If people want to discuss climate change or global populations start another thread.
You are venturing down two paths that really upset the Moderators: politics and politics. Don't bother going there again because it is against the rules and the Moderators will be not be kind and considerate about it.Also, there is the absurdity of not discussing population growth when it comes to global emissions and climate change. Nobody dares to mention the elephant in the room, because Europeans are too afraid to say anything bad about Africa, since they don’t want to be acused of being racists.
One thought though. Isn't is western might too? I would argue that with the level of support for Ukraine, the west is very much applying their might here, just not as directly as they would if they were involved themselves. We know Ukraine would have exhausted their supplies and ran out of money a long time ago if it hadn't been for the massive influx of western money, weapons, and supplies We also know that intelligence support from the west is crucial.In truth, these words are devoid of meaning. Where, for instance, is the ICC warrant for George Bush Jr? It is an intriguing question, for one could argue that American interventions in the Middle East created a power vacuum, ultimately leading to the rise of ISIS and the displacement of millions who sought refuge in Europe at tremendous cost to their host countries. Consider also the millions of Afghan refugees, some of whom are my colleagues here in Sweden. Yet despite the millions affected by these policies, and the many closeted racists (who would naturally love to see less of the refugees) who support anti-immigration parties across Europe, I remain perplexed (with a hint of sarcasm) at the lack of concrete steps taken by the EU to hold American officials and the US economy accountable. The contrast with the enthusiastic embrace of white, Christian refugees from Ukraine, whose flags now fly in major city squares from Lisbon to Warsaw, offers a sobering view of the world in which we live.
There is also the question of what, exactly, countries that "take sides" and sanction Russia would gain. Would the world suddenly become free from Western military interventions? It seems unlikely. Too often, and well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, international law has proven to be nothing more than ink on paper.
I have said this before and will say it again: might makes right. The crux of the issue, however, is that this time, it is not the West's might that determines what is right.
Although all of this is true, I would argue that Russian incompetence, primarily at the political level, followed by their military leadership, is the main cause of the battlefield difficulties they are currently experiencing. One does not need to be a 5-star general to recognize that there is something seriously wrong when a military, backed by a budget ranging from $120 to $200 billion, measured in PPP, is unable to do better than a WWI-style trench warfare against one of Europe's poorest and most corrupt countries (although apparently not as corrupt as Russia).One thought though. Isn't is western might too? I would argue that with the level of support for Ukraine, the west is very much applying their might here, just not as directly as they would if they were involved themselves. We know Ukraine would have exhausted their supplies and ran out of money a long time ago if it hadn't been for the massive influx of western money, weapons, and supplies We also know that intelligence support from the west is crucial.
I would be very careful about believing in Russian incompetence on the battlefield. The stupid leaders in combat generally die and are replaced by experienced new leaders who have been taught on the battlefield. Russia still has the potential to cause havoc with conventional weapons. Never underestimate an enemy. History is replete with national leaders and commanders who have done that and pid the price.Although all of this is true, I would argue that Russian incompetence, primarily at the political level, followed by their military leadership, is the main cause of the battlefield difficulties they are currently experiencing. One does not need to be a 5-star general to recognize that there is something seriously wrong when a military, backed by a budget ranging from $120 to $200 billion, measured in PPP, is unable to do better than a WWI-style trench warfare against one of Europe's poorest and most corrupt countries (although apparently not as corrupt as Russia).
Who said that Ukraine is a client state of the imperialist west? Ukraine actually asked for the west's help.That being said, the West's might has clearly failed to prevent its client state from being destroyed and dismantled, and even with all of their shortcomings, it seems unlikely that Russia will be completely expelled from the territory of Ukraine.
As correctly pointed out by others, Ukraine would have run out of money and supplies, had it not been for the substantial inflow of Western aid, weaponry, and resources. This dependency on the West has made Ukraine rely on them for her political, economic, and military well-being, and has also given the West considerable influence in determining the allocation and utilization of these resources. It is a textbook example of a client state, regardless of whether the client state had requested it or not.Ukraine actually asked for the west's help.
