I'm not sure if it could be classed as a replacement. Traditional imperialism, with settler colonialism and all that, was still fundamentally tied to the nation-state, and perhaps it's the same now. In any case no, I don't think it works well.
Who's confused!? The Nazis - so far as I know - were not prosecuted for war, but for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is absolutely unfathomable that someone as smart as you - and Netherlander to boot! - fails to make this distinction.This is confused on various levels. If war is amoral, what were the Nazis guilty of? — Benkei
You need to figure out what you're thinking - in any case, the issue of civilian targets was not what it became during and after WWI. What we're about is this:The 1907 The Hague Convention stipulates clearly civilian targets were off limits. — Benkei
Anyway, the details don't matter so much as long as everybody understands Churchill was a war criminal too. — Benkei
And yes, Truman and Churchill should be thrown in exactly the same pile as Hitler and Stalin - the pile of war criminals. That Hitler and Stalin were worse is no defense of Churchill's action. — Benkei
The Nazis - so far as I know - were not prosecuted for war, but for war crimes and crimes against humanity. — tim wood
And how does that work? You border here on the disgusting. What moral blind-spot do I exhibit with attributing to Churchill the kind of heroism I mentioned above, and on what planet or in what deranged sensibility does that equate in any way with any kind of nazism or neo-nazism? In case you cannot tell, I am calling you out. Make your case.But you've made it abundantly clear you think he's a hero, which is the same type of moral blindspot neo-nazi's have with regards to Hitler.... — Benkei
....Hitler was just defending a down trodden nation and people who were unjustly extorted by their neighbours after WWI. Poland had stolen land, the French had stolen land and the reparation pays were devastating. Hitler was a hero! Never mind he gassed millions of Jews because he stood up for his people!
And yes, Truman and Churchill should be thrown in exactly the same pile as Hitler and Stalin - the pile of war criminals. That Hitler and Stalin were worse is no defense of Churchill's action. — Benkei
Likely not.If the US disappeared today, the reality is that China and Russia will terrorize the world into submission whilst Europe cowers in a corner. The US is a necessary nuisance and for this reason its imperialism should be maintained, but not accelerated. — The Opposite
And yes, [***EDIT***] Roosevelt and Churchill should be thrown in exactly the same pile as Hitler and Stalin - the pile of war criminals. That Hitler and Stalin were worse is no defense of Churchill's action. — Benkei
Withdrawing now could have grave (and melodramatic) consequences — The Opposite
You do not distinguish between attacker and defender, and the respective truth and lies they told. Can you really not tell the difference between the persons and situations of FDR, Truman, Churchill, v. Hitler and Stalin? — tim wood
In a response I was writing in another thread I was going to compare Stalin, Churchill, Hitler, and Roosevelt, drawing the conclusion that Hitler was categorically worse than Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt. I changed my mind because I figured that someone like you would say they were all guilty. Which, of course, they were -- just not of the same crimes and not under the same circumstances. I've read about Stalin's various crimes, and can think of several things for which FDR could be found guilty. But Churchill? I'd appreciate your pointing out his crimes. The books I've read and the films I've seen about Churchill were all pretty positive. I admit a bias from insufficient study. — Bitter Crank
“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do. — RAF
Cartoonish, pretty much everything. Mainly, the idea that Putin is merely a gangster out for himself, bleeding the people dry so he can build more palaces for himself. It's simplistic and a bit ignorant, I think. — jamalrob
The failure of so many members of this philosophy forum to grasp the overwhelmingly obvious difference between such good guys and bad guys is truly pathetic. It makes me embarrassed to have invested so much time in such a juvenile operation. — Hippyhead
Seeing the world in good and bad is the actual philosophical failure here, allowing for no nuance or reflection — Benkei
Paul gets this. You don't. — Hippyhead
But the "modern" standards of treating POWs existed already in treaties from 1907 and 1929. I'm judging it by the standards of that time. Japan never ratified 1929 Geneva Convention in the treatment of POWs but did say in 1942 it would follow the 1907 Hague rules. — Benkei
https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_what_does_russia_want_7297/What Russia truly wants in terms of territory is a sphere of control in its neighbourhood – mainly, the six countries that lie between the EU and Russia and comprise what the EU calls its Eastern neighbourhood: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Moscow expects these countries to be sensitive to Moscow’s wishes; it wants to have the ability to manage, arbitrate, and veto their relations with the West, and to prevent the expansion of Western organisations into that part of the world, based on the assumption that any Western actions there should have Russia’s approval. What Moscow wants to avoid is the emergence of direct links and true closeness between the region’s countries and the West: that is why it bent over backwards in 2013 to prevent the association agreements with the EU from being signed.
And this is where the clash between Russia and Europe becomes fundamental and paradigmatic: it is impossible for the West to grant Russia such a sphere of control. The countries either have the right to choose their own arrangements and alliances, or they do not – there is no space in between, and this is not a question that can be managed with a wise compromise.
However, it is rarely understood that this paradigmatic disagreement extends far beyond this territory. What Russia really wants is a new international order, and new global – or at least European – rules of the game. It wants to do away with many of the basic concepts of what has been called the post-cold war liberal order: the emphasis on human rights, the possibility of regime changes and humanitarian interventions.
[...]
Russia’s view of the new world order that it desires is admittedly neither very developed nor sophisticated. But in essence, Moscow wants the West to give up on its vision of liberal international order and to return to conducting international affairs based on realpolitik. And because of this, the West and Russia are again locked in a conceptual standoff, not unlike that of the Cold War – this time, not over domestic models, but over the international order. — Kadri Liik
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879366516300239During the 17 years that Vladimir Putin has ruled Russia, the country has become increasingly authoritarian. However, I argue that this rollback of democracy has not been motivated by Putin's blind desire to maximize his political power, as many have assumed. Rather, his anti-democratic policies have responded to perceived specific threats to his control. In applying theories originally developed in the field of international relations to individual leaders, we can understand Putin as a “defensive realist” who balances against threats in order to maintain security rather than maximize power. This is an essential distinction that produces important conclusions about what motives lie behind the increasingly authoritarian character of the Russian state and gives insights into the possible future trajectory of the regime. — Robert Person (Associate Professor of International Relations at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York)
What Russia truly wants in terms of territory is a sphere of control in its neighbourhood – mainly, the six countries that lie between the EU and Russia and comprise what the EU calls its Eastern neighbourhood: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. — Kadri Liik
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.