Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

Mailman

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
183
Nation of residence
Estonia
Nation of origin
Estonia
Not saying that your lists are wrong, but I refuse, the underlying reasons why Ukraine war is somewhat more important to the West is

1. It happens right at European doorsteps
2. The victim looks like you and shares your lifestyle and culture.

When early in the war, the world (means the West) were shocked at Russia finally doing it, many media were shocked to the fact that Ukraine, a civilized country were being invaded. I remember one TV station (iirc CN*C) pundit saying it this way :

" The Ukrainians aren't like anything out there,....they're civilized, they drove cars just like ours here..."

There are many examples of apathetic Western exceptionalism if you look closely, and most comes down to cultural and race.
That is one possible but clearly inclined point of view. Agree with the first point, only lightly with the second one. Europe does carry sins because of colonisation policy they carried out for big part of the last millenia, thus dividing people into better ones (colonisers) and not so good ones (the rest). Xenofobia is also a important aspect but hereby we are equal. People in any country tend to reject influence of foreign culture, it is natural instinct, applied on culture and race both.

I have been in Indonesia and being laughed over just because of my lighter skin. I do not take it as an example of racism rahter than surprise of youngster to meet person with other colour of skin. We are humans, we have flaws we must accept it as a part of reality and blame noone for that.
So no Ukraine war is not a different phenomenon to any country out thee, just the size and complexity. And countries wishing to stay neutral are not to be blamed here.

Off course in the ideal world, I would like all UN participant to condemn Russia, but nothing is ideal in this world.
Agreed.
Which is an order created by the West, countries which is no winners/losers in this order has every right to stay neutral
Well, as long as West is not to be blamed about everything regarding problems in international relations. You know, there are other countries too, trying to influence the situation.
Yes, the word here is "must be democratic"... if not they deserve destruction the way Iraq or Libya does.
In what way is Europe accountable for Muammar Gaddafi failed ruling experience, resulting the First Libyan Civil war? What it all has to do with "being democratic"?

Being democratic by large means not being so agressive against neighbours. This is because people in general do not want to sacrify themselves in order to gain some extra political power. This is usually the ambition of their leaders and what the democracy (demos kratos in greek language, meaning peoples power) offers is stability. One cannot tell who is the next leader, but most certanly can tell what is the politics of this country after the elections. In case of authocratic countries one knows exactly who is going to be the next leader, but no one can tell what will be the political decisions in the future.

So the sign "democratic" means something like quality mark of country leadership. Yes, democracy has it's own flaws and America is the example of agressive foreign policy (Iraq case) and so forth . Democratic countries are interested of wellbeing of their citizens contrary of Russians, who are interested of richness of other nations. Who has given Ukrainians the right to live so well?!?? (this was the line written by Russian soldier in the wall of one occupied Ukrainian village). Why Russia is not using its wast natural resources to live as well, I want to ask? More importantly, why do you, Russians, let yourself to treat like that? Choose a good leadership for your country and soon you will live better, I promise.

Still, how Libya is relevant example in this context, I do not get it.
Sometimes, look close enough you can see similarity in the perception of that of China/Russia and the collective West when it comes to people around them. The only difference here is what is deemed precious for each side of the party.
That is bad indeed, but at least we try. The man has to believe in something. As soon as one thinks about himself that killing is normal, then he enters into another moral dimension. If everybody kills, the only option is to kill others before they kill you, right?
Geopolitical importance to West/Europe =/= geopolitical importance for the rest of the world. Ukraine might be a big deal for some countries national security, while for others, its just another war which we have no idea of.
Ah, precisely! Why should we care, if... And yet you do, but only from self-interest position. West must take all the blame, but me- I prefer not to, because my country is small and insignificant and nobody cares anyway... Hey, you have a word to say and responsibility to use it for benefit of others too.
Here in Indonesia, I still eat the way I eat.. rice is quite plenty, chilli is a little expensive...but we don't have a fear of food shortage anytime soon.
Good for you. Enyoi the good weather and rich nature the geographical location has provided or you. The rest of us must struggle much more to keep the food on table. I was amazed to learn that Bali traditional calendar has 12 months but 5 weeks in a year. The end of year is moving because it does not matter much what time of year it is. One can grow a crop any time of year, try to do it in Estonia in winter. You will be starving until death quickly.
 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,252
Reactions
68 7,921
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
I am still amazed from the sheer amount of expectations toward US and then toward Europe. Yes, we could do, perhaps, something about it, but it is damn costly for us too. If developing countries want to get such kind of global social security service, it is about the time to discuss this. UN is going to be reformed in close future because it failed to avoid such wars or preserve international order in broader sense. The war in Ukraine delivers this critical message. Please remember, it has price tag on it.
There is no expectation, I am just stating facts as neutral statement not to do moral judgment.

