I agree with practically everything you wrote, but I think you chose a wrong website to publish this.
Not sure if I should explain—I see that your account is new, but does it mean that you discovered this website now, or were you a passive reader for a long time and only registered an account to post this? Basically, it should be obvious that we don’t do traditional political debates here.
Your style does not fit the audience. Generally, rhetorical techniques that are successful in other places, are often a weakness here. To give you an example:
If one country can use military force to cross borders unchallenged, what prevents others from doing the same?
I understand the spirit of the statement, but from the technical perspective, the simple answer is that what prevents most countries from doing the same is their lack of nukes.
Thanks for your comment! You’re right I was mostly a passive reader on LW. I tried to make the essay sound as logic and unbiased as I possible. If you could recommend any blogs or public online spaces where I could post my essays on situations about Ukraine and be heard, I’d be really pleased.
Concerning the question you referred to, I wish the rule of international law would prevent countries from invading one another rather lack of nukes. Ukraine took such a step to signal about its good intentions by swapping nuclear weapons for respect for its borders but the good intentions were nullified by Russia’s invasion.
You could start your own blog on Substack, but then the problem will be how to find an audience. But posting a link somewhere in a comment section is easier than posting the entire article.
The international law is just a very thin layer on top of the “law of the jungle”. Czechoslovakia also had all kinds of guarantees in 1938 and they also turned out not to be worth the paper they were written on.
I agree with practically everything you wrote, but I think you chose a wrong website to publish this.
Not sure if I should explain—I see that your account is new, but does it mean that you discovered this website now, or were you a passive reader for a long time and only registered an account to post this? Basically, it should be obvious that we don’t do traditional political debates here.
Your style does not fit the audience. Generally, rhetorical techniques that are successful in other places, are often a weakness here. To give you an example:
I understand the spirit of the statement, but from the technical perspective, the simple answer is that what prevents most countries from doing the same is their lack of nukes.
Thanks for your comment! You’re right I was mostly a passive reader on LW. I tried to make the essay sound as logic and unbiased as I possible. If you could recommend any blogs or public online spaces where I could post my essays on situations about Ukraine and be heard, I’d be really pleased.
Concerning the question you referred to, I wish the rule of international law would prevent countries from invading one another rather lack of nukes. Ukraine took such a step to signal about its good intentions by swapping nuclear weapons for respect for its borders but the good intentions were nullified by Russia’s invasion.
You could start your own blog on Substack, but then the problem will be how to find an audience. But posting a link somewhere in a comment section is easier than posting the entire article.
The international law is just a very thin layer on top of the “law of the jungle”. Czechoslovakia also had all kinds of guarantees in 1938 and they also turned out not to be worth the paper they were written on.