Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Of course they do.
Politicians are liars by profession, so they can only say things that will not lose speculative popularity points for the forces they represent – at best, or that will increase their rating – at worst.
It is absolutely useless to accuse anyone of double standards, because politics is guided by the right of force. There are no exceptions to this rule, and only countries with weak positions complain about double standards.
I am glad that Russia has stopped accusing anyone of double standards, this is a mature approach.
A world without wars and the inviolability of borders are an attempt to stabilize the current situation, to preserve the “status quo”. Such attempts have been made many times in the past and will continue to be made in the future. The initiators of conservation are always only those who are satisfied with the situation.
In this regard, the only significant phenomenon in international politics is sovereignty, which is objective, and therefore quite valuable in itself. Therefore, it cannot be sacrificed for the sake of “world peace”, for the “good of the whole world”, for the “bright future” and other abstractions. Any abstract “threats” from the outside are usually a trap for the people (populi) in order to split the real society of the enemy and seize the current initiative. Abstract “for the sake of” from the inside or from the outside, or much more often immature ideas about the world.
Does the author of the question understand that there has never been an ideal “justice” in the world? And that any movement of borders, and even more so war, creates a lot of new problems and injustices, a lot of suffering and deprivation, and does not always solve old problems.
Is abstract “justice”, which everyone understands as they want, worth the pile of problems that such actions create?
A world without wars is an everlasting value! However, the longer I live , the more I am convinced of the impossibility of this benefit due to the insurmountable circumstances of the nature of the human being. Unfortunately, humans, homo sapiens, have a genetic basis that determines their tendency to kill their own kind. This is their, let's say, “natural” state. Millennia pass. Civilizations arise and disappear. Gods and religions change. And the killing of people by people persists both at the domestic and at the organized collective and social level. This is indestructible!
Inviolability of borders? Borders can't be eternal! Because some nations grow and develop, while others degrade and disappear. Ethnogenesis, you know, has its own laws. However, for some time, the recognition and observance of borders by peoples on both sides of these borders is possible. Sometimes it takes quite a long time. Justice? It is unlikely. You can never please everyone. Someone always loses. Such is life.
There are two principles of international politics: the principle of inviolability of borders and the right of nations to self-determination. These principles contradict each other and this contradiction can be resolved only under the main international law – the law of the strong.
After World War II, all countries were exhausted by war and terrified by the specter of a third. Therefore, we decided to sacrifice the right of nations to self-determination and raise the principle of inviolability of borders to the absolute. At least in Europe.
Indeed, it has provided peace for over 40 years.
Then they decided to “make a small exception” and eliminate the border between Germany and the GDR. Almost immediately, the collapse of the USSR followed, Yugoslavia broke out, and many hotbeds of confrontation appeared in Europe with a regularly replenished list of victims. Because justice is a subjective concept, it is impossible to build peace on it. There is not an inch of land that has not changed hands many times, and it is pointless to talk about “historically our” territory.
A world without wars is generally not a bad thing!
It is bad that even in peacetime it is difficult for many and even very many people in almost all countries to live. We have to suffer sometimes unbearable hardships.
The resulting crisis will only increase the suffering. And the coming collapse of the global financial system will cause chaos that can destroy modern civilization.
Our compatriot (died in 1994) foresaw all this, and developed measures to prevent such a horror in our country. You can read about this in a series of books by Evgeny Orlov called “Periods”
They understand. Therefore, when the selfish interests of the “elite” demand it, they easily put horseradish on a world without wars, and on the inviolability of borders. This is motivated by the fact that they are fighting for a world without wars and the inviolability of borders.
The inviolability of borders is uncertain. For what year? It is true – on the settlement of empty lands after the glacier left 10-15 thousand years ago. And then there were repartitions and wars.
Why, such a world is possible.
Recipe.
Imagine two geometric shapes with a single contiguous line in common. They are two peoples and one land.
Draw a red line along the outer lines of these shapes.
This is how they distinguish these two countries from the world by enclosing them with a fence.
All people from these two nations are brought inside the red line.
Heads of state meet in a deadly battle without rules.
The people whose head was killed are completely slaughtered, regardless of gender or age.
This is the only way to end inter-ethnic conflicts.
For in any other way, the balance of power and the will of generations change, after which the war begins again.