What western alliances is doing for Ukraine, by and large they are doing it for their own security and geopolitical interests. And that is very natural, everybody does it.

I am not asking for global security service. I am just pointing out, there is none.

So for rest of the world, Ukraine war is just like another war in this perspective.
It doesn’t add any new dimension to our national security or insecurity.
 
Last edited:

Mailman

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
183
Nation of residence
Estonia
Nation of origin
Estonia
Don't get me wrong, I respect your view as a living insider from ex-Soviet states, but for Indonesian context (and the likes of many cold war battlefields), the way I saw it (the Cold war) is just brothers against brothers fighting with their faraway masters order. And in the end the masters of that order doesn't even reward their dogs.



There's a saying for this:

Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”


I'm 50/50 with this. The Germans treat the refugee quite nicely, but some like the Eastern Europeans literally put humans in cages and set up hunting dogs...to hunt people.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not siding 100% with refugees, if the Syrians used the same amount of efforts they use to get into Europe, Assad might be overthrown by now. But they choose to fled.



Taking refugee is not just a European thing, when Spain is busy with their expulsion of jews (and muslims), it was the Ottoman muslims that cater them...does this translate into gratitude centuries later ?

Europe preach, they must exercise what they preached...Universal human right, treatment of the weak...isn't this what people claimed to be part of European values ?



The problem for stand alone countries (the likes of you and mine) is the cost of doing such...you see there's a differing mathematics when it comes to cost benefit analysis that when it comes to the West is completely fine but is a matter of deep geopolitcal risks to the others.

If Europe criticize, condemn or even punish Russia, they're doing this knowing that they have each others back when shit comes to shove.

I give you one example...


For the Europeans/West and many out there this is the big proof of Lithuania bravery that counterweight its tiny size with gigantic hears and courage able to do what other larger nations can't.
But it just happens that brave Lithuania, is doing this in the safety of NATO and EU umbrella (EU has its own mutual defense treaty) and from thousands of Km away. And they know Germany will bankroll them.

There's a saying :
Its easy to be brave when you know nothing will hurt you
The rest of the world doesn't have luxury of NATO article 5 or EU article 42.7 to play hero the like of Lithuania.

Its very easy to condemn Putin in the UN, just direct the nations UN reps to push the condemn button and wallaaaa...but in the end there's no reward for doing this and we have made a problem with Russia in the long run. Some of these countries are even dependant on Russia for their national security (arms imports)Very good.
Ukrainians got that, tried to change that and got attacked.They learned their lesson, bit late though, but got it right- try to get into some club that respects your values and your country will become safer. Different math, like you said it. Why does Indonesia want to be alone in this non-ideal world, despite the rice is growing year around?
 

Mailman

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
183
Nation of residence
Estonia
Nation of origin
Estonia
There is no expectation, I am just stating facts as neutral statement not to do moral judgment.

What western alliances is doing for Ukraine, by and large they are doing it for their own security and geopolitical interests. And that is very natural, everybody does it.

I am not asking for global security service. I am just pointing out, there is none.

