|
| Thread: Putin's n1 opposition gunned down in the streets. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted March 11, 2015 11:35 PM |
|
|
To some extent, localized problems ought to be dealt with by locals. The main reason being that social change/development is not in anyway analogous to, say, infrastructure development, where you build a bridge, and suddenly there's improved transit and job growth between both sides of the river. Social change can be passively influenced through news, trade, etc., but if you don't allow social change to be spearheaded internally, it usually just creates more problems than solutions, since the population might not be ready for it.
On the other hand, I don't see why belonging to X nation-state means that any and all problems that affect that nation-state should be solely solved by that nation-state, and that any interference from the outside is unethical or bad policy. Even American independence was sealed thanks to international interference by the French. There are many dictators that wish a political philosophy of non-interference were obeyed, but I think most people acknowledge that we are all socially & economically interconnected as human beings and that it is perfectly normal - and preferable - for us to be obnoxious to each other and not mind our own business because there's a line on the map that says so. I mean, considering - if nothing else - the economic recession and refugees it was triggering, would anybody honestly expect the West to sit there whistling to itself and remain uninvolved with the Yugoslavian Civil War forever? To a lesser degree, it was their business to get involved.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2015 06:08 AM |
|
|
|
And the Serbs will remember that forever.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 12, 2015 09:12 AM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
This somewhat breaches into a broader question of political philosophy that expands beyond Russia-Ukraine, but if you could try to concisely summarize: why should Ukrainians have sole self-determination over Ukraine? (i.e. this resonates with the political worldview that individuals/countries are "islands") To what extent should self-determination be honored? What would be your definition of an American or Russian "agent"?
Let's put it like that: intervention costs money. Money don't grow on trees. When you spend money for something, you expect some immediate or future benefits in return, or you just do it for charity's sake. One of the axioms in international relations is that charity does not exist between states. Therefore, when your country intervenes (i.e. spends money) in the domestic affairs of another country, the only reason why it would do so would be to gain benefits for itself. In certain scenarios the interests of the intervening country might coincide with some of the interests of the country that is the object of the intervention but they never meet completely, especially if the cost of the intervention is way higher for one of the two sides. If that's too tiresome for you, you can also read it like this - no bloody state on this planet will do something out of selflessness and each and every one puts its own interests first (except when the state is run by government which is effectively some other state's puppet).
Putting the above in Ukraine's context, it seems incredibly naive to think that the US cares about the democracy and well-being of a former Soviet state which has no importance for it other than its position and possibly its resources. Russia also doesn't care about Ukraine further than the concerns for its own security and the economic issues that come along with the loss of another friendly state that is used for transit of resources to Europe among other things. The Ukrainians themselves are between the hammer and the anvil of a geopolitical game but from their own perspective (or, in their own interest) what the US or Russia want comes second to what they want. Or that is how it should be, at the moment they are being brainwashed to choose sides, none of which is theirs.
An "agent" in the sense of my previous post is someone who works directly for the interests of another country. Whether because he or she is bought or because he or she is just stupid idealist is not relevant. Ultimately such a person cannot fulfill the interests of his/her own people.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 12, 2015 05:14 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
...Even American independence was sealed thanks to international interference by the French.
I certainly agree with the spirit of your post but I don't think that it's that easy. The French fleet off Yorktown was critical for the British surrender then and there but think back to Valley Forge. No one helped Washington and the men.
French support just like Zeno just wrote had a strong separate motive; as a fact, they had always used outside conflicts for their own war strategy against the English. i.e. the Scots and the Welsh, centuries before.
<imo> (and arguably) it was the Prussian General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben that did the most for us; he trained our army. But even with his effort and some assistance from the French Fleet, the Revolution was actually a never say die Civil War which lasted 7? years.
And don't forget the planets were aligning and Napoleon's star was on the rise.  The French fought the English for a long time before our war and did so for a long time to come. In fact our new government went through a very long period of heated internal debates because some thought "we owed them something" and others believed "we did not have the strength to help" at that time. This situation is what Washington was thinking about when he put it in his farewell address of 1796 and warned of "the dangers of foreign intrigue."
I think what enabled our winning independence was the bitter endless struggle between France and England. Had they been at Peace? England would have disposed of us in short order, even with the Prussian general.
When I reflect on all this and then think about Ukraine, I realize there is not one Washington there but two. For that comparison to work well I think there would have to be a Crown-General leading half the continental militias and based in like New York, in addition to the English and French forces. But I could be wrong, not feeling too well these days, so my brain is a tad muddled. 
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 13, 2015 02:48 AM |
|
|
France didn't do a whole lot in the grand scheme of the war, but they didn't really need to. It's not as though Britain was out of soldiers; if they were prepared for more casualties they could have theoretically kept hammering the American colonies with additional waves of troops along with better adapting to the tactics that were being used against them, but once another major power's navy entered the scene, that idea was apparently scrapped. That's the benefit - to the present day and beyond - of a "high and mighty" country involving itself with a weaker country. The simple act of them getting involved can be enough for the factions to either bargain a peace or make a swift conclusion to whatever conflict is going on. You make a bid that drastically ups the stakes, and the other person bows out.
It goes without saying that these interactions are not going to be purely out of benevolence (though benevolence can have something to do with it). Relationships are highly complex and driven by many motivators, but there is no requirement for perfect intentions in order to pull off a positive outcome. You work with what you got.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
