Response to Wallace Garneau's War in Ukraine
The primary question is not which domestic faction gains advantage, but which policies best secure these universal goods for the greatest number.
Promt: analyze this article and extract the deepest "wants and needs" that this article is expecting and grasping for
Article: Escalations to the war in Ukraine
Results
I'll analyze this article to extract the underlying desires and expectations it conveys.
Deep Analysis: The Unstated Wants and Needs
This article reveals several profound desires and unspoken needs behind its geopolitical analysis:
1. A Longing for Clear Moral Positioning
The author desperately wants a framework that allows for moral clarity in a complex situation. Throughout the analysis, they attempt to distribute blame among multiple actors (Putin, NATO, Zelenskyy) while simultaneously positioning the political right as defenders of "Classical Liberal values." This reflects a deep need to reconcile support for Ukraine with criticism of its leadership and international institutions.
The article betrays a yearning for moral simplicity in an ethically complex situation where no clean solutions exist. This explains the author's repeated attempts to frame the conflict not just as geopolitical but as ideological—a struggle between "left" and "right" value systems.
2. Desire for National Self-Determination Without Consequences
There's a tension in the article between two competing desires: for America to retreat from global responsibilities (becoming "more isolationist") while simultaneously maintaining global influence and preventing Chinese ascendance. The author acknowledges this contradiction but cannot resolve it, revealing a wish for the benefits of global power without its burdens.
This appears as:
- A desire to end financial support to Ukraine
- A simultaneous fear of what happens when America withdraws
- Concern about China becoming "the dominant world power"
3. Need for Political Identity Reinforcement
The article consistently positions complex geopolitical realities within a simplified left-versus-right framework. This reveals a profound need for political identity reinforcement—to see global events as validation of domestic political alignment. Phrases like "This is a war between the political right and the political left" demonstrate a desire to place international conflicts within familiar domestic political frameworks.
4. Yearning for Control Amid Uncertainty
Perhaps most fundamentally, the article reveals anxiety about global disorder and a desire for predictability. The author is grasping for a world where:
- Complex conflicts have clear solutions
- Political ideologies map neatly onto international relations
- American power can be selectively applied without responsibilities
- Financial aid is either purely benevolent or entirely corrupt
This represents a deep need for order and control in a chaotic international environment where traditional power structures are shifting.
5. Need for Validation of Political Realignment
The language around the "modern Republican Party (which has realigned over the past eight years)" reveals a desire for validation that this political transformation is legitimate and principled rather than opportunistic. The author ties this realignment to classical liberalism and nationalism, suggesting a need to justify recent political shifts with historical and ideological legitimacy.
These deeper needs help explain why the author constructs this particular narrative around Ukraine—it serves psychological and ideological purposes beyond mere geopolitical analysis.
Alignment with John Adams' "Moral Algorithm"
Rating: 3/10 (Low alignment with Adams' moral framework)
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.” - John Adams
Analysis of Alignment
John Adams' quote establishes a clear moral algorithm for governance: government exists for the "common good" and the "protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people" rather than serving "private interest" or any exclusive "class of men." This represents a universalist, public interest-focused conception of governance.
The article fundamentally diverges from this Adamsian framework in several critical ways:
Partisan Framing vs. Common Good
The article repeatedly frames the Ukraine conflict as primarily "a war between the political right and the political left" rather than a matter of common good or universal principles. This framing inherently contradicts Adams' vision, which explicitly rejects governance serving any particular "class of men." By identifying global politics through a partisan lens, the author subordinates universal concerns to factional interests.
As Adams writes, government should focus on the "common good"—yet the article consistently portrays the conflict through competing ideological blocs rather than seeking common principles that might transcend partisan divisions.
Selective Moral Concern
The article demonstrates inconsistent moral concern that aligns with particular political factions rather than universal principles:
"Romania recently annulled an election after a 'far right' party won... There is a very good chance that there was discussion about annulling the 2024 election in the United States, but whomever decides what elections to annul obviously decided against it – likely because of the 2nd Amendment."
This passage suggests democratic principles should be applied selectively based on which political faction wins—a direct contradiction of Adams' universalist moral framework that government should serve "the people" rather than factional interests.
Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Values
Perhaps most tellingly, the article treats democratic values as instruments for factional advantage rather than as intrinsic goods serving the common welfare:
"The political right wants to end the war in Ukraine through a peace agreement that will make concessions to Russia. The political left wants to either continue the war indefinitely or force Russia to sue for peace entirely on Ukraine's terms."
This framing reduces complex foreign policy questions to partisan positioning rather than analyzing them through the lens of universal human welfare that Adams would recognize.
Logic Behind the Conclusion
The low alignment rating derives from applying Adams' algorithm systematically to the article's fundamental assumptions:
- Adams' premise: Government exists for common good and universal welfare
- Article's premise: International relations represent an extension of domestic partisan struggles
- Logical consequence: These frameworks are fundamentally incompatible
The article repeatedly prioritizes factional interests over universal concerns, partisan advantage over common welfare, and ideological purity over pragmatic solutions that might serve the "protection, safety, prosperity and happiness" of all affected peoples.
A truly Adamsian approach would evaluate the Ukraine conflict based on how various policy options serve the welfare of all affected populations—Ukrainian civilians, Russian civilians, European security interests, and global stability—rather than viewing it primarily through partisan domestic frameworks.
When Adams warned against governance serving "any one man, family, or class of men," he established a moral test that rejects exactly the kind of factional framing that dominates this article's analysis.
Examining the Article Through Rawls' Veil of Ignorance
John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" thought experiment asks us to imagine designing social arrangements without knowing our future position in society. Behind this veil, we would be ignorant of our class, race, gender, talents, and other particularities that might bias our judgment. This powerful conceptual tool helps us evaluate whether principles and policies are just by considering: Would we accept these arrangements if we could end up in any possible position within them?
Fundamental Tensions with Rawlsian Justice
The article struggles profoundly when evaluated through Rawls' framework for several structural reasons:
Nationalism vs. Universal Consideration
Rawls' veil of ignorance requires us to consider the welfare of all persons regardless of national identity. The article's framing, however, prioritizes nationalist considerations:
"All three are nationalist movements in the sense that while all three movements believe in cooperating where mutual interests exist, all three also believe in putting national interests first where interests do not align."
This nationalist framing directly contradicts the Rawlsian premise that just principles should be acceptable regardless of which national identity one might occupy. From behind the veil of ignorance—where one might be Ukrainian, Russian, American, or German—a framework that prioritizes "national interests first" becomes untenable.
Partisan Framing vs. Impartial Justice
The veil of ignorance deliberately strips away partisan identity to avoid biased reasoning. Yet the article repeatedly structures its analysis through explicit partisan framing:
"This is a war between the political right and the political left."
Behind Rawls' veil, one cannot know whether they would be politically right or left-aligned, making this framework fundamentally incompatible with the impartiality that Rawlsian justice demands.
Selective Concern for Democratic Rights
Perhaps most troublingly, the article demonstrates variable commitment to democratic principles based on which faction benefits:
"The political left has rejected Classical Liberalism, believing in elections only when they win..."
While simultaneously expressing concern that:
"Romania recently annulled an election after a 'far right' party won."
This selective application of democratic principles would be indefensible behind the veil of ignorance, where one might end up in any political faction. Truly Rawlsian thinking would demand consistent, universal application of democratic principles regardless of which faction benefits.
The Least Advantaged Position
A crucial element of Rawls' theory is the "difference principle," which holds that social and economic inequalities are just only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. When we apply this to the article's analysis of Ukraine, we find significant gaps:
Conspicuously absent is sustained consideration of:
- Ukrainian civilians in occupied territories
- Russian citizens bearing the costs of the conflict
- Displaced persons and refugees
- Global food security impacts on vulnerable populations
A Rawlsian analysis would prioritize these most vulnerable positions, as they represent the "least advantaged" perspectives one might occupy behind the veil of ignorance.
Military Escalation Through Rawlsian Lens
The article presents three options:
- Peace deal with territorial concessions
- Massive escalation
- Indefinite conflict
From behind the veil of ignorance—where one might be a civilian in any of the affected regions—the risk calculus of military escalation takes on a fundamentally different character. Rawls would likely press us to consider: What principles of conflict resolution would we accept if we might become any civilian caught in this war?
The article's relative comfort with discussing escalation and protracted conflict suggests an incomplete application of the impartiality that Rawlsian justice demands.
