Well it is, it's just a turning point chapter one way or the other
Would that be the rules based international order, essentially a 'what the US says you do' rules based order, were the rules don't actually apply to those imposing them (see sanctions (cuba most notable in that regard) regime changes (pick any of 20+ that have happened) and invasions (a good few there too) on anyone who doesn't follow the orders.
Democracy as long as it's the democracy we like, same as autocracy is good if it's an ally (S. Arabia, Chile under Pinochet)
All the US foreign policy is about national interest, or rather national interest of a certain element within the US (certainly not the average Joe)
Well it seems China is the country who actually has a very strong policy of investing in the third worlds infrastructure, and it's doing so via a mutually beneficial system, B&R initiative and now via BRICS. Europe and the US have a long history of colonization and stripping countries of their wealth. Modern version of this is loans via the IMF and World bank which then set conditions (imposes them) on countries so that they can be dictated to on what they grow, what they produce and are forced into agreements almost to hand over all key resources to western corporations (called allowing foreign ownership or investment ) but ends up like the uranium mines with the french, selling off Land (Blackrock and JP Morgan say hi).
Yup context is always a good thing, but context works both ways and to all parties involved.
Again a case of the US/western allied world deciding that there system is the only system, and that the system is only when it's one they like (a very narrow view of democracy that)
Supporting genuine democracy is good, supporting a democracy only when they swear allegiance - not exactly democracy in the true sense of the word is it. Can you name the last time a none US ally elected someone opposed to close US ties won a democratic election and the US didn't allege corruption and an invalid result?
You'll note I've taken you up about your general assertions rather than any one specific current situation, maybe you're able to debate these points without resorting to name calling or silly GIFs.
Most free people do not want the next chapter to be one in which they live under a dictator’s boot, I’d assume that to be obvious.
Regarding a "
rules-based international order," international law is intended to apply universally, not selectively. While Western nations have made mistakes, such as in Iraq or Libya, this doesn’t justify Russia’s actions in Ukraine or its disregard for international norms. The idea is not to impose a one-size-fits-all democracy but to uphold the rights of all nations to self-determination, as opposes to living under a dictator. Democracy is a continually evolving process, shaped by the changing needs and aspirations of society, and with the possibilities that digital innovation is bringing. While the free world enjoys significant freedoms, it is fair to say that our understanding of true democracy is still being refined. Issues like representation, accountability, and the protection of individual rights are areas where we strive for improvement. In contrast, leaders like Putin actively seek to halt this evolution, imposing authoritarian control to suppress dissent and stifle democratic aspirations. His actions not only threaten the freedoms of those within Russia but also serve as a cautionary reminder of what could happen if democratic progress is undermined globally. It’s essential to remain vigilant and committed to advancing democratic principles, ensuring that they adapt to the challenges of our time, namely the continuous evidnece of Russian interference, along with Russia’s axis of China and Iran etc.
As a free man, I can say without fear that US foreign policy and its inconsistencies are also acknowledged. I could go out with a placard shouting this on the streets if I wanted, and a I can vote with such things in mind. Could someone do likewise in Moscow about the SMO, or dare I say, war? How do Putins political opponents fare? Authoritarian regimes typically do not arise from stable environments, rather, they often emerge during periods of crisis, turmoil, or significant social unrest. In times of insecurity, individuals may seek, or be led to the promise of strong leadership that promises quick solutions, even at the expense of democratic freedoms. This desire for stability can lead to support for authoritarian figures who position themselves as protectors in chaotic circumstances. It is part of the Kremlin playbook and underpins their active measures - create instability and step in. However, while these leaders may initially gain public backing by presenting themselves as stabilising forces, their rule frequently results in further instability. Authoritarianism relies on repression, lack of accountability, and the stifling of dissent, ultimately undermining the very stability that people sought. Rather than fostering lasting stability, authoritarian regimes often thrive in contexts where democratic systems are failing or where socio-economic conditions breed discontent and fear and as history shows, these dictator types tend to seek personal wealth and gain whilst clinging to power, just like your guy, Putin and his stooges. For these realities it is crucial to support genuine democracy worldwide, but that means holding all nations accountable for their actions, not just those in the West. This is what Ukrainians are fighting for/against, and I completely understand this.
As for China’s investments in developing nations, while they may appear mutually beneficial, we can’t ignore the long-term implications of these relationships. There is growing concern that these countries might end up heavily indebted or reliant on Chinese influence, which could lead to a different kind of exploitation and in developing nations China’s model is within the parameters of corruption and exploitation, like wise with Russian business dealings. China and Russia’s current resource grabbing in Africa being an example.
I agree that context is vital, and it should indeed apply to all parties involved. When we discuss democracy, it’s important to advocate for systems that empower citizens rather than merely serve the interests of those in power. True democracy is about representation and accountability, and it requires ongoing commitment from both the governed and the governing.
Supporting democracy should not be conditional on alignment with any one nation’s interests but rather rooted in the fundamental principles of human rights and self-determination for all. When posters on here are clearly going against that they tend to get a potato badge or the like.
www.nbcnews.com
www.washingtontimes.com
whyy.org
www.politico.com
abcnews.go.com