So for rest of the world, Ukraine war is just like another war in this perspective.
It doesn’t add any new dimension to our national security or insecurity.
On the contrary, you should ask for it. Ask for better international order, ask for better quarantees for small countries. We will back you, because we are small countries like Bangladesh. Unity is the key here, despite what you are expressing. UN is the organisation which we can address such matters. Bangladesh is a subject of international relations, not an object of it. Sooner you realize it, sooner you will gain the authority and ability to stand up rof yourself.

If I may- try to get rid of binding agreements with Russia and do not accept new ones from China or America or whatever country unless they really-really want to help you.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,116
Reactions
21 12,654
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
In what way is Europe accountable for Muammar Gaddafi failed ruling experience, resulting the First Libyan Civil war? What it all has to do with "being democratic"?


Being democratic by large means not being so agressive against neighbours. This is because people in general do not want to sacrify themselves in order to gain some extra political power. This is usually the ambition of their leaders and what the democracy (demos kratos in greek language, meaning peoples power) offers is stability. One cannot tell who is the next leader, but most certanly can tell what is the politics of this country after the elections. In case of authocratic countries one knows exactly who is going to be the next leader, but no one can tell what will be the political decisions in the future.

So the sign "democratic" means something like quality mark of country leadership. Yes, democracy has it's own flaws and America is the example of agressive foreign policy (Iraq case) and so forth . Democratic countries are interested of wellbeing of their citizens contrary of Russians,
True, but that sign of quality is what @contricusc 'distinguish' to be the hallmarks if a country get invaded or not. I mean, I'm fine if the West value democracy that much to the point that country they perceived as being un-democratic were to be given less exposure to the same kind of sympathy and assistance as democratic countries like Ukraine. But I'm also fine that 'half of the worlds populations' (this is big if true) doesn't agree with the same way of thoughts.

More importantly, why do you, Russians, let yourself to treat like that? Choose a good leadership for your country and soon you will live better, I promise.
I'm not Russian, ask @blackjack
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,252
Reactions
68 7,921
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
On the contrary, you should ask for it. Ask for better international order, ask for better quarantees for small countries. We will back you, because we are small countries like Bangladesh.
Yes, in an ideal world we all want a valid international security architecture for small countries.

I don't wanna sound too pessimistic, but to be honest, to achieve such goal it would take a long long journey For all of us.
UN is the organisation which we can address such matters.
I have to disagree, in its current form UN is almost useless to effectively adress such matter ( I mean, literally Russians were the president of UN security council the month they invaded Ukriane. What a disgrace and joke.)

Only way forward for UN to present itself as a credible world organization again is to reform itself.

Much more balanced power distribution ( in a democratic manner ) is needed to hold big powers accountable.

I can only hope, one day we will achieve it.
 

Mailman

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
183
Nation of residence
Estonia
Nation of origin
Estonia
Hmm, the first lines from that link are following:
"On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity' ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Muammar Gaddafi regime and its supporters."

"Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[43] but on 27 October, the Security Council unanimously voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October."

NATO implemented UN resolution, not started the Libyan Civil war. They left as soon as peace was restored. Still no clue about whate "being democratic" means in this case.

Again, should the West interviene or not? Please take a stand, it is kind of confusing for opponent to jump from the one corner to another.
True, but that sign of quality is what @contricusc 'distinguish' to be the hallmarks if a country get invaded or not. I mean, I'm fine if the West value democracy that much to the point that country they perceived as being un-democratic were to be given less exposure to the same kind of sympathy and assistance as democratic countries like Ukraine. But I'm also fine that 'half of the worlds populations' (this is big if true) doesn't agree with the same way of thoughts.
Please help me out from here. Hallmarks if a country get invaded or not? Iraq affensive was probably a big mistake from US side, but they had UN authorisation for that. Libya operation- UN authorised. Afghanistan operation kind of too. UN is formed not only by democratic countries, if I remember correctly.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,116
Reactions
21 12,654
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute 'crimes against humanity' ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Muammar Gaddafi regime and its supporters."

