Don’t forget strong property rights, fairly impartial justice system wrt foreign representation, and a large body of corporate case law with predictable outcomes
It is hard to see the US system seizing its own assets to donate to the targets of US aggression in a comparable way. But for the sake of argument - impartial it may be, but it doesn't seem like the type of impartiality that is appealing to foreigners. If China goes for Taiwan they'll lose all their US assets for example; I doubt that sits well with them.
Business doesn't like things like wars of conquest where the legal system your factories operate under, your workers and the factories all seized by force or blown up when someone artillery strikes the town they're in to the ground.
The whole point of being a reserve currency is to be stable and a key part of that is also enforcing stability - which the US does through things like it's naval supremacy.
"Don't invade fellow democracies" is a pretty easy set of rules to play by, and is appealing to every country which would like not to be invaded - which is to say, economically doing business with the US is a very good deal if it means the US has your back if someone does look like they want to invade you.
This entire concept is one of the ideas currently being used to try and keep China in check, and it was presumed in Europe that this was what would keep Russia in check (and the failure of that assumption is now the cause of the huge uptick in orders for US military equipment - so even there, the US is doing well out of the policy).
But the US is a conglemeration of interests, and if you are businessman, an investor, a Capitalist, your interests are the US interests. If you actually understand what guides US foreign policy it's actually very easy to align yourself with US interests in a beneficial way without much costs. To become an "insider". There is no such thing as "unprovoked US aggression", it's all quite predictable decades ahead from certain actions performed today. The US is predictable, and that makes it easy to invest in.
China, Iran, Russia, NK, Cuba etc instead are still guided by nationalist impulses, which unfortunately can result in irrational decisions (Ukraine, Taiwan) that are unalignable with business interests. It's a matter of pride really, and that's a big no-no for the investor. It's unpredictable, we don't know if China will really invade Taiwan or not, and that's going to put a major cost in investing. As for other places like India or the EU, their economies aren't large enough and have good enough returns yet, but even if they did, they would likely operate in a similar manner as the US.
China are, in a disturbingly literal sense, doing dress rehearsals for a Taiwan invasion. As far as I know (not speaking Chinese) their rhetoric has been quite clear that they see military invasion as an option on this topic. They're probably going to be a US-calibre military superpower in short order given their economic and manufacturing foundations.
I doubt your answer will make a compelling case to their ears.
> There is no such thing as "unprovoked US aggression", it's all quite predictable decades ahead
That is suspect:
* It almost rejects the entire concept of unprovoked aggression. Although de-facto it is, damaging or obstructing the US's commercial interests isn't supposed to be considered a military provocation.
* It is at odds with a country like the US that is continuously in a state of conflict because of their commercial interests. On balance they're probably the most militarily aggressive country in existence right now. That is a lot of implicit provocation!
> China, Iran, Russia, NK, Cuba etc instead are still guided by nationalist impulses, which unfortunately can result in irrational decisions (Ukraine, Taiwan)
I can't resist a jab at this one. Thank goodness the rationalists prevailed on topics like Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to glorious success, prosperity and other good outcomes!
"The others are irrational actors, crazies. We are the normal ones" If you can't smell the propaganda you've been fed to believe this irrational racist statements probably you will enjoy the draft.
which was started via China's provocations in the southern china seas. Not to mention the de-democratization of hong kong.
As for russia, their "response" is due to the fact that they don't want ukraine to lean westwards, regardless of the desire of the populous. I personally don't believe russia should have any say in how ukraine leans, and if their populous wants to lean westwards, russia have no right to intervene.
Several paramilitary groups in its home soil have been funded by Russia, Russia took over Crimea, Russia has invaded them. Only then was NATO ever on the table.
The provocateur is pretty obvious in this case.
Hello, 2014 American sponsored, Nuland-designed Maidan coup which got rid of an elected President whose election had been formally and successfully vetted by EU observers, following which a fifth of Ukraine's ethnic Russian regions rebelled.
Remember - Nuland was so personally involved that she was handing over food and drinks to "protestors". If this had been a U.S. ally, there would have been howls of foreign interference 24x7 on TV.
Ukraine even put joining NATO as a constitutional guideline and part of their National Security Strategy in 2020-21!
Imagine Mexico as a member of a military Anti-USA coalition - you can bet that there would an American invasion the next year for "regime change".
> No country should be subjugated to the desires of another.
Remove U.S. military bases from Cuba, Iraq and Syria - and then talk about "subjugation" to the desires of another nation. The sanctimonious hypocrisy of Americans always astonishes non-NATO citizens.
Except that it wasn't that easy. Even back then there as debate over what status Crimea should have. The region already was an autonomy, and even held elections and elected a president. And then got attached to Ukraine anyway and had its independence obliterated.
There is a mechanism to resolve those matters: referendums. Once again your arguments are left wanting. Messy and difficult internal politics surrounding fundamental issues does not allow the invasion of a neighbour.
Crimea didn't need daddy Russia to forcibly integrate it into the Russian state. It could have done that all its own if it had wanted. The fact Russia has to lower itself to violence to integrate territory illustrates how poor its logic is.
But then 2014 happened, and everything changed. Once you choose to ally yourself with a foreign power that is aggressively attacking the larger nation you are attempting to secede from -- as the political establishment of the ASSR did at the time -- your moral claim to independence (a key being always an assurance that you will never do harm to that nation) is instantly invalidated.
And when that foreign power you are seeking to ally with also happens to be the one that genocided a large chunk of your indigenous population -- not centuries ago; but in living memory -- that claim is nullified even further.
Nuland was so personally involved that she was handing over food and drinks to "protestors"
And still she had no effect on the actual course of events. The whole Nuland story exists entirely in the lefty/peacenik blogosphere; but it's a complete non-story within Ukraine. You will literally not find a single educated person who gives any credence to it (outside the usual 5 percent of population who are ready to go off and believe anything).
You have no bleeding idea what I am. But you are welcome to be disgusted by whatever you like.
So those protestors didn't riot because Yanukovych killed the EU association agreement a day before signing?
An agreement that he ran his election platform on and replaced it with a customs union with Belarus and Russia.
Btw it was Yanukovych who proposed making Yatsenyuk as prime minister on Jan 25.
FSB thug Igor Girkin himself said that he and his men started the Donbas conflict when they occupied Sloviansk.
The first prime minister of Donetsk Alexander Borodai once said in a phone call that his loyalty was to one and one nation only, the Russian Federation.
- Bosnia (92-95, air and naval campaign)
- Kosovo (99, air campaign)
- Afghanistan (ISAF, technically post-invasion, 03-14)
- Libya (11, air campaign)
If Russia is worried about NATO aggression, that doesn't seem to be supported by facts.
Uh, if we’re literally counting air campaigns as invasion better not tally up Wagner’s score.
Beyond moronic to frame invading Ukraine as defensive. It’s as inexcusable as us fucking into Iraq.
Although there's the argument the Kurds invited us into Iraq... (before we abandoned them for the 3rd time)
Everyone believes this, not just those on "our" side. Geopolitics is currently best described as a forcefield, where a myriad of interests vie for influence at any cost. To believe that "the other side" is simply responding to the nefarious, expansionist ambitions of the west is not smelling the propaganda too.
The good side is but one, the side that seeks to replace destructive, imperialist, selfish policies from all sides with cooperation and the rule of international law. That is unfortunately a fledgling position to take ATM.
.
Seems like that’s crumbling, to the point it’s concerning even to me.