You take that back
3 Likes
you can still see economic inequalities between west and east germany
Should we sign up Jamaica? Is there a cost - risk benefit to signing countries to a red line defense pact?
Maybe propaganda but could be true. If so it shows how deep the internal dissent for this war goes in Russia.
I am afraid Putin will up his gadooshing of his own people if he continues to be frustrated and obstructed.
Why wouldn’t we? This is my point, it’s either ok to invade independent sovereign nations or it’s not. The current status creates a class of countries that the international community says you can’t invade and a second class of nations that it’s ok to invade.
1 Like
If you know of any Poles in their 50s and 60s who were there in the 80s and through the transition they’ll tell you exactly what Victor said. Appeal to somethingsomething I know.
I’m not arguing or stating communism in the mid 20th century was the best political system for maximum economic standing in 2022. Facepalm yourself, good sir.
1 Like
i think jamaica doesn’t meet the military spending requirements. they’d be in otherwise
I think having as many nations involved as possible should be the top goal, and making concessions on military spending for those nations who don’t have the means or haven’t traditionally had a large military should be made to achieve this goal. Ultimately the more nations involved, the less military spending should be required.
Fair enough. But doesn’t nato have a more narrow purpose as it’s mission?
Also I am not sure their working plan is protecting all nations who can’t protect themselves. Pragmatically NATO needs countries who can contribute troops and arms in times of conflict. If a country can’t provide that to a high degree but also runs a risk of invasion, they are not going to be seen as an enticing addition.
Again, I don’t think nato ever said it’s mission was to protect the whole world. It is focused on a pretty specific part of the world with US backing,
I don’t oppose a global anti invasion pact, it would be awesome but you won’t get everyone on board, but could still protect many other countries. Unfortunately the powers that be have no interest in that.
PLUS that just amplifies the US in that hated role as the world’s police.
i grew up in ussr in the 80s. we indeed envied polish and czech and hungarian standards of living. you were a cool kid if you snagged a Kohinoor pencil!
the reality is that the economy went through a contraction and then an expansion once the “protective hand” of communist russia was removed. trust me my parents are of that generation, this isn’t some a “boomer has a point” revelation. it is just selective memory.
5 Likes
spending concessions are made all the time. i believe montenegro was let in under 2%. of course there’s the trmp scandal.
what you are describing is a UN but for military branches. which i think is great! except didn’t you also complain how the UN is ineffective and powerless?
Just like everyone knows that Jews are cheap, the Irish are drunks, Asians are terrible drivers, etc…
2 Likes
Go back to my original post on this. I don’t care what NATO’s current focus is. My whole point is our existing international communities and governing bodies are awful. They have created the situation where Russia was able to invade Ukraine and know that it wouldn’t draw in other countries. The international community decided that Ukraine was a second class nation not worthy of protection from invasion.
These are the sort of questions the UN should be tackling if it was actually an effective body. The fact that they aren’t is the reason that we have countries end up at war with each other. They are the reason the entire world wastes an unbelievable amount of resources on killing machines.
4 Likes
yes, the modicum of truth is a part of how propaganda works. the point of propaganda is to seep into everything, even the academic circles of very serious foreign policy professors.
have you read/watched any content by News Corp lately? been recommended any prager clips by an algorithm?
1 Like
It’s not a lack of international leadership or organization that lead to conflict. It’s that getting dozens of countries to agree on anything, especially stopping an aggressor is hard. You can draft resolutions, have conferences and votes but in the real world you actually need swift action.
If you get swift action, you then have to be prepared for the consequences.
There is no good way to deal with a strong, aggressive militarized nation bent on acquiring territory.
It’s actually very disputable that Western military assistance is part of what motivated the Russian invasion. They want control over Ukraine, so they’re trying to impose that control by invading. At least, that’s a perfectly reasonable explanation.
1 Like
So if I repeat the true part that Russian propaganda also says, I’m repeating Russian propaganda?
You do a really really good job of echoing it for someone doing it via happenstance.
8 Likes