When we see that nations are hostages of their criminal governments - what real mechanisms are there for helping those nations? e.g. what would be the outcome of targeting specifically Lukashenko, Putin, Kim Jong-un along with their inner circles respectively?
Usually(last 50y) US and EU would initiate sanctions, if it doesn't collide too greatly with their own interests, that would put pressure on respective government by putting their economy in peril.
Lately US has stepped down from that role, and openly started diplomatic hostilities towards the EU. EU isn't powerful enough alone, plus they deal with their own economic and social issues which make them not stable enough to afford sanctions.
Trade concerns are not really a huge issue with Belarus. This isn't Russia, or even Iran. Pipelines would be the main issue.
I disagree about why the EU isn't a major player in this. Economically, and even militarily the EU is quite powerful. In terms of political stability, the EU is on par (or perhaps even better, at this particular moment) than the US. Certainly more stable than Russia.
The issue is that the EU does not see itself as a polity, in this sense. I do think it's starting though.
A big problem is that it's hard to be effective. Sanctions rarely work.
One aspect that I find often overlooked is that when countries or agents within countries decide to take this sort of action, they have already factored in this sort of international response, which makes it obvious that these are not enough.
And if you mean "diplomatic hostiles" in that the US is angry at the EU for not cooperating with the sanction process against targeted countries or meeting their military obligations so that they qualify to vote in international politics, then I guess you're right.
Come on, really? Any cursory search of news, international wires, and related would clearly show numerous hostile statements and non-cooperation towards EU on numerous previously shared fronts. Not to mention Germany needing to constantly step up in what was previously the US's traditional role as advocate of liberty/justice on an internal stage (ex. recent Russian poisoning).
If you can't find an overwhelming abundance of literature to back up the previous poster's claim, I'll search and update this thread with a representative set.
Venezuela? Iran? All you have seen is a change towards friendliness to Russia. Its not a change in the policy of using sieges without declaring war to starve and kill populations to somehow punish leaders (I refuse the word sanctions because it is a weasel word). That practice is alive and well and worse then ever; the only change is in who its weirded against.
I just linked the State department's actual list of sanctions and their stance on sanctions and you call me wrong and link the daily frick'n beast and "The hates Trump more than cancer Guardian" to refute original sources?
I mean I'm sure their opinions are good representation for how they feel, but should they refute facts as reported by the bureaucrats which actually enforce the sanctions? I mean come on, this is ridiculous levels of gas lighting.
Lol, first I didn't say the UN, which is ridiculous. And second if you think the Philippines has as much say in if China takes over the South China Sea as the US has, then you are under a severe misunderstanding of how the world works.
Also it's ridiculous to think the UN has any real say in these things.
They can be targeted with economic sanctions, as Lukashenko and many of his government officials have been. If they're willing to pay the cost of the sanctions... that's pretty much the extent of the options, as long as their wrongdoing stays within their borders. The principle of sovereignty ultimately means a government doesn't have to be a free democracy if it doesn't want to.
As an ordinary person, solidarity is important. It may seem wishy washy, but history has shown many times that solidarity can matter. If we could replicate the same solidarity European cities saw in support of the George Floyd protests, it would put some wind behind Belarusian democrats.
In terms of government/official action... I think the priority should be to discourage Russian intervention with any diplomatic clout available. The UK and France are in the most important position, IMO. France primarily, as a member of the EU which borders Belarus.
Vladimir Putin recently wrote an article about the importance of the Security council. To put this in his own (kinda) words, Russian security intervention on behalf of Lukashenko is entirely not acceptable to three council members. In the interest of world peace, keep your troops inside your own borders.
That is not to say Russia should be treated as an enemy. They are a party, and their concerns need to be heard too.
Ideally, Russia and the EU (not NATO, imo) should negotiate a framework for peaceful transition.
First you must define what you mean by "nations are hostages of their criminal governments". Only very few countries are considered "full democracy", with some other considered "flawed democracy", but the majority can be said are worse or better dictatorships.
Democracy Index compiled by the Economist[0] places 76 countries into the 'democracies' pile, a further 23 into 'hybrid regimes' pile, and the other 68 are autocracies of various types, with Belarus at #150 of 167 on the list.
The economist is a very dubious source for defining "democracy", given their hyperliberal free market ideology that, for example, believes that vast corruption of media for the interests of the wealthy is good and normal. Its a media empire founded in supporting slavery and imerialism, and hasn't changed much.
It’s not a media empire (that’s Pearson, if the FT and Economist are an “empire”), it wasn’t founded to support slavery (wrong by about 50 years for the UK, and supported the Union in the Civil War, https://www.economist.com/united-states/1865/04/22/the-fall-...) and I doubt very much it has ever claimed anything like “vast media corruption is good and normal”. Please don’t post without doing basic fact-checking.