Conclusion: Structural Incompatibility
The article's analytical framework is structurally incompatible with Rawlsian justice. Its partisan framing, nationalist priorities, and selective application of principles fail the fundamental test of the veil of ignorance: would we accept these arrangements if we didn't know which position we would occupy?
The impartial reasoning that Rawls' thought experiment demands would require us to evaluate the Ukraine conflict through universal principles that could be accepted regardless of nationality, political affiliation, or social position—a perspective that remains largely unexplored within the article's partisan and nationalist framework.
Aristotle's Assessment: A Philosophical Examination
Aristotle, the systematic thinker of Ancient Greece, would approach this article with his characteristic method of examining both form and substance, while bringing his political philosophy to bear on its claims. His analysis would likely center on several key aspects that reflect his philosophical framework.
Political Classification and the Mean
Aristotle would first notice the article's binary framing of politics as "left versus right." This would strike him as an oversimplification of political reality. In his Politics, Aristotle developed a sophisticated taxonomy of regime types based on who rules (one, few, or many) and whether they rule in the common interest or their own. His approach embraced complexity rather than reduction to a single spectrum.
"The political left is fighting to make illiberal authoritarian tyrannies... The political right wants to end the war in Ukraine through a peace agreement."
Aristotle would question this stark dichotomy, as he famously sought the "golden mean" between extremes. He would likely write that true political wisdom lies not in partisan allegiances but in finding the virtuous middle ground that serves the polis (political community) as a whole.
The Telos of Political Action
Central to Aristotle's philosophy is the concept of telos—the end or purpose toward which actions should aim. He would evaluate the Ukraine conflict by asking: What is the proper end of international relations?
The article frames international relations largely in terms of power dynamics and ideological competition, whereas Aristotle would seek its proper purpose. In the Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that all human activities aim at some good, with politics being the "master science" that determines which ends are worthy of pursuit.
Aristotle would likely criticize both sides in the article's framing for failing to articulate a clear telos beyond factional advantage. For him, the true purpose of politics—domestic or international—is to create conditions for human flourishing (eudaimonia).
The Nature of Just War
Aristotle addressed war in his writings, viewing it not as an end in itself but as a means toward peace. He would evaluate the Ukraine conflict through this lens:
"War must be for the sake of peace, business for the sake of leisure, things useful and necessary for the sake of things noble." (Politics, VII)
He would question whether either approach described in the article truly serves this ultimate aim. Does indefinite conflict or hasty concession best serve the establishment of a lasting peace? Aristotle would demand a more nuanced analysis of how different approaches to ending the conflict might establish conditions for lasting harmony rather than temporary advantage.
Rhetoric and Truth
As a foundational thinker on rhetoric, Aristotle would also analyze the article's persuasive techniques. He distinguished between three modes of persuasion:
- Ethos (credibility)
- Logos (logical argument)
- Pathos (emotional appeal)
The article relies heavily on pathos by arousing partisan sentiments and fear of authoritarian control. Aristotle would point out its relative weakness in logos—the structure of its arguments often assumes conclusions rather than demonstrating them through careful reasoning.
He might particularly critique this passage:
"Those who favor continuing the war in Ukraine have been using it as a laundering operation..."
This claim offers assertion without adequate evidence, falling short of Aristotelian standards for proper demonstration (apodeixis).
Friendship and International Relations
Aristotle devoted substantial attention to friendship (philia) as a political concept. He would evaluate international alliances through this lens, questioning whether the article's conception of alliances reflects true philia or merely utilitarian advantage.
His analysis would likely point out that true international friendship requires mutual recognition of the good and cannot be sustained merely through transactions or temporary alignments of interest. The factional approach to international relations described in the article would strike him as unstable precisely because it lacks the foundation of genuine philia.
Conclusion: Beyond Binary Thinking
Ultimately, Aristotle would reject the article's fundamental framing. His political thought was characterized by nuance, classification, and the recognition of multiple forms of excellence. He would see the reduction of complex international relations to partisan binaries as impoverished thinking that fails to capture the true nature of politics.
For Aristotle, the highest form of practical wisdom (phronesis) involves recognizing particular circumstances, deliberating about possible courses of action, and choosing what is best for the community as a whole. By this standard, he would find the article's analysis lacking in the virtues necessary for genuine political understanding.