If this is the case there must be some sort of NATO no fly zone against the likes of Israel. But there's none.

What you see here, is intentional destruction of civillian properties, so why have I never seen any NATO military intervention in Israel ?


"Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[43] but on 27 October, the Security Council unanimously voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October."

NATO implemented UN resolution, not started the Libyan Civil war. They left as soon as peace was restored. Still no clue about whate "being democratic" means in this case.

Yes, the one's requesting NATO operation to be extended is "Libya's new government"

Imagine if Russian conquest is swift in Ukraine and "Ukraine's new government" request extension of Russian military presence ?
Again, should the West interviene or not? Please take a stand, it is kind of confusing for opponent to jump from the one corner to another.
I don't knw, maybe ask @contricusc ? He's the one who determine who gets invaded or not from his post.

Please help me out from here. Hallmarks if a country get invaded or not? Iraq affensive was probably a big mistake from US side, but they had UN authorisation for that.
Don't lie, they do not.

Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council.[59] Benjamin B. Ferencz wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.[60]
The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.[62][63] A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force". We note with "deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression".[63][64]


UN is formed not only by democratic countries, if I remember correctly.
But the final say, right or wrong, could be vetoed by the 5 .

C'mon we know this already
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,252
Reactions
68 7,921
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
If this is the case there must be some sort of NATO no fly zone against the likes of Israel. But there's none.

What you see here, is intentional destruction of civillian properties, so why have I never seen any NATO military intervention in Israel ?
Bro! Let's not even bring Israel into the conversation.

Didn’t you know that, 'they are the chosen people of god'

Earth's laws doesn't apply to them.
 

Mailman

Active member
Messages
99
Reactions
183
Nation of residence
Estonia
Nation of origin
Estonia
If this is the case there must be some sort of NATO no fly zone against the likes of Israel. But there's none.

What you see here, is intentional destruction of civillian properties, so why have I never seen any NATO military intervention in Israel ?




Yes, the one's requesting NATO operation to be extended is "Libya's new government"

Imagine if Russian conquest is swift in Ukraine and "Ukraine's new government" request extension of Russian military presence ?

I don't knw, maybe ask @contricusc ? He's the one who determine who gets invaded or not from his post.


Don't lie, they do not.

Iraq War had been begun by the U.S. without permission by the UN Security Council.[59] Benjamin B. Ferencz wrote the foreword for Michael Haas's book, George W. Bush, War Criminal?: The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes.[60]
The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.[62][63] A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force". We note with "deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression".[63][64]



But the final say, right or wrong, could be vetoed by the 5 .

C'mon we know this already
We are getting way beyond the theme of this forum thread. Wikipedia is also not the best source for such dispute. Can you or moderator point the better place for UN related discussion?
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,116
Reactions
21 12,654
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Bro! Let's not even bring Israel into the conversation.

Didn’t you know that, 'they are the chosen people of god'

Earth's laws doesn't apply to them.
Yet people are expecting all countries to play by the rules of the international order as if all people are the winners of this international order, even being neutral are called indecent. haha
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,410
Reactions
28 4,251
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The Russian Federation lost the largest tank battle of this war, - The New York Times.

It happened during the unsuccessful three-week assault on Ugledar. The Rashists lost more than 130 tanks and armored personnel carriers, the fields are literally littered with corpses and skeletons of burnt equipment.


KURAKHOVE, Ukraine — Before driving into battle in their mud-spattered war machine, a T-64 tank, the three-man Ukrainian crew performs a ritual.
The commander, Pvt. Dmytro Hrebenok, recites the Lord’s Prayer. Then, the men walk around the tank, patting its chunky green armor.
“We say, ‘Please, don’t let us down in battle,’” said Sgt. Artyom Knignitsky, the mechanic. “‘Bring us in and bring us out.’”
Their respect for their tank is understandable. Perhaps no weapon symbolizes the ferocious violence of war more than the main battle tank. Tanks have loomed over the conflict in Ukraine in recent months — militarily and diplomatically — as both sides prepared for offensives. Russia pulled reserves of tanks from Cold War-era storage, and Ukraine prodded Western governments to supply American Abrams and German Leopard II tanks.


