> I'm generally pragmatic about things Not nearly pragmatic enough. Of course the war is terrible and of course Russia is to blame. But the world doesn't stop

> I'm generally pragmatic about things Not nearly pragmatic enough. Of course the war is terrible and of course Russia is to blame. But the world doesn't stop moving and high level co-operation still needs to continue. Russia is still a big, powerful, important country and we can't just cancel everything in a fit of spite. I mean, even Ukraine, even while it's being brutalized by its neighbor, still maintains high level connections to organize prisoner transfers. There's regular communication between the RUAF and NATO to deconflict and identify each other's assets to avoid misunderstandings and accidents. All of this continues, war or not, because everyone knows the alternative is just that much worse. It's no different for the scientific cooperation. War or not, everyone knows it is in everyone's best interest for cooperation to continue. The scientific ties long predate the war, and will continue long after everyone has forgotten it, too. And I'm surprised you then completely contradict your moral point - which I disagree with, but it is a point - by suggesting the West engage with China, a prospect against which almost the exact same argument can be made. Of course, taking the "we only co-operate with partners with sparkling moral rectitude" line even further, you could argue that no-one should be co-operating with the USA, with its two disastrous recent wars, either. See where this goes?