4 ms·

I think all those countries "on the periphery of polite society" should be capable of asking themselves: "Will we ever invade another sovereign country complete

I think all those countries "on the periphery of polite society" should be capable of asking themselves: "Will we ever invade another sovereign country completely unprovoked with the goal of annexing them?" If the answer is "no", they have nothing to worry about. Russia has already shown that anything less than this results in little more than a slap on the wrist. If the answer is "yes", or even "maybe", then yeah, they're going to have to stay out of international institutions. As it should be.

FpUser 5y ago
>""Will we ever invade another sovereign country" Saudis have a perfect answer to that
watwut 5y ago
I dont even think that is the issue. These did not happened merely because invasion, it is not like it would be first invasion happening since WWII. I think that these happen, because Russia is seen as threat to Europe and America. Had this been about who rules Ukraine in the abstract, there would be much much weaker response. The worry is that easy conquest of Ukraine would be followed by similar contest to former USSR states in NATO, then to satelite countries and then maybe Easter Germany and so on. At some point response would be forced anyway.
londgine 5y ago
Punching a Nazi seemed like a nice policy. It was a popular meme of 2017 [1] . Of course, then the definition of Nazi was widened to include many people who where unliked (on the periphery of polite society) such as Jewish conservative commentators [2] and even Ukraine with a Jewish president [3] . If it was clear that the only time neutral banks will deplatform you was if they "ever invade another sovereign country completely unprovoked with the goal of annexing them" then that may be fine. However, if the principle is to be neutral until someone does whatever polite society has deemed unacceptable, it is riskier for those countries to use. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01/23/a-step-by-step-guide-to-a-meme-about-punching-a-nazi-in-the-face/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01... [2] https://www.thewrap.com/vox-media-co-founder-ben-shapiro-is-the-jew-who-helps-other-jews-onto-the-train/ https://www.thewrap.com/vox-media-co-founder-ben-shapiro-is-... [3] https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083677765/putin-denazify-ukraine-russia-history https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083677765/putin-denazify-ukr...
- RestlessMind 5y ago
  > Of course, then the definition of Nazi was widened to include many people who where unliked > However, if the principle is to be neutral until someone does whatever polite society has deemed unacceptable Why talk in hypotheticals? We have SWIFT for almost 50 years now and Bretton Woods system since late 40's. That is a long enough time to judge their track record. How many countries were banned because their behavior was deemed unacceptable? Wikipedia says only Iran and now Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#Use_in_sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#Use_in_sanctions

FpUser 5y ago

>""Will we ever invade another sovereign country" Saudis have a perfect answer to that

watwut 5y ago

I dont even think that is the issue. These did not happened merely because invasion, it is not like it would be first invasion happening since WWII. I think that these happen, because Russia is seen as threat to Europe and America. Had this been about who rules Ukraine in the abstract, there would be much much weaker response. The worry is that easy conquest of Ukraine would be followed by similar contest to former USSR states in NATO, then to satelite countries and then maybe Easter Germany and so on. At some point response would be forced anyway.

londgine 5y ago

Punching a Nazi seemed like a nice policy. It was a popular meme of 2017 [1] . Of course, then the definition of Nazi was widened to include many people who where unliked (on the periphery of polite society) such as Jewish conservative commentators [2] and even Ukraine with a Jewish president [3] . If it was clear that the only time neutral banks will deplatform you was if they "ever invade another sovereign country completely unprovoked with the goal of annexing them" then that may be fine. However, if the principle is to be neutral until someone does whatever polite society has deemed unacceptable, it is riskier for those countries to use. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01/23/a-step-by-step-guide-to-a-meme-about-punching-a-nazi-in-the-face/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/01... [2] https://www.thewrap.com/vox-media-co-founder-ben-shapiro-is-the-jew-who-helps-other-jews-onto-the-train/ https://www.thewrap.com/vox-media-co-founder-ben-shapiro-is-... [3] https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083677765/putin-denazify-ukraine-russia-history https://www.npr.org/2022/03/01/1083677765/putin-denazify-ukr...

RestlessMind 5y ago
> Of course, then the definition of Nazi was widened to include many people who where unliked > However, if the principle is to be neutral until someone does whatever polite society has deemed unacceptable Why talk in hypotheticals? We have SWIFT for almost 50 years now and Bretton Woods system since late 40's. That is a long enough time to judge their track record. How many countries were banned because their behavior was deemed unacceptable? Wikipedia says only Iran and now Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#Use_in_sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT#Use_in_sanctions