4 ms·
I think there is a philosophical question of whether the act of severing relations without active, pointed violence, could be considered an act of war. After a
by anonporridge 5y ago
I think there is a philosophical question of whether the act of severing relations without active, pointed violence, could be considered an act of war.
After all, trade and increasing cooperation and communication is commonly believed to be the antidote to war. When we trade with each other for things we need, then it makes taking what we need with violence a less economically attractive option.
So, by instigating sanctions and cutting off trade relations, how could that be construed as anything other than "we're taking all options for settling disputes off the table, except violence"?
I'm not taking Russia's side here, and the situation is obviously more complicated since they were the ones to initiate violence in Ukraine, but it does seem like the West has effectively made a strong alliance with Ukraine and declared war on Russia, even if they have yet to exchange bullets (or nukes) directly.
- mirekrusin 5y agoHistory is always written by the winners.
- anonporridge 5y agoMight makes right. Might does not exclusively mean kinetic might.
- mcphage 5y ago> how could that be construed as anything other than "we're taking all options for settling disputes off the table, except violence? Because is it explicitly an option for settling disputes that is not violence? If you don’t want countries to go to war, you need solutions to settle disputes that aren’t violence. Trade sanctions are one such solution.
- nahuel0x 5y agoKarl Kautsky had the same idea about trade and communication making war impossible. Named that peaceful capitalism last phase as "Ultra-imperialism" [1], but then... WWI happened. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-imperialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-imperialism