• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Virtual Visser and Digital Dillard Trying to See Eye to Eye on Ukraine

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Me to ChatGPT:

• Stage a conversation about the Ukraine dilemma between me and Joseph Dillard (who is a good friend of mine).

Setting: You and Joseph Dillard are sitting in a quiet café, sipping coffee. The atmosphere is friendly but serious, as the topic of Ukraine comes up.

You: Joe, I've been thinking a lot about your views on the Ukraine war. I get that you see it as part of a bigger geopolitical game, but honestly, doesn't that overlook the suffering Putin has caused? Cities leveled, thousands dead, millions of refugees—how does that fit into your analysis?

Joseph Dillard: I hear you, and I don't deny the suffering. War is always a tragedy. But I think we have to ask: Why did this happen? The way the West frames it, Putin just woke up one day and decided to invade. But that ignores decades of NATO expansion, the 2014 coup in Ukraine, and the way the U.S. has used Ukraine as a pawn against Russia.

You: But that still doesn't justify an invasion! I mean, sure, NATO expansion might have worried Russia, but plenty of countries join NATO without getting attacked. Even if the West played a role in escalating tensions, that doesn't make it okay for Russia to bomb cities and kill civilians.

Dillard: I'm not excusing the invasion—I'm explaining it. If we want peace, we have to understand what led to the war in the first place. The way the media tells it, this is a simple “good vs. evil” story, but it's not. The U.S. has invaded countries for far less provocation.

You: I get that Western hypocrisy exists. But what about the people in Ukraine? Shouldn't their right to sovereignty matter? If they want to align with Europe instead of Russia, shouldn't they have that choice without being invaded?

Dillard: They should. But sovereignty is messy. The U.S. interferes in other nations' politics all the time—look at Iraq, Libya, or even Ukraine in 2014. When Russia does it, it's called imperialism; when the U.S. does it, it's called “spreading democracy.” That double standard is dangerous.

You: But that argument doesn't change the fact that Ukraine is the one being bombed right now, not the U.S. How does this perspective help the people suffering today?

Dillard: It helps by pushing for a negotiated end to the war instead of endless escalation. The West keeps pumping weapons into Ukraine, which prolongs the fighting and increases civilian casualties. Instead of pushing for total victory over Russia, why aren't we pushing harder for peace talks?

You: Because peace talks require trust, and Ukraine doesn't trust Russia—why would they, after everything that's happened? Shouldn't the focus be on making sure Putin doesn't get rewarded for this war?

Dillard: I get that. But if we're only thinking about punishing Putin, we risk making things worse. The more this drags on, the more people suffer. If we really care about Ukrainians, we should be pushing for diplomacy, not just sending more weapons.

You: I still think there has to be accountability. If Russia is allowed to get away with this, what stops them from trying again? And what message does that send to other authoritarian leaders?

Dillard: Fair point. But peace doesn't mean letting Russia “get away” with anything—it means stopping the killing as soon as possible. The question is, what's the fastest path to ending the war? That's what we should be focusing on.

You: And I guess that's where we differ. I see stopping Putin as part of ending the war. You see diplomacy as the solution, even if it means making concessions.

Dillard: Exactly. And I respect where you're coming from—I just think we need to look beyond the immediate emotions and ask what actually ends the suffering fastest.

You: And I think justice matters just as much as peace. But I appreciate the conversation.

Dillard: Same here. We may not agree, but these discussions are important.

Setting: You and Joseph Dillard are having another coffee conversation, continuing your discussion on Ukraine.

You: Joe, I keep hearing you bring up Putin's claims about denazification and demilitarization. But come on—do you really buy into that?

Dillard: I wouldn't say I “buy into it,” but I think there's more to it than the West admits. There are nationalist and neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine, and they've been active in the military and politics since 2014. The Azov Battalion, Right Sector—these groups exist. If we care about truth, we can't just ignore that.

You: Sure, but every country has far-right groups. Ukraine's government isn't Nazi-controlled. Zelenskyy is Jewish! Putin is using this as a propaganda excuse.

