How Russia will benefit from hunger in Global South

[Magui 2,659]

4 hours ago, TasteLikeWhiskey said:

This is the problem isn't it. All our instinctive reactions are aggressive. It is the hopelessness of communication between ideologies that drives wars.

The USA is well on its way towards aggressive civil reaction among its people. The ideologies are becoming too strong for the possibility of communication.

It seems our answer to peace is to not entertain our own aggressive responses.

The USA it's no example to anything. I grew up in world where i thought the that America was always right and  they were the world police, to think they aren't always right and quite wrong at times, they actually very flaw like the rest of world. In late years i started to pick intereste and curiosity in Russia in positive way, to understand bit more about it. I definitely don't think they are the "source of all evil". I just think any country with the same man in power for decades it's only losing freedom, losing chance of evolution.  If we are talking about  communism it's an utopia, every single communist country turns in a dictatorship. The western world has it's flaws, but at least we as citizens have more freedom to express ourselves, to demand more from institutions, etc. We might slaves of consuming pointless stuff,  but so are Russians and Chinese. At the end of the day what is big difference between the western world and the other world ( communist world?)?

Anyways what enrages me it's the destruction of a country, the millions of people suffering simply cause another country think that they want enforce their ideals, or want more land or whatever... 

But you are right we need to police our instinctive aggressive reactions...and I assume some political leaders are doing that, refrain to do stuff that will only escalate the conflict. The thing is, me as a simple citizen have moments of thinking we should respond with same coin, to moments after thinking about all the tragedy that would cause ... World leaders don't give damn, who cares if cities are destroyed, who cares if millions have leave their country, their homes. There's no empathy in politics. That leaves us mere citizens to police ourselves but can we actually make a difference? Idk... But agree with you aggressive reactions only cause more aggression. 

(I didn't meant write so much )

[Guest]

7 hours ago, KORG said:

The lesson here is don't put all your eggs in one basket. Grain can be grown almost anywhere, why didn't anyone learn from previous issues that relying on part of ex-soviet land might lead to issues?

Anyway, use the vast quantities of unused American soil..

This is a huge lesson to every country. You gotta be less depending on others u gotta have a country that can sustain itself. Some labelled it isolationism, to me it’s logic

[Guest]

My question will sound stupid. How can wheat and grains cause famine? Bread isn’t that important in your diet

[Guest]

my question is : were world leaders shortsighted and didn't see all this coming when they made their countries more dependant from Russian fossil fuels and Ukranian goods? 

[Economy 53,167]

42 minutes ago, AnnaNicoleSmith said:

This is a huge lesson to every country. You gotta be less depending on others u gotta have a country that can sustain itself. Some labelled it isolationism, to me it’s logic

There's security benefits to being more self reliant but then there's major productivity and economic draw backs

 

Being isolated and self reliant almost definitely always results in reduced economic prosperity so what ur proposing has a major cost attached to it

 

I personally would still choose the occasional disruptions elsewhere causing economic pain at random times than to be poorer ALL the time

[Economy 53,167]

4 hours ago, venusinmyhead said:

my question is : were world leaders shortsighted and didn't see all this coming when they made their countries more dependant from Russian fossil fuels and Ukranian goods? 

I mean, so much resources and goods come from either unstable or unfriendly parts of the world that aren't like western democracies

 

You got China and India who produce so much, you got Middle East and OPEC that produce over a third of the words Oil, you got other dictatorships like Venezuela with a lot of natural resources, you got Africa which is saturated with Countries in Civil or International conflict with eachother

 

What are you going to do avoid them all? Western Countries alone lack many of the resources these Countries have if we were to only trade with eachother, u can't just cut off all the rest. Or you could but standards of living would drop a lot

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

9 hours ago, dit said:

Isn't Morocco one of the leading nations in exporting fertilizer? It has the worlds biggest deposit of phosphate which is the leading source of fertilizer. Africa in theory can and should be able to feed itself (even North Africa). It's just infrastrucral issues, lack of investement, corruption and poor planning are ruining the continent. Not to mention uneven trade deals and neo colonisalsim / debt traps by leading Western and Eastern states. 

Anyways, I kind of do not like the use of potential death of Africans and Asians as a form of propaganda. I think the world already knows Russia is horrible. Adding this feels like Westerners exploiting the plight of Global South residence for a game of optics and I do not enjoy this narrative too much. Obviously theorizing and what not is natural for geopolitical thinkers but idk...it just seems so shallow to use that to stir up some concern when we know for a fact these same ppl DO NOT CARE or have NEVER cared for African and Asian lives. 

At most, the genuine fear might stem from them worrying that a food crisis will increase immigration from the global south into Europe once again. I bet that is the true concern here. 

I am not well versed into the economy/ geography of resources of Morocco, so I can't answer to that..

Relating to the second point: The idea that Russia might use (read: will use) the food crisis in the Global South in its advantage is a reality. It's also a reality that Russia is seizing all opportunities it has to grow its influence in Africa/ the underdeveloped parts of the world, so really I don't see why there would be an issue to implicitely or explicitely acknowledge these facts. This ties to a critique that can be done of the optics in which this generation thinks about dialogue (and I am purely speaking in general terms), but truth is truth can be said even if it hurts one's feelings, perceptions or ideals. This related exactly to what you say, basically that geopolitics focus hard realities. This is important also because leftist spheres in US and abroad are already blaiming NATO and Ukraine instead of Russia, and will increasingly do so as Russian-friendly propaganda increases in Africa, Asia and Latin America. 

[Benji 20,113]

Putin is going to get his whole population wiped out in a nuclear bombardment from the whole world if he isn’t careful.  Piss off the entire rest of the world and eventually the rest of the world will just stop you 

[Economy 53,167]

7 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

I am not well versed into the economy/ geography of resources of Morocco, so I can't answer to that..

Relating to the second point: The idea that Russia might use (read: will use) the food crisis in the Global South in its advantage is a reality. It's also a reality that Russia is seizing all opportunities it has to grow its influence in Africa/ the underdeveloped parts of the world, so really I don't see why there would be an issue to implicitely or explicitely acknowledge these facts. This ties to a critique that can be done of the optics in which this generation thinks about dialogue (and I am purely speaking in general terms), but truth is truth can be said even if it hurts one's feelings, perceptions or ideals. This related exactly to what you say, basically that geopolitics focus hard realities. This is important also because leftist spheres in US and abroad are already blaiming NATO and Ukraine instead of Russia, and will increasingly do so as Russian-friendly propaganda increases in Africa, Asia and Latin America. 

Regarding the last part... I do think blaming NATO is highly misguided and u can not excuse what Russia is doing or defend a harsh and heartless dictator like Putin

 

That being said I do think it's a little more grey than just West is good and Russia is bad. The West and Nato have hardly been perfect in peaceful dialogue and stuff to say the least

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Regarding the last part... I do think blaming NATO is highly misguided and u can not excuse what Russia is doing or defend a harsh and heartless dictator like Putin

 

That being said I do think it's a little more grey than just West is good and Russia is bad. The West and Nato have hardly been perfect in peaceful dialogue and stuff to say the least

In this particular instance the West is mostly in the right and Russia is bad. Ukraine did wrong when it banned schools in Languages other than Ukrainian, but war is still never justified.

Russia shouldn't be negociating for territories that do not belong to it. My country is not claiming northern Mozambic, but if it did should NATO negociate some territorial concession so we don't go to war? One negociates over something it owns in some capacity. 

If you are saying that Ukraine should cede some territories to put an end to the war, I 100% agree. But this doesn't mean that Russia is in any way in the right.

[Economy 53,167]

1 hour ago, FfFfFfFF said:

In this particular instance the West is mostly in the right and Russia is bad. Ukraine did wrong when it banned schools in Languages other than Ukrainian, but war is still never justified.

Russia shouldn't be negociating for territories that do not belong to it. My country is not claiming northern Mozambic, but if it did should NATO negociate some territorial concession so we don't go to war? One negociates over something it owns in some capacity. 

If you are saying that Ukraine should cede some territories to put an end to the war, I 100% agree. But this doesn't mean that Russia is in any way in the right.