Aristotle's Response Through Adams' Lens: A Philosophical Analysis
If Aristotle were to examine this article while fundamentally aligned with John Adams' moral algorithm, his response would form a distinctive philosophical critique that bridges Ancient Greek political thought with Enlightenment principles of governance. This synthesis would produce a rich analytical framework focused on the telos (purpose) of political communities.
The Purpose of Political Arrangements
Aristotle would begin by examining Adams' central premise: that government exists for "the common good" rather than private interests. He would find profound resonance with this concept, as it parallels his own position in Politics:
"A state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only... Political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship."
Through this lens, Aristotle would immediately question the article's framing of the Ukraine conflict as primarily a partisan struggle between political factions. Such a characterization subordinates the common good to factional interests—precisely what Adams warned against.
The philosopher would likely respond:
"This account fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of political communities. By framing the Ukraine conflict as a struggle between right and left, the writer mistakes the instrument for the end. Political arrangements exist not to perpetuate factional advantage, but to create conditions for human flourishing. When we evaluate international conflicts solely through the lens of partisan advantage, we invert the proper order of political reasoning."
The Problem of Binary Classification
Aristotle, who developed sophisticated taxonomies of political arrangements in his Politics, would be particularly troubled by the article's reductive binary:
"This is a war between the political right and the political left."
He would note that this simplification obscures rather than illuminates the complex ethical questions at stake. As someone who identified multiple forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, polity and their corrupted forms), he would see this binary as intellectually impoverished.
When filtered through Adams' concern for the "common good," Aristotle might respond:
"The reduction of complex international relations to a binary opposition between 'right' and 'left' prevents us from asking the essential question: what arrangement best serves the safety, prosperity, and happiness of all affected peoples? This categorization serves rhetorical convenience at the expense of ethical clarity. True political wisdom requires us to look beyond such simplifications to examine the actual effects of policies on human communities."
The Principle of Distributive Justice
Aristotle's conception of distributive justice—giving to each what they are due according to merit—would also inform his analysis. When combined with Adams' concern for the "common good," this would lead him to scrutinize how the article distributes praise and blame.
The selective concern for democratic principles (criticizing Romania for annulling elections while praising partisan realignments elsewhere) would appear as a fundamental inconsistency. Aristotle would likely observe:
"Justice demands consistency in our principles. If we truly believe government exists for the common good rather than factional advantage, we cannot selectively apply democratic principles based on which faction benefits. The article's inconsistent application of democratic concerns reveals a commitment not to universal principles but to particular interests—precisely what Adams warns against when he rejects governance serving 'any one man, family, or class of men.'"
From Means to Ends: War and Peace
Aristotle famously noted that "we make war that we may live in peace." This teleological perspective, when joined with Adams' concern for "protection" and "safety," would lead him to evaluate the article's discussion of war and peace options differently:
"The article presents three options for Ukraine without adequately examining which best serves the common good of all affected peoples. If government exists for 'protection, safety, prosperity and happiness,' then our evaluation must center on which approach best secures these goods for the greatest number. The factional framing obscures this fundamental question by reducing complex ethical calculations to partisan positioning."
The Virtue of Practical Wisdom
Aristotle's concept of phronesis (practical wisdom) involves deliberating well about how to act in particular circumstances. Applied to international relations, and informed by Adams' moral algorithm, he would advocate for a more nuanced approach:
"True practical wisdom in statecraft requires moving beyond partisan categories to deliberate about particular circumstances. What concrete decisions would best protect the safety and promote the prosperity of all affected peoples? Neither indefinite conflict nor hasty concession can be evaluated without reference to these concrete goods. The article's preoccupation with partisan framing prevents this essential form of deliberation."
Conclusion: From Partisan to Common Good
Aristotle, guided by Adams' moral algorithm, would ultimately call for a fundamental reframing of the entire discussion:
"If we accept that government exists for the common good—for protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people—then our analysis of international conflicts must begin and end with these considerations. The primary question is not which domestic faction gains advantage, but which policies best secure these universal goods for the greatest number. Only by moving beyond partisan framing can we hope to fulfill the true purpose of political communities: creating conditions for human flourishing."
This Aristotelian response, infused with Adams' moral algorithm, would fundamentally challenge not just the conclusions of the article, but its entire analytical framework—calling us to move from factional thinking toward a deeper engagement with the common good that transcends partisan divisions.