The sophisticated Western tanks are expected on the battlefield in the next several months. The new Russian armor turned up earlier — and in its first wide-scale deployment was decimated.
A three-week battle on a plain near the coal-mining town of Vuhledar in southern Ukraine produced what Ukrainian officials say was the biggest tank battle of the war so far, and a stinging setback for the Russians.
In the extended battle, both sides sent tanks into the fray, rumbling over dirt roads and maneuvering around tree lines, with the Russians thrusting forward in columns and the Ukrainians maneuvering defensively, firing from a distance or from hiding places as Russian columns came into their sights.

When it was over, not only had Russia failed to capture Vuhledar, but it also had made the same mistake that cost Moscow hundreds of tanks earlier in the war: advancing columns into ambushes.


The Ministry of Defense stated the losses of the Russian army in February



Russia suffered huge losses in Ukraine

During the month, almost 1,100 units of weapons and military equipment of the Russian aggressors were destroyed.

In a full-scale war against Ukraine, the aggressor country Russia lost 21,470 troops in February. This was announced by the First Deputy Minister of Defense, Lieutenant General Alexander Pavlyuk in Telegram on Wednesday, March 1.



It is indicated that 1,093 pieces of weapons and military equipment of the aggressor were destroyed during the month.

Other combat losses of the Russians in February:

personnel 21470 people liquidated,

tanks - 186

armored combat vehicles - 256

artillery systems - 186

MLRS - 21

air defense systems - 26

aircraft - 7

helicopters - 4

UAV operational-tactical level - 104

cruise missiles - 77

ships / boats - 0

automotive equipment and tank trucks - 196

special equipment - 30.

As reported, during the day on February 28, the Armed Forces of Ukraine liquidated another 650 Russians. Seven enemy tanks and a dozen artillery systems were also destroyed. The total losses of the Russian Federation are approaching 150 thousand

IMG_20230301_163041_861.jpg
 
Last edited:

Dmitry

Committed member
Ukraine Correspondent
Messages
239
Reactions
4 841
Nation of residence
Ukraine
Nation of origin
Ukraine

In an Epic Battle of Tanks, Russia Was Routed, Repeating Earlier Mistakes​

A three-week fight in the town of Vuhledar in southern Ukraine produced what Ukrainian officials say was the biggest tank battle of the war so far, and a stinging setback for the Russians.


1677682348870.png


 

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
370
Reactions
1 566
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
Actually, neutrality does shield from certain problems. For example, in my country where energy is a problem right now we are close to ignite our first nuclear power plant, and It should take some pressure off. However the issue is, Russia is the builder and operator of the plant.
what if given our moral stance Russians decided to use some kind of delay tactic¿ It will only deepen the energy problem that we are already in.

Yes, in that case you are right that a tough stance on Russia could cause you problems. But if you dig deeper, you will see that the reason for this is previous decisions that favored cooperation with Russia in the first place.

I tell you from experience, working with the Russians is always a bad choice, as it keeps you dependent on them, and forces you to remain in their sphere of influence that guarantees poverty. Russia’s strategy towards its ”friends” is to keep them poor and weak. The sooner you break away from them, the better.

I agree, the best way to end current food/energy problem is to end the war.

And all the developing countries does support a quicker end to the conflict.

They support a quicker end of the conflict in theory only. In reality, the fact that they don’t support Ukraine only prolongs the war. Any “neutral” stance that doesn’t condemn Russia gives a little legitimacy and motivation for the Russians to continue their aggression and refuse to give up. If the entire world, including China and India, would have joined the Western sanctions on Russia, the war would have already been over by now.

The war drags on because Russia still has countries that are willing to cooperate and trade with it. The more Russia is isolated, the quicker the war will end.
 

