>> stubborn commitment to terrible policy

Would it be fair to summarise that policy as “bilateral trade will stop countries killing each other”?

>> Western powers haven't been seriously focusing on energy security

By security you mean self sufficiency? The opposite of stopping further world wars by opening global trade?

The idea a world historically proven to relish excuses for killing each other, would have been better served by following the ideals of self sufficiency rather than trade, it just doesn’t really hold up to any inspection. Are there any exceptions to the rule globally that conflict deaths decrease as trade intensity increases?

Almost all dead civilisations share a common marker before their death: greater self sufficiency (and consequently a loss of skills - which was counter intuitive to me but easily researched since it doesn’t appear to be a disputed finding as far as i can see).

> Would it be fair to summarise that policy as “bilateral trade will stop countries killing each other”?

Trade between like-minded nations is awesome; the EU itself largely has its origins in a wish to avoid yet another disastrous world war between Germany and neighbors. And by all accounts it has succeeded in that.

However, becoming critically dependent on a hostile neighbor with imperial ambitions is dumb beyond belief. As we can see in Europe today.

> Almost all dead civilisations share a common marker before their death: greater self sufficiency

If you read e.g. Tainters Collapse (which AFAIK is nowadays the largely accepted explanation of why ancient civilizations collapsed), it's a bit more subtle than that.

(Obviously post-collapse the survivors will go back to a much more self-sufficient way of life.)

>> becoming critically dependent on a hostile neighbor with imperial ambitions is dumb beyond belief

I’m struggling to reconcile that take on events with a desire for thawing hostilities and mutual prosperity. How could you seek to develop and grow mutual prosperity while deliberately holding back local industry so as not to become interdependent?

There’s 2 ways to avoid cognitive dissonance here that i can see:

    1. “Nice doggy but i won’t put down my stick” - you think they’re morons. You say publicaly that Bi-lateral trade will bring us all closer together but privately you tell your industries to reject growth beyond the point where it incurs dependence on Russia and you expect Russia to accept this asymmetry unquestioningly [EDIT: clarity]
    2. Mutual prosperity was never an option, better we had arrived at conflict sooner and never entertained welcoming Russia in to the global economy

If it’s option 2 then we’re back to how do you stop people killing each other then if not through trade?

>> it's a bit more subtle than that

Subtle seems like the wrong choice of word. Complex perhaps? It’s certainly more complex but nothing i said contradicts Tainter’s view.

> I’m struggling to reconcile that take on events with a desire for thawing hostilities and mutual prosperity.

My point is that I think the argument that trade by itself brings about mutual understanding and prosperity is fatally flawed. The West collectively made that mistake with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We looked through the fingers at all the warning bells that were ringing, well, pretty much since Putin became the leader. Hopefully our leaders have learned the lesson. There must be much more focus on democracy, human rights, and respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Once those basic pieces are in order, we can talk trade. Until that happens I'm perfectly happy with Russia isolated like North Korea.

Peace in Europe can happen when Russia GTFO of Ukraine, not by appeasement and restarting trade as if nothing happened. Currently dropping sanctions would only help Putin rebuild his war machine, leading to more death and suffering of innocents rather than bring about some kind of trade-induced Kumbaya.

> It’s certainly more complex but nothing i said contradicts Tainter’s view.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but from what you wrote the implication was that civilizations chose to focus on self sufficiency leading to collapse, which really mixes cause and effect and not what Tainter is arguing.

The policy was called "Wandel durch Handel" ie Change trough Trade.