As a linguist, even though I think this is a great initiative and support its aims, I experience a little cognitive dissonance through the juxtaposition of the words 'peace' and 'offensive', since the latter is a military term.
Donato also forgot the part about growing vegetable gardens, because hungry people get irritable, short-sighted and easily manipulated to mass violence.
We can easily surmise that the central motivating factor driving Passigli's proposal to create a pacifist network of civil society groups is the failure of our current inter-state arrangements and forums such as the United Nations to achieve Perpetual Peace.
In an attempt to grasp the scope of the problem, consider how far we have *regressed* historically since Kant wrote his essay “Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” in 1795.
The immediate occasion for Kant's essay was the March 1795 signing of the Treaty of Basel by Prussia and revolutionary France, which Kant famously condemned as only "the suspension of hostilities, not a peace."
Military destructive power has increased by several orders of magnitude since 1795.
Far worse than the Treaty of Basel, consider two recent attempts at peace agreements that in fact marked the escalation of even greater hostilities:
- the Minsk Agreements
- the even more devastating Oslo Accords – used a fig leaf (inasmuch as any diplomat of the major powers can even vaguely recall that they are obliged to at least pay lip service to the 2 State Solution) and taken as a licence for the intensification of Israeli military-colonial annexation, the construction of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocidal military siege.
As a Prussian civil servant, Kant was unable to conceive of any political actors except *States* to carry out his vision of Perpetual Peace.
It is here that we can ask, can Donato Kiniger Passigli's proposal for the development of a global network of pacifist civil society groups act as an effective counter to the belligerent nature of states that are currently locked in a multi-polar world that is marked by a greater state of inherently conflictual instability than any other modern configuration of inter-state powers? Trump's tariffs just unleashed a new coruscating wave of destabilizing currents with the strong potential for causing conflictual results.
I would like to be a believer, but am skeptical. Considered as a simple contest of power, States can simply ignore or, if necessary, actively repress civil society groups and individuals that dissent from State objectives. As described by Max Weber, the modern State is the monopoly of legitimate *violence*. Both as domestic forces of law and order, and as geo-strategic actors States are entities of violence.
The most obvious current example is the systematic suppression of anti-war, anti-genocide groups in all of the nations allied with Israel. (To say nothing of the genocidal nature of the military-colonial Israeli state itself). In Germany, the USA, Australia, the UK, France, Canada anti-war individuals and groups are currently being subjected to naked repression with people being deported, summarily removed from their places of employment, had literary awards and academic grants revoked, been imprisoned, been banned from entry into the nation, subjected to slanderous press and social media campaigns, subjected to police violence in the streets, subjected to vigilante violence and homicide etc. All against a backdrop of deafening silence from the rest of "liberal" society.
But let's see and let material reality run its course. Let this new pacifist civil society network put a stop to a war; then prevent a war; then prevent a series of wars; then achieve an extended period of peace; then achieve Perpetual Peace as a real-world norm and not an abstract Ideal, then this movement, indeed the human species, can claim success.
"Misunderstandings about intentions and perceptions of reality frequently lead to serious errors, especially among opponents with different cultural values".
Indeed this applies to Ukraine. Germany took the Ukraine from Russia twice, in the attacks of 1917 and 1941. While Germany under international pressure cannot avoid to remember the 6 mio killed jews, they do not remember that they killed four times more subhuman Russians, against all laws of war and humanity. Therefore Russians cannot have Germany a third time in the Ukraine, not even in the sheepskin of NATO. This has nothing to do with Putin. However Putin war fair enough to warn already in 2008 that going into NATO would threaten the existence of Ukraine, and in the same year declared that in this case he would annex Crimea and the Eastern parts of Ukraine. Two US-ambassadors to Moscow warned of extending the NATO to the East and to Ukraine, all to no avail. Probably Hunter Bidens Ukraine business carried more weight. Now how could an offensive for peace prevent such stupidities?
It has nothing to do with Putin. As Tim Marshall in "Prisoners of Geography" (2015) wrote, Ukraine in NATO is a cause for war for any Russian leader. And Robert Burns as US-ambassador to Moscow agreed in a letter to Condoleezza rice in 2008 "Ukrainian entry into Nato is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in Nato as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests. [Pursuing this strategy] would create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine."