Dillard: Zelenskyy being Jewish doesn't mean there aren't serious nationalist elements in Ukraine. Look at how Bandera is glorified—he collaborated with the Nazis. The West brushes this off because it's inconvenient to their narrative.

You: I'm not saying Ukraine's history is perfect, but Russia's far-right problem is just as bad, if not worse! The Wagner Group, Russian ultra-nationalists—they're no different. If Putin really cared about denazification, why isn't he starting with his own backyard?

Dillard: Fair point. But I think the bigger issue is that Ukraine has been used as a tool by the West, and that's what Putin is really reacting to.

You: Which brings us to demilitarization. You're saying Ukraine, a country that has already been invaded, should just give up its military? How is that realistic?

Dillard: I'm saying that this war could have been avoided if Ukraine had agreed to neutrality. No NATO, no Western weapons buildup—just a buffer state between Russia and the West. That would have been a reasonable compromise. Instead, the West kept arming Ukraine, knowing it would provoke Russia.

You: So because NATO might have expanded, Russia had the right to invade? That's backwards! Ukraine wasn't a NATO member. It wasn't hosting nuclear weapons. But now it's supposed to just disarm while Russia bombs its cities?

Dillard: I get why it sounds unfair, but think about it from Russia's perspective. If Mexico suddenly allied with China and started getting Chinese weapons, how would the U.S. react? You know the answer—Washington would never allow it. Why is it any different for Russia?

You: Because Mexico isn't being invaded and having its people slaughtered for wanting alliances! Ukraine is a sovereign country. It should get to choose its own security.

Dillard: Sovereignty isn't absolute in the real world. Small countries always have to balance between bigger powers. Ukraine choosing NATO wasn't just about Ukraine—it had consequences for Russia.

You: And Russia's invasion had consequences for Ukraine! Do you see the flaw here? You're talking about Russia's feelings about NATO while ignoring Ukraine's actual reality—bombed cities, mass graves, millions of refugees. How does that fit into this equation?

Dillard: I don't deny the suffering, and I don't justify the invasion. But I think the West's refusal to negotiate and acknowledge Russia's security concerns made war inevitable. We could have avoided this.

You: Maybe. But that doesn't excuse what's happening now. You can argue about NATO expansion all day, but at the end of the day, this war is about Putin's decision to invade. Ukraine wasn't a military threat to Russia—Putin just didn't want it slipping out of his sphere of influence.

Dillard: That's part of it, sure. But the West played its role too. If we want this to end, we have to be honest about both sides' mistakes.

You: Maybe. But the biggest mistake was Russia thinking it could decide Ukraine's fate for them.

Dillard: And yet, here we are, with Ukraine in ruins and no end in sight. If we really care about Ukraine, shouldn't we be pushing harder for diplomacy instead of more war?

You: Diplomacy, sure. But not at gunpoint, and not by pretending Putin's excuses hold water. Ukraine deserves better than that.

Setting: You and Joseph Dillard are still at the café, deep into your discussion. The coffee has gone cold, but neither of you seem to care.

You: So, when it comes down to it, this whole thing is just about superpowers and their so-called “spheres of influence,” huh? Russia, the U.S., NATO—just big players pushing pieces around on a chessboard, while Ukraine gets crushed in the middle?

Dillard: Unfortunately, that's how international politics works. Small countries don't really get full sovereignty. They have to align with a power bloc or risk being torn apart. Look at history—Finland, Korea, Vietnam. Now Ukraine.

You: But shouldn't we be moving away from that mindset instead of just accepting it? If we say “this is just how the world works,” we're basically endorsing a system where powerful nations get to bully smaller ones.

Dillard: I agree, in theory. But in practice, power politics hasn't gone away. The U.S. still does it—look at Iraq, Libya, even how they treat Latin America. Russia's just playing the same game.

You: But does that mean we should just let it happen? Ukraine doesn't want to be in Russia's sphere. They've made that clear over and over. Shouldn't their wishes matter more than Moscow's insecurities?