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
370
Reactions
1 566
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
That is exactly where rest of us would disagree.
Where you see it as a breakdown of order and the growth of threat/risk for others small countries to be invaded in other part of the world if this Russian invasion goes unpunished, we see this concentration by trans Atlantic alliance to punish Russia ( in the name of liberty and justice and protecting the world order for all ) as a simple raw effort to protect their own geopolitical and security interest.

The territorial annexation, if allowed and accepted by the rest of the world, will create an incentive for dictators to invade neighboring countries. This is why this war is different. When Russia attacked Georgia, it didn’t annex its territory after Georgia capitulated. But now Russia is trying to annex parts of Ukraine. That cannot be allowed.

The fact that after the annexation of Crimea the world continued with business as usal is what caused the war we have now. By allowing Putin to annex Crimea, the world showed there is no problem with territorial annexation. This MUST be changed if we want to keep the stability we had in the last few decades.

Meaning, if tomorrow in some other parts of the world any invasion of an small country by a bigger aggressor were to occur, we wouldn’t even see 1/7 of the effort ( of what we saw in Ukraine ) to prevent it or punish the aggressor.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was a very big response and the aggressor was punished. The response was much stronger than in the case of Ukraine, as the US got directly involved in dealing with the aggressor. So there are times when the US helps an attacked country outside Europe.

Also, when Mali requested help from France in dealing with the terrorists in the north, France sent troops and drove back the terrorists into the desert.

Despite all the hate the US gets in most of the world, if it was not for the unipolar workd dominated by them, we would have a lot more conflict and instability everywhere.

Many people in Asia wish for the unipolar world order to change into a multi-polar world, where the US dominance is challenged and reduced. They should be careful what they wish, because if the US loses influence, we will have more conflicts, more absue and more poverty.
 

UkroTurk

Experienced member
Land Warfare Specialist
Professional
Messages
2,410
Reactions
28 4,251
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

In an Epic Battle of Tanks, Russia Was Routed, Repeating Earlier Mistakes​

A three-week fight in the town of Vuhledar in southern Ukraine produced what Ukrainian officials say was the biggest tank battle of the war so far, and a stinging setback for the Russians.


View attachment 54506

Interesting, using which weapon, AFU wasted those tanks?
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,252
Reactions
68 7,921
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, there was a very big response and the aggressor was punished. The response was much stronger than in the case of Ukraine, as the US got directly involved in dealing with the aggressor. So there are times when the US helps an attacked country outside Europe.

Also, when Mali requested help from France in dealing with the terrorists in the north, France sent troops and drove back the terrorists into the desert.
Us involvement in first gulf war and French involvement in Mali are for both countries own geopolitical and economic interest.
Despite all the hate the US gets in most of the world, if it was not for the unipolar workd dominated by them, we would have a lot more conflict and instability everywhere.

Many people in Asia wish for the unipolar world order to change into a multi-polar world, where the US dominance is challenged and reduced. They should be careful what they wish, because if the US loses influence, we will have more conflicts, more absue and more poverty.
It is no about wish. The reality is, in next 15/20 years the world will change drastically.

In Asia, even without counting China, there are some countries with large population that are on the process of becoming next economic powerhouse.

A multi-polar world order is a necessity. It is not something to do with the decline of US/west rather it has to do with the rise of other countries, Which now seems inevitable.
 

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
370
Reactions
1 566
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
2. The victim looks like you and shares your lifestyle and culture.

When early in the war, the world (means the West) were shocked at Russia finally doing it, many media were shocked to the fact that Ukraine, a civilized country were being invaded. I remember one TV station (iirc CN*C) pundit saying it this way :

" The Ukrainians aren't like anything out there,....they're civilized, they drove cars just like ours here..."

Yes, I remember that episode too, and while it may sound cynical, it is the truth that many people in the West are afraid to say.

The fact that it happened to a “civilized” country and to people who “drove cars just like ours” makes this war much more scarier for a large part of the world.

