5 ms·

Interdependent trade was theorized to promote peace, but it was only ever a theory, and one that’s becoming increasingly outdated with each passing day that Rus

Interdependent trade was theorized to promote peace, but it was only ever a theory, and one that’s becoming increasingly outdated with each passing day that Russia remains in Ukraine. Certainly there are aspects of the concept that are true, but Germany’s dependence on Russian gas is now limiting its ability to respond to a crisis. They’ve handicapped themselves and can no longer promote peace and in fact are funding a war.

vimy 5y ago
The same thing was assumed right before the first world war. Back then we also had globalization. It didn’t prevent the war and globalization didn’t return until after the second world war.
p_j_w 5y ago
>it was only ever a theory, and one that’s becoming increasingly outdated with each passing day that Russia remains in Ukraine. This seems like a bit of a silly point, given that the war in Ukraine is, at least so far, nothing compared to the conflicts of the past. Do we wanna rush head first back into something that reliably produced worse conflicts than we see today simply because what we have going now isn't perfect? >Germany’s dependence on Russian gas is now limiting its ability to respond to a crisis. They’ve handicapped themselves and can no longer promote peace and in fact are funding a war. A bunch of western companies are pulling out of Russia over this and it looks like the whole thing is going worse for the aggressors here than they expected. I'll take this over Germany and Russia engaging directly in armed conflict.
jdonaldson 5y ago
That's the wrong take, and here's why. Interdependent trade doesn't promote peace as much as it discourages outright war. Russia is beating on Ukraine, but it has crossed a field of knives to do it, and will bleed out very soon. Russia will be the example that everyone will point to when their leader starts rattling their sabers.
- simulate-me 5y ago
  You're assuming that Russia is all but defeated, but that's an assumption that may not hold. China has recently agreed to provide military assistance to Russia, likely drawing out the conflict further. Rather than prevent war, we may have given our adversaries the economic means to wage a way more intense war than would have been possible otherwise. Surely, Russia wouldn't have as much support had we not bankrolled Russia and its allies for decades. America's trade policies have greatly enriched hostile nations. America has enjoyed global hegemony for a long time, but other countries are sick of picking up the scraps. They want America's seat at the table. In many ways, the theory that interconnected trade promotes peace is similar to the neo-liberal economic view that globalization promotes lower prices and thus more efficient economies. Such a view has been shown to be an over-simplification and ignores important side-effects of changing trade balances, such as rising economic inequality and the rise of populism.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Yeah I had a similar discussion with a friend. If China was serious about trade and the international "balance" they wouldn't be sending money and arms to Russia, which looks like they probably already agreed to

vimy 5y ago

The same thing was assumed right before the first world war. Back then we also had globalization. It didn’t prevent the war and globalization didn’t return until after the second world war.

p_j_w 5y ago

>it was only ever a theory, and one that’s becoming increasingly outdated with each passing day that Russia remains in Ukraine. This seems like a bit of a silly point, given that the war in Ukraine is, at least so far, nothing compared to the conflicts of the past. Do we wanna rush head first back into something that reliably produced worse conflicts than we see today simply because what we have going now isn't perfect? >Germany’s dependence on Russian gas is now limiting its ability to respond to a crisis. They’ve handicapped themselves and can no longer promote peace and in fact are funding a war. A bunch of western companies are pulling out of Russia over this and it looks like the whole thing is going worse for the aggressors here than they expected. I'll take this over Germany and Russia engaging directly in armed conflict.

jdonaldson 5y ago

That's the wrong take, and here's why. Interdependent trade doesn't promote peace as much as it discourages outright war. Russia is beating on Ukraine, but it has crossed a field of knives to do it, and will bleed out very soon. Russia will be the example that everyone will point to when their leader starts rattling their sabers.

simulate-me 5y ago
You're assuming that Russia is all but defeated, but that's an assumption that may not hold. China has recently agreed to provide military assistance to Russia, likely drawing out the conflict further. Rather than prevent war, we may have given our adversaries the economic means to wage a way more intense war than would have been possible otherwise. Surely, Russia wouldn't have as much support had we not bankrolled Russia and its allies for decades. America's trade policies have greatly enriched hostile nations. America has enjoyed global hegemony for a long time, but other countries are sick of picking up the scraps. They want America's seat at the table. In many ways, the theory that interconnected trade promotes peace is similar to the neo-liberal economic view that globalization promotes lower prices and thus more efficient economies. Such a view has been shown to be an over-simplification and ignores important side-effects of changing trade balances, such as rising economic inequality and the rise of populism.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Yeah I had a similar discussion with a friend. If China was serious about trade and the international "balance" they wouldn't be sending money and arms to Russia, which looks like they probably already agreed to