Why does everybody wonder about Putin and not about Biden and Bush?
Of course I read. I did not understand. Putin must be one of the richest men on this globe, he has palaces galore etc. and a corrupt clique. So I think he is a tsar like all the others beofe him. However discussions about Putin are beside the point, he has no place in the equation. Its the Russian people who do not want the Germans and NATO in Ukraine and with reason. Any Russian leader must follow them if he wants to stay in place.
Putin is one of the most talented bureaucrats in the world, harmonizing so many political, economic and military force-trends, certainly including the Russian people.
It is funny, but Elon Musk is another extremely talented bureaucrat, though he is much less good with other people, and better at solving technical problems in industry.
Leggo commenti su questioni semantiche, che non mi appassionano. Sono molto più interessato al contenuto e alle finalità dell'iniziativa, che trovo molto interessanti per il loro tentativo di rompere uno schema che ci sta portando verso il baratro (di Seneca): una sorta di nuovo Rinascimento. Che però necessita del consenso del potere costituito (politico ed economico) che, attualmente, sembra andare in tutt'altra direzione.
Come può questa lodevole iniziativa assicurarsi il favore (vero, non solo di facciata) di chi ha il potere di spazzarla via... per decreto?
"Esteemed colleagues and respected members of the academic community,
This is a call for Inaction!"
There, fixed it fer ya...
We all have to devoutly find ways to weasel ourselves and each other out of war. It will take all of the focused inaction which we can muster, sustained inaction, marathon-inaction, a reform of inaction to answer the questions plaguing our political "leaders", such as "how can I get my donors and blackmailers off my back".
I pray for Divine Guidance and wait for epiphanies a lot.
As a linguist, even though I think this is a great initiative and support its aims, I experience a little cognitive dissonance through the juxtaposition of the words 'peace' and 'offensive', since the latter is a military term.
Or is this deliberate?
I noted the same thing. I'll ask Donato, but my impression is that it is deliberate.
Donato also forgot the part about growing vegetable gardens, because hungry people get irritable, short-sighted and easily manipulated to mass violence.
The phrase itself creates cognitive dissonance, and makes me suspicious too, hence my "call for inaction".
We can easily surmise that the central motivating factor driving Passigli's proposal to create a pacifist network of civil society groups is the failure of our current inter-state arrangements and forums such as the United Nations to achieve Perpetual Peace.
In an attempt to grasp the scope of the problem, consider how far we have *regressed* historically since Kant wrote his essay “Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” in 1795.
The immediate occasion for Kant's essay was the March 1795 signing of the Treaty of Basel by Prussia and revolutionary France, which Kant famously condemned as only "the suspension of hostilities, not a peace."
Military destructive power has increased by several orders of magnitude since 1795.
Far worse than the Treaty of Basel, consider two recent attempts at peace agreements that in fact marked the escalation of even greater hostilities:
- the Minsk Agreements
- the even more devastating Oslo Accords – used a fig leaf (inasmuch as any diplomat of the major powers can even vaguely recall that they are obliged to at least pay lip service to the 2 State Solution) and taken as a licence for the intensification of Israeli military-colonial annexation, the construction of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocidal military siege.
As a Prussian civil servant, Kant was unable to conceive of any political actors except *States* to carry out his vision of Perpetual Peace.
It is here that we can ask, can Donato Kiniger Passigli's proposal for the development of a global network of pacifist civil society groups act as an effective counter to the belligerent nature of states that are currently locked in a multi-polar world that is marked by a greater state of inherently conflictual instability than any other modern configuration of inter-state powers? Trump's tariffs just unleashed a new coruscating wave of destabilizing currents with the strong potential for causing conflictual results.
I would like to be a believer, but am skeptical. Considered as a simple contest of power, States can simply ignore or, if necessary, actively repress civil society groups and individuals that dissent from State objectives. As described by Max Weber, the modern State is the monopoly of legitimate *violence*. Both as domestic forces of law and order, and as geo-strategic actors States are entities of violence.