Until now, people in sufficiently developed countries had a feeling of security because such things didn’t happen to people like them. When seeing the war in Ukraine with rockets hitting shopping malls, people realize that even places like the ones where they live can turn into conflict zones.

It’s not about Ukrainians being white Europeans. It is about the culture and lifestyle. We would be equally outraged if we saw rockets hitting shopping malls in Taiwan or South Korea, just like we were outraged when the terrorists bombed a shopping mall in Nairobi a few years ago.

It’s harder to relate to the war in Yemen than it is with the situation in Ukraine, but I assure you that if there would be a war in the UAE and we would see rockets hitting Dubai, we would be equally outraged.

It’s not about race and geography, it is about culture and level of development. The war in Ukraine hits a sensible cord with many people because it affect their own sense of security.

Off course in the ideal world, I would like all UN participant to condemn Russia, but nothing is ideal in this world.

Which is an order created by the West, countries which is no winners/losers in this order has every right to stay neutral.

The order is not created entirely by the West. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have had China and Russia in the UN Security Council. A lot of the poverty and the bad situation in many places is because of the Soviet Union and its malign influence it had for 50 years, with its failed Communist ideology and defence of dictatorships.

Hopefully Russia’s influence will be greatly diminished after this war and there will be less support for dictators around the world.

Yes, the word here is "must be democratic"... if not they deserve destruction the way Iraq or Libya does.

Sometimes, look close enough you can see similarity in the perception of that of China/Russia and the collective West when it comes to people around them. The only difference here is what is deemed precious for each side of the party.

It’s not that undemocratic countries deserve destruction. But they are very unpredictable and dangerous because they are ruled by a single man, who is usually also a psychopath. Dictatorships tend to be militaristic and aggressive, and are more prone to ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses. This is why they frequently end up with popular uprisings and civil wars. Remeber that the first Iraq war was because of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and the Lybian conflict started as an uprising and civil war against Gaddafi’s rule. The Syrian conflict is similar to that in Lybia, an uprising that was dealt with brutality by a ruthless dictator.

So there is a big difference between what the collective West think is “precious” and what Russia/China do. The West defends democratic countries where people are treated with respect and have basic rights, while Russia/China defend brutal dictatorships known for abusing their people, enslaving populations and imprisoning opponents. There is no equivalence, really.

Geopolitical importance to West/Europe =/= geopolitical importance for the rest of the world. Ukraine might be a big deal for some countries national security, while for others, its just another war which we have no idea of.


Here in Indonesia, I still eat the way I eat.. rice is quite plenty, chilli is a little expensive...but we don't have a fear of food shortage anytime soon.

Yes, proximity to a war certainly matters. In Indonesia you don’t feel threatened by what happens in Ukraine, but if you would look at the whole picture, you would realize that things are connected and what happens in Ukraine could have ramifications in the Asia-Pacific region. In Europe we are far away from China, but we are concerned by what China might do in Taiwan and we are also bothered by China’s aggressive policies in regards to islands belonging to the Philppines and the militarization of the South China Sea. We care about dangerous geopolitical moves even when they happen thousands of kilometes away.
 

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
370
Reactions
1 566
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
It is no about wish. The reality is, in next 15/20 years the world will change drastically.

Yes, it will change. It remains to be seen if it will change for the better, or for the worse. Considering the recent trends, I expect it to change for the worse.

In Asia, even without counting China, there are some countries with large population that are on the process of becoming next economic powerhouse.

A multi-polar world order is a necessity. It is not something to do with the decline of US/west rather it has to do with the rise of other countries, Which now seems inevitable.

Many things seem inevitable only to be proved otherwise. I expect a huge economic crisis this decade that will have a huge effect on developing countries. All it takes for the developing countries to collapse is for the Fed to keep interest rates elevated for a few years, and the thing is, the Americans know this too.

If the US decides it is time to slam the brakes on the developing world in order to defend its hegemony, there is very little others can do to avoid the consequences.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom