At what point does it matter? They are dead. And they are dead because of a war that the Russian government enacted; Either on sovereign people from Chechnya or on its own citizens.

Jesus christ.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jun 5 2023 09:09am

Russia has broadly now, been isolationist on the world stage, it does not have the number of military facilities outside of its sphere of influence as say, the United States. This was my meaning.

That is horribly illogical and innacurate.

It would be more accurate to say the easiest option is to disregard Russia's demands, out of anger for the war of aggression they are waging.
The more difficult approach is to acknowledge that any meaningful peace requires both sides demands to be acknowledged.

If Ukraines wish is to continue to resist in a military capacity then that should equally be acknowledged; Not respecting that wish would be hypocritical as it would be accepting Russia's demands to be legitimate whilst ignoring the wishes of the Ukrainians.

Anyway. its not as if Russia has achieved its goals militarily or as if they are backing down from a longer conflict.

You can't pick and choose when another person can fight back if you chose to start a fight.

1991-1994 is prior to 1st Chechen War. Holy Dawkins.

For now absolutely. We need a multi polar world honestly. That will make things safer.

There are various studies on line, all of which are indicating that the move from a unipolar world to a multi polar has, would and will occur via violence, i.e. war. Therefore I disagree with you, the world is not a safe place on the geopolitical / military stage and it is going to get a hell of a lot worse as the world moves further and further towards a true multi polar world.

dividing the world in 2 is intrinsically, not safer.



I dont think anyone over the last 1168 pages of this thread has ever said that Russia is a great neighbor. Russia is NOT a great neighbor, they are a terrible neighbor, all the more reason not to provoke them. Its not for no reason that Russia is described as a sleeping bear (and china as a crouching tiger hidden dragon).

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 5 2023 09:43am

A multi Polar world with countries having nuclear capability as a deterrence will make nations think twice, that is my point of view. Furthermore unlike history that came before us whereby weapons of mass destruction haven't been invented to potentially cause such massive devastation to our planet, it will definitely make politicians think twice about pressing the button.

But you are right when you say that moving from unipolar to bipolar and eventually multipolar there will be war and violence in between. Which I said earlier , maybe the world needs such a reset and evolved into a more balance one eventually.
Everything looks pretty doom and gloom at the moment.

That being said, it is now or never for diplomacy to play it's role and to fully utilize and make use of the United Nations to work things out. If not, our descendants will be kung fu fighting with sticks and stones soon.

For one , the Muslims are better at throwing stones and the Chinese and Indians have experience and are tested with the Kung Fu fighting with sticks during their border conflicts.

This post was edited by Hamsterbaby on Jun 5 2023 09:55am

Don't think this is consistent with what has largely been the case post WW2. Having 2 large adversaries which can basically create MAD keeps both of these powers at bay and in a equilibrium, respecting each other at least somewhat and being careful about not tipping into full war. There were scuffles for influence in South America, Africa, Asia, with more than a few examples but ultimately I think the period between 1946-1990 was stable, particularly if you compare it to the previous 30-40 years.

When one power clearly has the power, it starts to act unilaterally, not respecting it's lesser. Iraq & Libya are prime examples. These are both really good examples of wars that really had no legal or ethical justification, with most of the globe not being on board with US/NATO actions but they happened anyways, with no sanctions or international tribunals or anything really.

We're at the point in history when we are actually funding and providing intelligence for an active war with a nuclear power on their soil. This would have never been acceptable during the cold war.

Having a multi-polar world IMO is needed to maintain this equilibrium. We're vehemently scrambling in east and south Asia right now to maintain our hegemony, signing new alliances and w.e. because we don't want to give China a seat a the table similarly with what we had with the USSR.

Wth a multi polar world, the chances of i.e America bullying or regime changing some countries, China bullying some neighbours , Russia having second thoughts of absorbing one of their former satellite states will be less likely, because these countries will just turn to another superpower to do business and trade.

I think in multi-polar world 'The' powers would respect each others spheres. What that means is for example, in 30 years, south east Asia is dominated by China & India with governments and business interests favorable to those powers and we as the US are okay with that and aren't setting up NGO's to destabilize a given country, for example Vietnam or Philippines to somehow turn them from being pro-China to being pro-West. I personally think that's a relatively fair way of how the world should work.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 5 2023 10:46am