Peter wrote:
And only rich countries can afford to impose sanctions.
Hence not-so welcoming reaction of thirld world countries to US threatening secondary sanctions.
The West is doing a lot of things that are not helping its case … but is mostly arrogantly blind to it.
Esteban, no GA contributions, but always pops up here, and eventually ensures the thread gets locked.
Capitaine wrote:
The short answer is the West alienated a lot of the world through hypocrisy (perceived and real), including selective military intervention and selective foreign aid. There’s some interesting facts, e.g. the poorest countries take 80% of the world’s refugees
We are all only humans after all. Blood is thicker than water etc. What happens in the close vicinity, or sometimes to us personally, is much more important to us than what happens far away in countries we hardly ever hear about. I bet those living in those countries think exactly the same way and have no emotional attachments to anyone in particular.
The war in Ukraine (and the inevitable reaction and only solution) is pretty good described by the lyrics in the song Krigsgaldr by Heilung. As soon as the war was a fact, this song came to my mind.
…
What am I supposed to do
If I want to talk about peace and understanding
But you only understand the language of the sword?
What if I want to make you understand that the path you chose leads to downfall
But you only understand the language of the sword
What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace
But you only understand the language of the sword
I let the blade do the talking
So my tongue shall become iron and my words the mighty roar of war
…
Here is the song in full (live). Don’t watch it if you don’t mean it 
Heilung is a pretty special band, you might get hooked…
Capitaine wrote:
It’s very much the big picture, and maybe worth a skim-read. I don’t agree with some of the arguments, but the overall message is good: Western governments should frame the conflict as one between the rule of law and impunity or between law and anarchy rather than one that pits democracy against autocracy. Such an approach has many advantages. It correctly locates democracy among a range of methods for the promotion of accountability and the curbing of the abuse of power. It broadens the potential coalition of support. It tests China at its weakest point because China claims to support a rules-based international system. It also sounds less self-regarding, which is important given the obvious problems plaguing many liberal democracies. A coalition built around the need for international rules is far more likely to be broader than one based on calls for democracy. To defend the rule of law, however, Western countries must abide by it and subscribe to it.
I’m afraid even if that happens, the horse’s has already bolted – all previous examples of questionable use of force by “The West” are being used now as a justification for subsequent conflicts by other countries.
“I’m doing what the country X was doing N years ago. Get over it.”
What the West has done in recent decades is nothing compared to what Russia is doing today in Ukraine, today and every day, every week…
Peter wrote:
What the West has done in recent decades is nothing compared to what Russia is doing today in Ukraine, today and every day, every week…
I think that’s what Milliband was talking about – that it is your eyes; in the eyes of a common Iraqi citizen it would be different.
The problem of an “easy solution” (using military force) – you create a cookbook that can be used by anyone else, as long as they have enough military power and/or nukes.
There are multiple differences.
One being the US military action was not targeting civilians. Sure they did get some (arguably largely due to human shield usage) but nothing like what Russia is doing, intentionally, every day.
But a bigger one is that Ukraine, like Iraq, have a UN recognised border, and the US never tried to eliminate that. That is the post-WW2 world order…
And that is why Ukraine is getting a lot of support – which 100% correlates with those who don’t need Russian money. Some of them know they will be next. US nukes won’t protect them (everybody has always known that).
Milliband was never any good even when he had a proper job But Blair, who was also never any good when he had a proper job, is now making 40M/year for speaking engagements and “consultancy” to various large customers of Harrods, and of Swiss Banks.
Peter wrote:
There are multiple differences.
Of course there are differences (both ways, I’d say). But that matters very little in how the average guy in Iraq, or South Africa for that part, perceives the war in Ukraine.
arj1 wrote:
I think that’s what Milliband was talking about – that it is your eyes; in the eyes of a common Iraqi citizen it would be different.
So what? The Iraqi citizens are very, very far from being one homogenous bunch with one single view of the world around them. Another issue here is that an oppressive government will always force their view on the citizens. Doing this over a generation or more, and the general view of those citizens means very little to us (sad but true). Besides, I don’t think we (in the west) perceive what is going on in Ukraine as a fight between democracy and autocracy (although Putin himself certainly doesn’t help preventing such a view This is also what this in reality will eventually will become, if it hasn’t already) Most people still see it as an invasion and terror acts of a free and independent country and people, against everything the UN stands for.
I’m a simple man. There is only so far you can stretch excusing pure terror acts by explanations and theoretical musings of “history and international politics”. IMO Putin has made it clear that the only language he speaks is “the language of the sword”. If people in Argentina doesn’t see it that way, or care at all, is very irrelevant to us. This is an interesting thing actually, and is discussed in the Norwegian media. Norway has always had a OK/good relationship with Russia/USSR. There was the cold war, but even that didn’t destroy the relationship (peaceful co-settlement on Svalbard for instance in the midst of the cold war, which is severely odd when thinking about it). Finland has a very different history with Russia, and has had a fundamentally different view of how Russia/USSR in fact is. The Norwegian “official view” was that Russian aggression could be explained/excused in the usual way (Russia has the right to protect itself from the west). Finland had no such delusions. They have always said that Russia only understand one particular language. As resent history now has shown, and is showing, Finland has been right all along, and we have wrong.
Also, democracy and freedom is a fragile thing. Most people in the world don’t have it. What they feel and mean i irrelevant right now.
Of course there are differences (both ways, I’d say). But that matters very little in how the average guy in Iraq, or South Africa for that part, perceives the war in Ukraine.
Sure, and a Martian would care even less. And countries likely to be directly affected by a Russian victory in Ukraine don’t need to care about what a Martian thinks about it.
IMO Putin has made it clear that the only language he speaks is “the language of the sword”. If people in Argentina doesn’t see it that way, or care at all, is very irrelevant to us.
Exactly. I think if you live in Argentina. your primary job is to feed your family, and Europe is just some place far away which you could not find on a map. It was the same in WW2; it affected a very small area of the globe.
