3 ms·

War's ultimate purpose is to shift the situation into a point where diplomacy can happen. It occurs when both sides disagree on the situation strongly enough th

War's ultimate purpose is to shift the situation into a point where diplomacy can happen. It occurs when both sides disagree on the situation strongly enough that they prefer war to any diplomatic option available, and it continues until a diplomatic option can be agreed. Currently, Ukraine and Russia's diplomatic goals are still incompatible, and both believe they will be able to shift the balance of the war in their favor.

aa-jv 2y ago
>War's ultimate purpose is to shift the situation into a point where diplomacy can happen. Sorry but that is just plain nonsense. The purpose of diplomacy is to avoid war. War destroys any reason for diplomacy.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  If that were true, wars would never end.
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    And? Multiple wars are happening today: because diplomacy failed.
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      And many more wars have ended, because the war eventually brought both sides to the table (even if that is an unconditional surrender).
    - XorNot 2y ago
      What do you think diplomacy is? Why do you think it accomplishes anything? It certainly does, but you are discussing it as though it is not something that is formed against a backdrop of self-interest, geography, history, and military capability. Diplomacy is distinctly not "just talking nicely".
- ranger207 2y ago
  The purpose of diplomacy is to achieve national goals in the international field. Wars happen when two nations have incompatible goals and diplomacy isn't able to resolve them. The wars are fought to achieve national goals, or change the other nation's goals. Diplomacy is ultimately what resolves wars by making the new national goals compatible. Every single treaty or armistice ending a war is a result of diplomacy, even unconditional surrenders.
The_Colonel 2y ago
Clausewitz said it best - war is just politics executed with other means. War starts when the cost/benefit analysis of violent means comes up better than the alternative (peaceful) means. War ends when the opposite happens, and the cost/benefit of the continuation of violence starts to come down in comparison with peace. The benefit component is for the most part a zero-sum game (fixed land area), while the cost component is variable and growing with time. One way to force peace is to impose great costs on one or both warring sides.
- vanviegen 2y ago
  That makes it sound like wars are only fought for rational reasons. I disagree.
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    Goals are not rational. Neither Putin's goal of controlling Ukraine nor Ukraine's desire for independence are rational, they're subjective preferences. You can ask - was Putin's decision to invade Ukraine rational given his values, priorities, risk aversion, willingness to bear the costs and information he had? Apart from the last, they're all subjective and thus it doesn't make sense to judge them as (ir)rational. The last one is objective, but having wrong information is not irrational either.
    - vanviegen 2y ago
      Some people just want to fight. As a goal by itself. Sure you can say that if they want to fight, fighting is the rational choice, but that definition would make every action 'rational'.
      - The_Colonel 2y ago
        > Some people just want to fight. As a goal by itself. Can you make some examples of war where fighting itself was the primary goal? > that definition would make every action 'rational'. As mentioned above, goals themselves are not something we can evaluate as rational or not. But given you have a goal, you can question whether the actions you undertake to achieve that goal are rational. Let's say you want to start a family and want to buy a house. Going into a casino and throwing money into the slot machines is not a rational way to achieve it, esp. since there is plenty of information available explaining in painstaking detail that this won't work.

aa-jv 2y ago

>War's ultimate purpose is to shift the situation into a point where diplomacy can happen. Sorry but that is just plain nonsense. The purpose of diplomacy is to avoid war. War destroys any reason for diplomacy.

rcxdude 2y ago
If that were true, wars would never end.
- aa-jv 2y ago
  And? Multiple wars are happening today: because diplomacy failed.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    And many more wars have ended, because the war eventually brought both sides to the table (even if that is an unconditional surrender).
  - XorNot 2y ago
    What do you think diplomacy is? Why do you think it accomplishes anything? It certainly does, but you are discussing it as though it is not something that is formed against a backdrop of self-interest, geography, history, and military capability. Diplomacy is distinctly not "just talking nicely".
ranger207 2y ago
The purpose of diplomacy is to achieve national goals in the international field. Wars happen when two nations have incompatible goals and diplomacy isn't able to resolve them. The wars are fought to achieve national goals, or change the other nation's goals. Diplomacy is ultimately what resolves wars by making the new national goals compatible. Every single treaty or armistice ending a war is a result of diplomacy, even unconditional surrenders.

The_Colonel 2y ago

Clausewitz said it best - war is just politics executed with other means. War starts when the cost/benefit analysis of violent means comes up better than the alternative (peaceful) means. War ends when the opposite happens, and the cost/benefit of the continuation of violence starts to come down in comparison with peace. The benefit component is for the most part a zero-sum game (fixed land area), while the cost component is variable and growing with time. One way to force peace is to impose great costs on one or both warring sides.

vanviegen 2y ago
That makes it sound like wars are only fought for rational reasons. I disagree.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  Goals are not rational. Neither Putin's goal of controlling Ukraine nor Ukraine's desire for independence are rational, they're subjective preferences. You can ask - was Putin's decision to invade Ukraine rational given his values, priorities, risk aversion, willingness to bear the costs and information he had? Apart from the last, they're all subjective and thus it doesn't make sense to judge them as (ir)rational. The last one is objective, but having wrong information is not irrational either.
  - vanviegen 2y ago
    Some people just want to fight. As a goal by itself. Sure you can say that if they want to fight, fighting is the rational choice, but that definition would make every action 'rational'.
    - The_Colonel 2y ago
      > Some people just want to fight. As a goal by itself. Can you make some examples of war where fighting itself was the primary goal? > that definition would make every action 'rational'. As mentioned above, goals themselves are not something we can evaluate as rational or not. But given you have a goal, you can question whether the actions you undertake to achieve that goal are rational. Let's say you want to start a family and want to buy a house. Going into a casino and throwing money into the slot machines is not a rational way to achieve it, esp. since there is plenty of information available explaining in painstaking detail that this won't work.