Posted on 10/21/2024 9:21:57 AM PDT by Kazan
It is economics that is the true underlying reason for major conflicts between nations.
May that be our Syria, Libya, Iraq and Venezuela involvement, all oil and gas producing nations (not a coincidence). Our sense or morality in the last 2 decades depends highly on what is in the ground.
WWII, where Adolf rose from the depression and oppression of Germany (Versailles treaty where France and the UK held Germany accountable for all costs of WWI, grabbed land, imposed restrictions on them, and took away all their colonies). WWII was borne from the economic hardship post WWI and even WWI was in reality about, economics. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the manifestation of economic interests.
Even if you think for a moment about why Islam poses the threat it does, it’s really because Western liberal, democratic and secular society threatens the power base (which means money) to an Islamic society. We threaten them with the complete disruption of how there society is organized, and they threaten us with terrorism (even if this is not realized). What is the role of an Ayatollah, Mufti, Imam or a ruling king/family in a secular and democratic society? These guys are left unemployed.
Conversely,
It is why we see, hear and speak no evil regards China (PRC), where much of our manufacturing is. Despite forced abortions, a single party communist regime, disappearance of political dissidents, oppression of religion, mass internment camps, mass censorship, torture, mass executions (they execute more people than any other nation)... Why is this regime treated by us like they are? Money.
Likewise Saudi Arabia, where they hack people into pieces, women have few rights, homosexuals might learn to fly, and you have a ruling monarchy (Royal family actually runs the place). Why are they are buddy? What values that we love to wear on our sleeve do we have in common? Money.
All the other reasons given for war (between nations) are causes used to rally the masses around.
Even Ukraine, just economics. It was a diamond in the rough and we wanted that place. EU and NATO membership would have solidified possession, harmonized policies, given market access, provided for assurances for the large investors and capital that was moving into Ukraine, would keep NATO alive and allow us to have a growing influence in Europe. The problem is, that even though we already more or less controlled Ukraine since 2014, NATO in Ukraine posed a major threat to Russia and we wouldn’t let it go. However, at it’s core, just economics.
What you said, “nationalism and ethnic pride,” is what you tell some young Muslim boy so he’s willing to blow himself up, and it’s no different here in the US where the policy makers shroud themselves in the American flag and faux values. Maybe you actually believe Ukraine is about “Democracy, human rights and sovereignty?” If that is the case, ask yourself why we don’t apply the same morality regards Jordan? Vietnam?... Ask yourself how democratic Ukraine which cancelled their elections really is? What sort of human rights record Ukraine really has? And how sovereign Ukraine under our complete control really is?
Telling someone to die so that you can become or stay rich, isn’t motivating. You need to give them a fake noble cause. Then you need to give them a uniform, patches and cool looking flags which all contain some sort of symbolism that is important to some group you want to motivate. Then some kid will die for you: https://c7.alamy.com/comp/KDBCY3/kyiv-ukraine-october-11-2017-chevrons-of-ukrainian-army-on-the-wall-KDBCY3.jpg
Also: Nationalism believes in putting ones nation first. It is a “label” which in a globalist society has become a pejorative (for me it’s a compliment), especially in an ultra liberal globalist MSM (many of your major media outlets like CNN etc. are themselves global). It is wrongfully associated with national socialism in the past, which were socialists since they consolidated and centralized power, had near command driven economies, massive social programs, etc. Hitler who destroyed his nation was no nationalist. Mr. Z who destroyed Ukraine, is no nationalist...
Nationalism is a good thing. Just like you have competition in business, elections, between the states (https://businessintexas.com/marketing/ Musk is moving to Texas), it creates competition between the nations! Nations that pursue dysfunctional social and economic policies go under, those that pursue prudent policies prosper: Example El Salvador (nearly miraculous). It is not without reason that El Salvador and Bukele face massive criticism by the globalist forces today. Today, in the West, you have an organized, public, political effort to squash that national level competition and decentralized rule through international bodies both formal (EU/NAFTA) and informal (WEF/Bilderberg) as well as our own national government which has tipped the balance of power entirely to DC.
Read my post 21. If you can get past all my grammar errors, I think I sum it up well.
That said, things like religion, ethnicity, race, national identity, etc. are used as battle cries/rationalizations... “Remember the Alamo!”
The Spanish conquistadors saw the natives of America as “souless” and therefore you could do with them whatever you want. Later the Spaniards tried to convert all these people to Catholicism (fairly successfully). But what was the true motivation? Gold. Nothing has changed.
—Today we still fight over a treasure chest full of gold, resources are still a major cause: oil, copper, gold, etc. https://www.npr.org/2023/09/10/1193755188/chile-coup-50-years-pinochet-kissinger-human-rights-allende That was about copper and major US firms that had a presence there worried about nationalization.