Dillard: Ideally, yes. But reality doesn't work that way. If Ukraine had declared neutrality, stopped pushing for NATO membership, and focused on diplomacy, this war might never have happened.

You: Or maybe Putin would have found another excuse. Maybe “neutral” would have meant “submissive” in his eyes. It seems like he wants Ukraine under his thumb, no matter what.

Dillard: Maybe. But maybe the West wanted this war too. The U.S. benefits from a weakened Russia, European countries are rearming, NATO is stronger than ever—this war hasn't just hurt Ukraine and Russia. It's helped the West in a lot of ways.

You: You sound like you're saying the U.S. provoked this war on purpose.

Dillard: Not on purpose, necessarily. But they sure didn't do much to stop it. Instead of pushing for a peace deal early on, they flooded Ukraine with weapons. That's escalation, not diplomacy.

You: Or it's self-defense. If someone invades your house, do you negotiate with them while they're still inside? No, you fight back.

Dillard: True. But what if that intruder feels like you were threatening them first? What if they saw you stockpiling weapons, making alliances with their enemies? That's how Russia sees it.

You: And yet, Russia is the one leveling cities, deporting children, massacring civilians. The whole “spheres of influence” argument just sounds like an excuse for violence. Ukraine wasn't a threat to Russia—Russia just couldn't stand the idea of losing control over it.

Dillard: Control is the name of the game. That's what superpowers do. The U.S. wouldn't let Mexico align with China, just like Russia won't let Ukraine align with NATO. That's why I say this war isn't just about Ukraine—it's about global power struggles.

You: But isn't that exactly the problem? If we accept that logic, then we're basically saying small countries have no real freedom. Ukraine should be allowed to choose its own future, even if that upsets Russia. Otherwise, we're just stuck in this endless cycle of big powers deciding everyone's fate.

Dillard: I don't disagree. But do you really think the world works any other way?

You: No. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change it.

[Pause. You both sip your cold coffee, the weight of the conversation lingering.]

Setting: The café has quieted down, the background chatter fading as your conversation gets even deeper. The weight of history, power, and ethics hangs between you and Dillard.

You: Okay, let's say you're right—that superpowers are always going to act in their own interests, that Ukraine was caught in the middle of a power struggle. But doesn't that contradict international law? You value international law, right?

Dillard: Of course. International law is important. It provides a framework for diplomacy, trade, and conflict resolution.

You: Then how do you reconcile that with the whole “might makes right” argument? If we accept that great powers can do whatever they want, doesn't that make international law meaningless?

Dillard: Not meaningless—just limited. International law is only as strong as the countries willing to enforce it. And guess who enforces it? The same powerful nations that break it when it suits them. The U.S. invaded Iraq without UN approval. NATO bombed Serbia. Israel defies UN resolutions all the time. And now Russia is doing what great powers do—ignoring the rules when they don't like them.

You: So you're saying international law only applies to the weak? That's pretty cynical.

Dillard: It's not how it should be, but it's how it is. The UN can pass all the resolutions it wants, but if a major power wants something badly enough, no piece of paper will stop them.

You: But if we just accept that, aren't we giving up on the whole idea of a rules-based world?

Dillard: I wouldn't say giving up. I'd say we should be honest about how the system really works. Look at the West's reaction to Russia's invasion—sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, UN resolutions condemning Moscow. But what actually stopped Russia? Not the UN. Not the Geneva Conventions. It was Ukraine fighting back and NATO arming them.

You: So you're saying power matters more than law?

Dillard: I'm saying power enforces law. If there's no power behind the law, it's just words on a page.

You: Then what's the point of even talking about justice or legality? If the strong always win, why bother pretending?

Dillard: Because even in a world run by power, legitimacy still matters. Look at how Russia tried to justify its invasion—denazification, self-defense, protecting Russian speakers. They know they can't just say, “We want land.” They have to dress it up as something legal. That tells you international law does matter—it's just that the powerful find ways to bend it.

You: But if we let them bend it, we're basically giving them permission. Russia's invasion isn't just another example of great power politics—it's a violation of everything the UN was supposed to prevent! If we don't hold them accountable, what stops China from taking Taiwan? What stops any strong country from just taking what they want?

Dillard: That's a good question. And that's why I think the real solution here isn't just “punishing” Russia but changing the system so wars like this don't happen again.

You: And how do we do that? Because right now, all I see is the same old story—big countries making the rules, small countries suffering for it.

Dillard: Maybe we start by making international law stronger—not just something that applies to the losers, but something even the powerful have to obey.

You: And how do we do that when the powerful are the ones writing the rules?

Dillard: That's the real dilemma, isn't it?

[A long pause. The café is nearly empty now. The conversation has gone from history to philosophy to something bigger—something without easy answers.]

Setting: The café is nearly empty now. The weight of history, politics, and power still lingers between you and Dillard. Neither of you seem ready to leave.

You: Maybe the real answer is for the superpowers to just stick to their own spheres. If the U.S. has its domain, and Russia and China have theirs, maybe we'd have less conflict. If everyone knew their place, maybe they'd actually respect each other.

Dillard: That's the old-school balance-of-power approach—kind of like how the world worked during the Cold War. The U.S. had the West, the Soviets had the East, and as long as neither side pushed too hard, things stayed relatively stable.

You: Right. Maybe instead of trying to make every country follow some one-size-fits-all set of rules, we just accept that different blocs exist, and they each run things their own way. No more endless wars over “democracy” or “sovereignty” or whatever.

Dillard: In theory, that sounds practical. But in reality, spheres of influence don't stay neat and tidy. People inside those spheres don't always want to stay there. Look at Ukraine—after the Soviet Union collapsed, it could have stayed in Russia's orbit, but it didn't want to. It kept leaning West, and that's where the conflict started.

You: But isn't that the problem? If we say superpowers should have their own domains, then we're saying smaller nations don't really have a choice. What happens when a country wants to leave its assigned sphere?

Dillard: That's exactly why balance-of-power politics always leads to tension. It only works when the people inside those spheres are willing to stay there. The second they try to leave, the whole system starts breaking down.

You: So what's the alternative? We either let superpowers carve up the world, or we pretend every country gets to make its own choices—even though we know the strong will always try to control the weak?

Dillard: That's the paradox. If we let superpowers dominate their own regions, we're sacrificing the sovereignty of smaller countries. But if we try to make a world where every country is truly independent, we're inviting constant clashes between major powers.

You: So it's either empire or chaos?

Dillard: Pretty much. And the worst part? Even the empire option doesn't guarantee peace. Look at history—colonial empires, the Cold War, even today's U.S.-China rivalry. Superpowers don't just stay in their lanes. They're always competing, always looking for an advantage.

You: So even if we let Russia have its sphere, it wouldn't stop there. And if we let the U.S. dominate its half of the world, it wouldn't stop either.

Dillard: Exactly. The moment one power sees an opening to expand, it takes it. That's why these wars keep happening.

You: So what's the solution? If spheres of influence don't work, and total independence doesn't work, what's left?

Dillard: Honestly? I don't know. Maybe we're just stuck in this cycle forever. Or maybe the real answer is something we haven't figured out yet.

You: That's not very hopeful.

Dillard: No, but it's honest.

[Another pause. The café staff starts wiping down tables. It's late. The conversation has no easy conclusion, just like the world itself.]

Setting: The café staff is starting to wipe down tables, but you and Dillard are still deep in conversation, unwilling to let the discussion end just yet.

You: So really, this is a clash between realism and idealism, right? Realism says power is all that matters—superpowers dominate, smaller nations have to fall in line, and we just have to accept it. Idealism says we shouldn't accept it, that we can build a system where countries actually have sovereignty and international law means something.

Dillard: Exactly. Realists argue that power is the ultimate reality—countries will always act in their own interests, and if they have the strength to take something, they will. Idealists believe in things like self-determination, human rights, and a rules-based order.

You: And Ukraine is caught in between. On one side, the realists say, “Tough luck, Ukraine—you're in Russia's backyard, and you should have known better than to provoke them.” On the other side, idealists say, “Ukraine has every right to choose its own path, and Russia has no right to invade.”

Dillard: That's the dilemma. And both sides have a point. Realism explains why the war happened—Russia perceived a threat, so it acted. But idealism explains why it's wrong—because Ukraine is a sovereign nation and shouldn't be dictated to by Moscow.

You: So which side is right?

Dillard: That depends on what kind of world you think we live in. If you believe power is the only thing that matters, then realism is the way to go. If you believe in something bigger—morality, law, human dignity—then you lean toward idealism.

You: But if we accept realism, aren't we just justifying war, oppression, and empire?

Dillard: And if we accept pure idealism, aren't we ignoring the harsh reality of how the world actually works?

You: So do we just meet somewhere in the middle? Like, realism with some moral limits?

Dillard: Maybe. That's what most foreign policy really is—countries act in their own interests, but they also try to justify it with legal or moral arguments. Even the most powerful nations don't want to look like the bad guys.

You: Which means even realists have to pretend to be idealists.

Dillard: Exactly. No country ever says, “We're invading because we want more power.” They say, “We're defending our security” or “We're protecting human rights.” That tells you idealism still matters—even if it's just a cover story.

You: But that's just propaganda. If realists are right, then all the talk about justice and law is just a smokescreen for power.

Dillard: Not necessarily. Think about it—if power was all that mattered, why even bother with diplomacy, treaties, or international institutions? Clearly, countries do care about legitimacy, at least to some extent.

You: So maybe realism and idealism aren't totally separate. Maybe they're just different ways of looking at the same thing.

Dillard: That's possible. Maybe the world is mostly realist, but idealism is what keeps it from falling into total chaos. Maybe without some belief in law and justice, we'd just have endless wars of conquest.

You: So the question isn't whether realism or idealism is “right.” It's how much idealism we can inject into a realist world.

Dillard: That might be the best way to put it.

[The café staff gives you a look—it's time to leave. As you and Dillard step outside, the night air is cool, and the city is quiet. The conversation isn't over, but for now, it's enough to think about.]

Setting: The two of you step out of the café into the quiet city streets. The neon glow of streetlights flickers on the pavement. The debate isn't over—it's just shifting locations.

You: So let's be honest, Joe. You're seen as a Putin-lover, and I'm seen as a war-monger.

Dillard: (chuckles) And neither of us thinks that's fair.

You: Exactly. I don't want war—I just think Ukraine has the right to defend itself. And you're not some blind Putin apologist—you just think the West played a role in provoking this.

Dillard: Right. But that's the problem with debates like this. The second you question NATO's role, people assume you're cheering for Russia. And if you support Ukraine's right to fight, people assume you want endless war.

You: But isn't there some truth to both sides? I do think Russia is responsible for this war. And you do think NATO expansion played a role.

Dillard: Of course. But nuance doesn't sell. People want clear villains and heroes.

You: And that's why we're stuck. Because if you criticize Ukraine or the West, you're “pro-Putin.” And if you say Russia is the aggressor, you're a “war hawk.”

Dillard: Yep. And it's the same in Russia, by the way. If you criticize the war there, you're a “Western agent.”

You: So basically, no one wants to admit that reality is complicated.

Dillard: Because once you do, you can't just rely on easy slogans. You actually have to think.

You: (laughs) And thinking is hard.

Dillard: Exactly. It's easier to pick a side and stick to it. No room for doubt, no room for debate.

You: But we need debate. Because if we don't ask hard questions, how do we ever get to the truth?

Dillard: We don't. We just pick our team and shout at each other.

You: And meanwhile, Ukraine keeps burning.

Dillard: And people keep dying.

You: So what do we do?

Dillard: Keep talking. Keep thinking. And refuse to let the world shove us into one camp or the other.

You: Agreed.