4 ms·

The hope was that economic integration would lead to less conflict, but the Russian invasion has proved that to be misguided. The West couldn't imagine Russia d

The hope was that economic integration would lead to less conflict, but the Russian invasion has proved that to be misguided. The West couldn't imagine Russia doing something so self destructive, but it doesn't have the mindset of authoritarians who do not act entirely rationally, or at least convince themselves of nonsense. What's really killed globalisation is the realization that in the absence of the self-correcting tendencies of democracy you end up arming your adversaries. Russia has absolutely no qualms about using decades of hydrocarbon sales to try to smite the West. China is an even worse danger as they are actively positioning themselves as being essential to the world economy, but not being dependent on it. Their "unlimited friendship" with Russia is part of that given that Russia can provide critical oil and gas that China cannot produce themselves.

leetharris 4y ago
> The hope was that economic integration would lead to less conflict, but the Russian invasion has proved that to be misguided. It has absolutely led to less conflict. Just because Russia's insane dictator is hellbent on destroying his country doesn't mean the concept isn't valid. What is the alternative? If we didn't have globalization, our ONLY option would be war. Instead we took away McDonalds, armed our allies, and we've so far stalled a full scale invasion that previously would have succeeded instantly.
looseyesterday 4y ago
Yes Russia and China are where it didn't really work out. But the EU for example has been very successful in reducing conflict. But I would also argue there are many other quiet successes. We simply dont have a world in which the US after winning WW2 decided to turn inwards and instead of promoting globalisation just decided to leave things be.
mardifoufs 4y ago
The "self correcting tendencies" of democracy didn't stop said democracies from doing the same type of errors not even 2 decades ago in iraq (invading a sovreign nation). I don't know why we would except any better from an authoritarian country, and I honestly don't know if anyone really did?
Juliate 4y ago
> The hope was that economic integration would lead to less conflict, but the Russian invasion has proved that to be misguided. Precisely, it was misguided. This invasion did not, and will not, ever, benefit anyone. The decision of invasion was not based on a shared interest in peace and integration (!) but on an imperial domination vision. So you can't blame the rules most countries follow in autonomy, peace and development interests (economic integration, international order), because one particular country decided (violently) not to. The true enemy is this idea of local/regional exceptionalism, that justifies overreaching, that's growing (that Russia and China, among a few others, nurture carefully).
yucky 4y ago
This entire post has a huge blindspot. The US has been invading countries (does anybody know how many?) for decades and delivering democracy from the barrel of a gun. The US is the leading proponent of this "globalization through democracy" project and yet - does any other nation have more blood on its hands over the last 50 years than the US? With that said, maybe other nations are starting to think the payoff isn't worth the price?

leetharris 4y ago

> The hope was that economic integration would lead to less conflict, but the Russian invasion has proved that to be misguided. It has absolutely led to less conflict. Just because Russia's insane dictator is hellbent on destroying his country doesn't mean the concept isn't valid. What is the alternative? If we didn't have globalization, our ONLY option would be war. Instead we took away McDonalds, armed our allies, and we've so far stalled a full scale invasion that previously would have succeeded instantly.

looseyesterday 4y ago

Yes Russia and China are where it didn't really work out. But the EU for example has been very successful in reducing conflict. But I would also argue there are many other quiet successes. We simply dont have a world in which the US after winning WW2 decided to turn inwards and instead of promoting globalisation just decided to leave things be.

mardifoufs 4y ago

The "self correcting tendencies" of democracy didn't stop said democracies from doing the same type of errors not even 2 decades ago in iraq (invading a sovreign nation). I don't know why we would except any better from an authoritarian country, and I honestly don't know if anyone really did?

Juliate 4y ago

> The hope was that economic integration would lead to less conflict, but the Russian invasion has proved that to be misguided. Precisely, it was misguided. This invasion did not, and will not, ever, benefit anyone. The decision of invasion was not based on a shared interest in peace and integration (!) but on an imperial domination vision. So you can't blame the rules most countries follow in autonomy, peace and development interests (economic integration, international order), because one particular country decided (violently) not to. The true enemy is this idea of local/regional exceptionalism, that justifies overreaching, that's growing (that Russia and China, among a few others, nurture carefully).

yucky 4y ago

This entire post has a huge blindspot. The US has been invading countries (does anybody know how many?) for decades and delivering democracy from the barrel of a gun. The US is the leading proponent of this "globalization through democracy" project and yet - does any other nation have more blood on its hands over the last 50 years than the US? With that said, maybe other nations are starting to think the payoff isn't worth the price?