Operant Conditioning in Psychology,
the theory advanced by B. F. Skinner in the 1930s, holds that punishment and
reinforcement can change behavior. Positive reinforcement is more likely than
punishment to see a given behavior repeated. With regard to the U.S.-Russian
plan announced in November, 2025, to end the war in Ukraine, E.U. officials were
concerned that if Russia would benefit from the plan, Putin would be more
likely to stage other invasions in Eastern Europe. Positive reinforcement financially
could make invading profitable, a point that would not be lost on government
officials of countries desirous of territorial expansion.
At an international security
conference held in Canada on November 22, 2025, some U.S. senators voiced
concern that the plan worked out by Trump and Putin would reward aggression. U.S.
Sen. Agnus King said as much during a panel discussion. The proposed plan,
which the government of Ukraine was considering at the time, “rewards
aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political
justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine.”[1]
Sen. McConnell, a former Majority Leader, put out a statement on the dangers of
Putin viewing the plan as a win for him.
Besides what future responses
Putin might have to the positive reinforcement in having gained territory in eastern
Ukraine, the moral question of whether invaders should be rewarded politically
and even financially for going to war seems simple enough, especially as it can
be argued that a moral duty exists for every other government around the world
to make Putin and Russia pay for having invaded Ukraine. As E.U. President Von
der Leyen said, might should no longer be allowed to be the decider of rights
to territory.
The switch from Russia paying a price to gaining financially (in additional to territorially) was apparent from the E.U.’s vantage-point concerning that Union’s plan to make Russia pay literally for Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction from the Russian financial assets blocked then in Europe. “In a dramatic reversal for the EU, the US-led plan suggests the Russian assets would be unblocked, releasee, and turned into an investment platform handled by [the U.S.]. The language implies the Kremlin would not only be spared from paying war damages in a future settlement but also benefit commercially.”[2] Two separate funds would be created from the €300 billion in “the immobilised assets of the Russian Central Bank.”[3] One fund would “finance Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction and another [fund] shared by the US and Russia [would] develop ‘joint projects in specific areas’”, with both Russia and the US getting the profits.[4]
That part of the American-Russian plan for peace directly contradicts the Von der Leyen’s position that Russia should not benefit from having invaded another country in Europe. Absent a strong UN that could have acted so as to remove the Russians from Ukrainian territory (and the Israelis from Gaza), relying on disincentives so Putin (and Netanyahu) and any other officials of other governments would think twice before sending troops out. If Putin’s government is allowed to profit and gain additional territory by invading Ukraine, which the internally-weakened E.U. seemed powerless to prevent in 2025, then the fact that both Putin and Netanyahu “won” at the expense of Ukraine and Gaza even in terms of profits from investments is itself a good argument that a stronger international order was needed to stave off the worst that goes with absolutist national-sovereignty.
Put another way, with the E.U. hampered by the state-vetoes
in the European Council and the Council of the E.U., and with the international
organizations such as the UN without any governmental sovereignty whatsoever, a
world in which so much harm has been unleased by national governments with utter
impunity and even positive reinforcements may need a world federation as Kant advocated.
Such a global body would have to be capable militarily of removing an invader and
stopping a genocide, rather than merely delivering humanitarian aid to
civilians.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
