4 ms·
> WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them What about Russia invading Ukraine?
by shusson 7y ago
> WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them
What about Russia invading Ukraine?
- KineticLensman 7y agoAnd Iraq and Kuwait?
- SpaceRaccoon 7y agoHow is that about capturing wealth? It's about preventing the spread of NATO to Russia's doorstep.
- boomboomsubban 7y agoIt's about keeping Russian control of a Black Sea port, which can be considered "capturing wealth." NATO was already at Russia's doorstep without Russia invading.
- PeterisP 7y agoThat's not about capturing wealth but about capturing geopolitical goals e.g. Black Sea control, pressure on international political organizations and such. All the contested regions - Crimea, Donetsk/Lugansk "national republics", Abkhazia and South Ossetia are actually a very good illustration of this concept. From the perspective of economic benefit, even ignoring the wider effects from sanctions and such, the captured (or, in some cases, captured-and-mostly-abandoned) regions have been and still are a net drain on Russian economy - they consume wealth of the mainland rather contribute back to it; you might or might not give these regions dotations to (re-)develop them so that they might be productive after a decade or two, but the results of these "adventures" clearly show that in the short term it's not reasonable to capture wealth of developed (or even not that developed; Ukraine as such and those parts especially are on the low end compared to most developed countries) countries by invasion because you don't really capture that wealth in an invasion, you generally just destroy it. There probably are important benefits that Russian leadership is gaining (or expected to gain) out of these regions, but wealth capture isn't one of these benefits.