A client state of the West or a client of the Putin crime family, I am pretty sure the average Ukrainian would prefer the former alternative.As correctly pointed out by others, Ukraine would have run out of money and supplies, had it not been for the substantial inflow of Western aid, weaponry, and resources. This dependency on the West has made Ukraine rely on them for her political, economic, and military well-being, and has also given the West considerable influence in determining the allocation and utilization of these resources. It is a textbook example of a client state, regardless of whether the client state had requested it or not.
I dont understand the meaning of the post.As correctly pointed out by others, Ukraine would have run out of money and supplies, had it not been for the substantial inflow of Western aid, weaponry, and resources. This dependency on the West has made Ukraine rely on them for her political, economic, and military well-being, and has also given the West considerable influence in determining the allocation and utilization of these resources. It is a textbook example of a client state, regardless of whether the client state had requested it or not.
My point was addressing @ngatimozart comment which is a continuation of my answer and remarks to @FeanorWhat exactly is you point?
At no point did I call any participating side imperialist or implied any type of personal gain or similar motives. Please refrain from fabricating and putting words in my mouth.So, If your point is just to say that " the imperialist west " is doing so because of personal gain and not because of " pietas "... Well congrats you discovered hot water...
This is obviously true and besides my point.A client state of the West or a client of the Putin crime family, I am pretty sure the average Ukrainian would prefer the former alternative.
I believe there is a misunderstanding on what these "frozen Russian assets" mean.To use frozen Russian assets would be a huge mistake from a long-term economic point of view.
The EU should, actually, encourage all the Russian citizens that left Russia during this year and have any skill to move to Europe and work there.
Exactly like what we are doing with Ukrainians, that are now a very important part of EU workforce and are mitigating the demographic problem.
To use frozen assets would be extremely dangerous, instead we should encourage those who want and meet the requirements, to switch to our side.
This could also help, as it is happening with other immigrants, to make European population homogeneous and strengthen a European belonging sense...
Ok but for clarity's sake, Russia is definitely pursuing an imperialist foreign policy. This is not new, and did not start with this war. Much of the same could be said for certain western countries, whether or not they are acting in that capacity in this conflict.My point was addressing @ngatimozart comment which is a continuation of my answer and remarks to @Feanor
At no point did I call any participating side imperialist or implied any type of personal gain or similar motives. Please refrain from fabricating and putting words in my mouth.
I agree with that. Stealing a country’s assets would be a very dangerous precedent that will have severe consequences for future economic relations between countries.It is extremely dangerous to use another state's assets because by doing so the rest of the world, which is not necessarily your friend, will think twice before buying or having money in your banks.
One should never steal. However if the legal basis is shown to be solid it would not be stealing. I will try to explain with a simple example:I agree with that. Stealing a country’s assets would be a very dangerous precedent that will have severe consequences for future economic relations between countries.
This presupposes a government with lawful authority to do so. On the international stage there is no lawful government. It's more like some of the neighbors get together and using their domestic house rules seize assets that the individual stored in their basement under some agreement.One should never steal. However if the legal basis is shown to be solid it would not be stealing. I will try to explain with a simple example:
Imagine a person is breaking into his neighbor's house, ruining the house, killing some of those living there, stealing lots of stuff and then leaves. The authorities freezes the person's assets, and a judge is ordering him to pay to repair the house he ruined. He refuses. The judge then orders the authorities to use the frozen assets to pay for restoring the house that was ruined. Would you call this "stealing" from the person who ruined the house, but refuse to pay for the damages?
As for setting a precedent: It would be a positive precedent if it is has a solid legal basis and if one can explain that this is what happens when somebody is launching an unprovoked, unjustified, illegal war of aggression on a neighboring country, and only then. Don't launch an unprovoked, unjustified, illegal war, and your assets will be safe.
At one point in the not too distant past there were no lawful authority anywhere... Thank God that did not stop people from trying, and in the end, after centuries (if not millennia) they succeeded, meaning that in most countries you can walk down the street and feel quite safe.This presupposes a government with lawful authority to do so. On the international stage there is no lawful government. It's more like some of the neighbors get together and using their domestic house rules seize assets that the individual stored in their basement under some agreement.