—Slaves have been a major motivation for war as well. Rome (from the UK to Morocco, From Portugal to Saudi Arabia had less people than modern Germany) was huge and with a low population density. They were really more interested in the slaves (cheap labor) than the added land.
—Fertile land was also a historical economic motivation for war.
—Trade routes and control over them was a cause.
Present day examples: Libya, Syria, Iraq, Venezuela are about oil and gas and if someone can’t see that, then they are willfully ignorant.
However, today you also have other economic motivations that are added to the equation, such has industry and manufacturing. The industrial revolution and the economic value of industry didn’t start until ~1800.
In the case of Ukraine, you had a stable government, solid infrastructure, fertile land, cheap labor (1/4 of Germany), and massive industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine_economy.jpg Everyone in the West was setting up or interested setting up in Ukraine. Like China or Mexico, it was the next major source of cheap labor and mass manufacturing with direct and easy market access to the EU. This is actually something Ukraine can be proud of: https://ukraine-eu.mfa.gov.ua/storage/app/sites/114/export-promotion-office.pdf (pre-war)
—Added to the above list today, is industry and manufacturing which can have a huge economic value.
If Taiwan were economically depressed, do you really think China (PRC) would have the interest in them like they do?
If you dig down for the true cause of a war between nations, you will almost always find an economic motivation.
ZZZZZZZZZZZ. Where did you copy and paste all this from? The trade deficit and the likes aren’t going make people fired up enough to kill their neighbors.
Pointless.
Yes, a very good article indeed 😀
However, in a few cases in history, I do see non-economic motives having a part in the eruption of wars:
Was the American Revolution not partly due to the Americans having been given no say in the Parliament in Westminster? Being fed up being ruled by unelected politicians an ocean away? No taxation without representation, the Freedom Fighters said…
I am sure, if I had been an American in those days, I would have found this at least as galling as the taxes for tea, which we Americans had to pay to Westminster? I am quite sure I would have supported the Freedom Fighters, or, health permitting, I would have become one myself. Long live American independence! 🇺🇸
Or the Albanians, who rose in 1911 against the rule of the Young Turks, who had steadily become more and more oppressive towards non-ethnic Turks, in the Ottoman Empire? Or the uprising of the Indonesians against the Dutch, or the Indochinese and Algerians against the French in the years after 1945?
Please, I mean no slight or offense at all. I just think that sometimes national motives - such as the wish to be free from foreign rule- are intermingled with economic interests, when conflicts between nations arise.
🙂
The American revolution, as great as the outcome became, was also motivated by British taxation and rich American land owners that didn't want to pay these. Many of the same people that “fought for independence and freedom” were slave owners: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson (that I know of).
Think about it this way. What is the only true common denominator in our diverse (religious, racial, ethnic) nation or between our nations, even within your EU? Money.
Money is the primary means by which a society is organized.
That doesn't mean religion plays no part, but would we really go to war even if they burn Bibles in Pakistan? How about oppressing Coptic Christians in Egypt? These things do not rise to the level to where we do anything.
There are personal feuds and issues where people might bash each others head in, example lust. These personal motivators do not apply to large groups.
When you're talking about nations, large groups of people, a nations leadership things are driven by economic interests, even in a democracy: lobbying, party and campaign donors, PACs, legal action, hiring relatives, buying art, donating to a foundation or charity, paying huge sums for a speech, hiring a relative as a consultant...
That's not to say that we never do anything for altruistic reasons, example Somalia 1993 and many other examples. However, our level of commitment regards to the extent of our help, willingness to take damage, and how long we will stick around, is very low. Colloquially stated, we throw these issues bread crumbs. These normally serve an individuals or very small groups political need (Clinton tried to look good), but it is when you have large economic interests at stake when you see things like WWI/WWII, Ukraine today, possibly a Taiwan invasion in the future...
It is money which is the only collective interest which rises to the level to where we are willing to conduct major wars.
The ONLY reason why we are doing what we are in Ukraine, is because Ukraine was financially valuable to us and had even more potential. Russia (dis-attached from our economic sphere) has zero value and is in fact on the world stage our only true competitor regards energy. Russia is not even seen as a true near peer militarily (threshold was low - we just don't give a $hit if we step all over them), with us gambling that this conflict does not escalate to the point of going nuclear.
If Russia had an economic value to us, like China (PRC), or they were seen as a viable near peer militarily, we would have elected another course of action, as seen with Taiwan (similar scenario but dealt with entirely different).
Money-
Point taken.
Thank you very much 😊
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