Of course Russia is in the wrong for this action. I'm merely refering to historical tensions between Russia and Nato that still cause distrust to this day to the other side. In that sense NATO and the West have not always been perfect with diplomacy and the way the West at times has handled International conflicts can give non Westerners legitimate reasons to distrust that the West is a perfectly peaceful coalition that can be trusted to do right at all times

 

This isn't to defend Russia in any way. I'm merely saying to keep perspective and understand internation distrust it never hurts to acknowledge our own Nations checkered past

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

7 minutes ago, Economy said:

Of course Russia is in the wrong for this action. I'm merely refering to historical tensions between Russia and Nato that still cause distrust to this day to the other side. In that sense NATO and the West have not always been perfect with diplomacy and the way the West at times has handled International conflicts can give non Westerners legitimate reasons to distrust that the West is a perfectly peaceful coalition that can be trusted to do right at all times

NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe is the direct result of Russian hostility and agression. NATO's expansion is also not a security concern to Russia. Putin only feels threatened because it knows its sphere of influence shrunk, and Russia can no longer assert its power in the region at the expense of the nations living here. We should really be careful assigning any validity to Russia's 'distrust' for NATO because this is a very slippery slope. 

[Economy 53,167]

22 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe is the direct result of Russian hostility and agression. NATO's expansion is also not a security concern to Russia. Putin only feels threatened because it knows its sphere of influence shrunk, and Russia can no longer assert its power in the region at the expense of the nations living here. We should really be careful assigning any validity to Russia's 'distrust' for NATO because this is a very slippery slope. 

I think the slippery slope is thinking our Nation's are always Infalable and do nothing wrong and think we never provoke others. 

 

In almost every conflict ppl always think the other side is 100% to blame in every single aspect and no one takes accountability for their own actions

 

Again, of course Russia is to blame for Ukraine. Of course Russia is in the wrong here no one is disputing that.

 

But we can at least acknowledge NATO has also had its agressive tendencies and days where maybe more diplomacy could of been used. The West has not always been a saint with international conflict (not related to Russia) either.

 

Let's not act like the West is always Rainbows and Roses and that anyone not a part of the West/NATO is totally whack to have their distrust or reservations about what we do. That's all I'm saying.

[FfFfFfFF 59,039]

19 minutes ago, Economy said:

I think the slippery slope is thinking our Nation's are always Infalable and do nothing wrong and think we never provoke others. 

 

Eastern European nations such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland provoke Russia by existing. They do not pose a danger militarily to Russia, how can you not see it? NATO expansion made Russia upset it can no longer assert its influence over the former Warsaw Pact space. You cannot take the blame if you are the one in the defense.

25 minutes ago, Economy said:

In almost every conflict ppl always think the other side is 100% to blame in every single aspect and no one takes accountability for their own actions

 

There are conflicts when one side is 99% at fault. Sometimes things are clear and cut. Sometime you might get stabbed after you had a fight with someone who thinks you disobeyed traffuc rules and sometime you might get stabbed by a schizophrenic on the street without provoking him.

Despite appearences, I find it intellectually lazy to claim in any given circumstances 2 of the sides were at fault. For instance, in what way would you say Latvia, Estonia or Poland "provoked" Russia?

24 minutes ago, Economy said:

 

 The West has not always been a saint with international conflict (not related to Russia) either.

 

Well, the topic is about Russia. I can understand Serbian distrust of NATO, but not Russian.

[Economy 53,167]

4 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Eastern European nations such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland provoke Russia by existing. They do not pose a danger militarily to Russia, how can you not see it? NATO expansion made Russia upset it can no longer assert its influence over the former Warsaw Pact space. You cannot take the blame if you are the one in the defense.

There are conflicts when one side is 99% at fault. Sometimes things are clear and cut. Sometime you might get stabbed after you had a fight with someone who thinks you disobeyed traffuc rules and sometime you might get stabbed by a schizophrenic on the street without provoking him.

Despite appearences, I find it intellectually lazy to claim in any given circumstances 2 of the sides were at fault. For instance, in what way would you say Latvia, Estonia or Poland "provoked" Russia?

Well, the topic is about Russia. I can understand Serbian distrust of NATO, but not Russian.

I haven't disputed any of these things u said or disagreed with any of it neither have I excused any of Russia's actions or blamed any of these Nations u mentioned so ur clearly still missing my point completely.

 

So I will just leave it at that