The most obvious current example is the systematic suppression of anti-war, anti-genocide groups in all of the nations allied with Israel. (To say nothing of the genocidal nature of the military-colonial Israeli state itself). In Germany, the USA, Australia, the UK, France, Canada anti-war individuals and groups are currently being subjected to naked repression with people being deported, summarily removed from their places of employment, had literary awards and academic grants revoked, been imprisoned, been banned from entry into the nation, subjected to slanderous press and social media campaigns, subjected to police violence in the streets, subjected to vigilante violence and homicide etc. All against a backdrop of deafening silence from the rest of "liberal" society.
But let's see and let material reality run its course. Let this new pacifist civil society network put a stop to a war; then prevent a war; then prevent a series of wars; then achieve an extended period of peace; then achieve Perpetual Peace as a real-world norm and not an abstract Ideal, then this movement, indeed the human species, can claim success.
Watch the financiers of wars foremost, though they hide in the shadows...
"Misunderstandings about intentions and perceptions of reality frequently lead to serious errors, especially among opponents with different cultural values".
Indeed this applies to Ukraine. Germany took the Ukraine from Russia twice, in the attacks of 1917 and 1941. While Germany under international pressure cannot avoid to remember the 6 mio killed jews, they do not remember that they killed four times more subhuman Russians, against all laws of war and humanity. Therefore Russians cannot have Germany a third time in the Ukraine, not even in the sheepskin of NATO. This has nothing to do with Putin. However Putin war fair enough to warn already in 2008 that going into NATO would threaten the existence of Ukraine, and in the same year declared that in this case he would annex Crimea and the Eastern parts of Ukraine. Two US-ambassadors to Moscow warned of extending the NATO to the East and to Ukraine, all to no avail. Probably Hunter Bidens Ukraine business carried more weight. Now how could an offensive for peace prevent such stupidities?
Putin is strange, and seems to have never taken bribes, nor orders from bankers, though he appears friendly to bankers.
Enigmatic, no?
What could drive a man such as this, who has obvious talent, if not money?
Consider: https://drjohnsblog.substack.com/p/from-unexpected-quarters
Clue to the Russian Mind: "Tolstoy in War and Peace wrote that time and patience are the best warriors." [Tolstoy forgot cold and mud.]
It has nothing to do with Putin. As Tim Marshall in "Prisoners of Geography" (2015) wrote, Ukraine in NATO is a cause for war for any Russian leader. And Robert Burns as US-ambassador to Moscow agreed in a letter to Condoleezza rice in 2008 "Ukrainian entry into Nato is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in Nato as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests. [Pursuing this strategy] would create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine."
Why does everybody wonder about Putin and not about Biden and Bush?
Reread my statement with a wry smile on your face.
There, is that better?
Indeed, Putin is an honorable man, as well as being talented and perceptive, which is rare and hard to comprehend in this world.
Of course I read. I did not understand. Putin must be one of the richest men on this globe, he has palaces galore etc. and a corrupt clique. So I think he is a tsar like all the others beofe him. However discussions about Putin are beside the point, he has no place in the equation. Its the Russian people who do not want the Germans and NATO in Ukraine and with reason. Any Russian leader must follow them if he wants to stay in place.
Putin is one of the most talented bureaucrats in the world, harmonizing so many political, economic and military force-trends, certainly including the Russian people.
It is funny, but Elon Musk is another extremely talented bureaucrat, though he is much less good with other people, and better at solving technical problems in industry.
Leggo commenti su questioni semantiche, che non mi appassionano. Sono molto più interessato al contenuto e alle finalità dell'iniziativa, che trovo molto interessanti per il loro tentativo di rompere uno schema che ci sta portando verso il baratro (di Seneca): una sorta di nuovo Rinascimento. Che però necessita del consenso del potere costituito (politico ed economico) che, attualmente, sembra andare in tutt'altra direzione.
Come può questa lodevole iniziativa assicurarsi il favore (vero, non solo di facciata) di chi ha il potere di spazzarla via... per decreto?
"Esteemed colleagues and respected members of the academic community,
This is a call for Inaction!"
There, fixed it fer ya...
We all have to devoutly find ways to weasel ourselves and each other out of war. It will take all of the focused inaction which we can muster, sustained inaction, marathon-inaction, a reform of inaction to answer the questions plaguing our political "leaders", such as "how can I get my donors and blackmailers off my back".
I pray for Divine Guidance and wait for epiphanies a lot.