This perspective sounds like it’s coming from a pretty narrow view of British politics. "Gammons" comes to mind. Typically portrayed as men (though not exclusively) with flushed faces, bald heads, and England flags draped everywhere, often driving white vans they need for their side jobs. A badge of honor for a lack of sophistication and nationalist fervor.
I've been living in the Loei province, uphill in the middle of our rubber trees and fruit orchard, for seven years now...
Before that I lived in Sriracha and indeed in the end the air also became polluted, with black sticky dust on the furniture. When I arrived, in 2003, it wasn't an issue.
Even if you assume the invasion was "illegal," it did happen. Was I trying to "justify" it? I was trying to explain the situation in the context of history. There's a difference. At this point, justification won't change anything. It would help, though, if the actors would recognize reality. And the reality is that the war is continuing, thousands continue to die, billions are being spent, and what's done can't be undone. Russia has a legitimate security interest at stake. It sees NATO missiles on its doorstep as an existential threat. To expect that they will not act in their own best interest is a fantasy.
Going on and on about Ukrainian sovereignty and how the invasion was "illegal" is a distraction. The world isn't the perfect place some would like us to believe. International law works until it doesn't. Take a look at the UN. People like to think that it performs a useful function, and it does, to a point. And then it's useless. Nation states act in what they perceive to be their own best interests once that line is crossed.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now