Jeffrey Sachs on Nato

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you saying that you are smarter than them !

Yes. And better looking, too.

Fight me.

Their narratives makes enough sense to me.

Then perhaps I should encourage you to think for yourself and look into the history.

Then why throw more young Ukrainians to possible danger and death, and keep systematically eliminating the male population.

You're acting as if this is a free choice being made freely by people perfectly happy to do it. It isn't. Ukraine is being invaded. They're defending themselves. Nations desperately defending themselves against military aggression from a far more powerful nation tend to do desperate things that otherwise would never be countenanced.

Seek negotiations and dialogue to ensure the bloodshed is ended.

I've already addressed this with numerous sources. They are seeking negotiations and they have been offering countless assurances to Russia, but Russia has repeatedly cut down negotiations, refused concessions, shifted the requirements for peace negotiations and are generally believed to not be approaching any peace negotiations in good faith.

Switzerland is a nation that for centuries kept a neutral stance due to wise and prudent leadership , and this enabled it to escape most of the devastation of the european wars and especially the two world wars which wrecked other european nations.

And if Switzerland were invaded, regardless of any assurances it made to other nations, should they have no right to defend themselves and apply for assistance in doing so?

This is really daft logic. Not all countries have the benefit of being in a position where they can remain neutral - some of them are constantly being meddled with, annexed and attacked, or to watch as their neighbours are meddled with, annexed and attacked. They have the free right to choose alliances, and if they choose to ally with people because they believe it will protect them against an invasion from a foreign imperialist army (kind of like THE CURRENT INVASION THAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT NOW), they ought to have the right to do that.

Do you agree? Or do you think powerful, imperialist nations have the right to determine, through threat of force, what alliances their neighbours get to have?

Answer in one word or less.

Also, any response to the open letter signed by over 300 economists and professors that utterly repudiates Sachs, yet? Why are you continuing to ignore it?

 

[ajay0]

And if Switzerland were invaded, regardless of any assurances it made to other nations, should they have no right to defend themselves and apply for assistance in doing so?

Switzerland, due to its neutral stance has not had any invasion issues for centuries. It is a very peaceful, beautiful and prosperous nation and tourists around the world even in war-torn countries prefer to live there.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Switzerland, due to its neutral stance has not had any invasion issues for centuries. It is a very peaceful, beautiful and prosperous nation and tourists around the world even in war-torn countries prefer to live there.

You're just going to ignore my whole argument? Cool.

Not all nations have the benefit of remaining neutral. Some are regularly victims of meddling, annexation and invasion. What you are engaging in now is a geopolitical form of "victim-blaming". If a country got invaded, it must be because it didn't try hard enough to be peaceful. That is your logic.

So, let's apply that logic, but use it to blame the instigator rather than the victim of violence: if Russia stopped invading and annexing their neighbours, there would be no need or call for NATO expansion, or for extending NATO membership further east to nations bordering Russia. So, any NATO expansion or perceived aggression is Russia's fault.

Do you agree?

 

[Koldo]

Switzerland, due to its neutral stance has not had any invasion issues for centuries. It is a very peaceful, beautiful and prosperous nation and tourists around the world even in war-torn countries prefer to live there.

It was neutral towards Nazi Germany.
Let that sink in.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It was neutral towards Nazi Germany.
Let that sink in.

And all it cost them was allowing Nazi weapons to travel freely through Switzerland, favourable trade agreements with the Nazi government, and the denial of the application of 25,000 Jewish refugees as well as denial of access to the funds of victims of the holocaust to their families.
SOURCE: Switzerland has not intervened in wars for more than 200 years, but during World War II it made an exception for Nazi gold and weapons. Hereʼs the story of Swiss flexible neutrality

But, hey, Switzerland got peace. Good for them. Yay.