being your next Holocaust for example.

https://jacquesmattheij.com/if-you-have-nothing-to-hide/

Too many madmen with power on this planet.