How to Punish Putin(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How to Punish Putin
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/opinion/how-to-punish-putin.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1
2 comments
> The nation-state is an ancient concept
Actually, its not. The alignment of "nation" and "state" which it represents is an extremely recent thing. I suspect that, among other potential errors, you are confusing the idea of the nation-state with the idea of the state; the two are not equivalent, in much the same way that "automobile" and "wheeled vehicle" are not equivalent.
Actually, its not. The alignment of "nation" and "state" which it represents is an extremely recent thing. I suspect that, among other potential errors, you are confusing the idea of the nation-state with the idea of the state; the two are not equivalent, in much the same way that "automobile" and "wheeled vehicle" are not equivalent.
You imply that my comments should be dismissed on the basis that nation-state is not an ancient concept. And you're wording implies that I am confused.
You did not attempt to address any of the substance of my remarks or even to approach them. I believe this is because it challenges your world view.
What, practically speaking, is the difference between a nation-state and state, in the context of my remarks? Should that definition or history change my opinion of the United States or Russia, given the actual behaviors of those countries? Should that conception change my judgement of the nation-state given the actual activities engaged in by nation-states?
You did not attempt to address any of the substance of my remarks or even to approach them. I believe this is because it challenges your world view.
What, practically speaking, is the difference between a nation-state and state, in the context of my remarks? Should that definition or history change my opinion of the United States or Russia, given the actual behaviors of those countries? Should that conception change my judgement of the nation-state given the actual activities engaged in by nation-states?
[deleted]
Its going to be difficult for people to comprehend this, but I think its a matter of just a few degrees. Sure seems to me that he is a dictator who will kill you if you get too powerful and cross him.
However, in the terms of military action, Russia's activities have been relatively benign in comparison to the United State's recent actions.
The United States and allies certainly have played a hand in recent violent political activities in Ukraine, although most likely through covert means.
Whereas Russia has come out in the open to assert its own influence over nearby borders.
On the other hand, are we quite sure that there haven't been any anti-establishment American figures who have been assassinated (by the establishment)? Certainly there have been. Most people can't accept that reality.
What is accepted is that the United States will readily assassinate leaders in other countries for geopolitical purposes.
What is accepted is that the United States will readily invade other countries under false pretenses in order to advance its own territorial or resource desires. And the United States has taken this policy to great length recently.
There is nothing ethical about any of these activities which involve deadly force.
The nation-state is an ancient concept that is fundamentally based on violence. Its just an extremely official and well-respected Mafia. But still founded on the same criminal and unethical principles of coercion by threat of death or imprisonment.