… based on what happened with COVID, it may not be prudent to expect Americans to support the cause for much more than 24 months
“Of course we respect all of their problems, but for us, the interests of our farmers are the most important thing.”
That escalated far to quickly.
Poland is the most crucial Ukraine is having in the EU, IMO. Hopefully, their beef is going to end even before the election.
Supporter. That line above is missing a “supporter”.
ETA 2: for clarity: quoted from the linked guardian piece and commented on it.
“Republicans in a new letter to the White House are vowing to oppose further aid to Ukraine, asking questions about where the money’s going and whether Kyiv is making progress against Russia.”
Effing JD Vance (R-Ohio).
To be sure, even in sum, the international community’s response has not yet yielded the hoped for end of conflict. Moreover, the war may have shown that certain tools, including sanctions, could have somewhat limited efficacy in an autocracy like Russia (though even that is subject to heated debate). What is clear, however, is that for all the ways in which the Russia-Ukraine conflict appears to indicate that international law lacks continuing force, the international response has, in fact, inspiringly proven its potency in responding to pariah states like Russia.
Bending, Not Breaking, the Rules
What predictions can be made about whether future authoritarian aggressors will comply with jus ad bellum and jus in bello ? In many ways, the international community’s response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict can be seen as the continuation of an effort by the United States and its allies after World War II to develop a rules-based international order to promote peace, security, and cooperation. While not inevitable, at least for the foreseeable future, this regime, predicated on a system of laws, rules, and norms, will likely continue to serve as the basis by which the legitimacy of state behavior will be judged. Therefore, it also is likely to continue to influence that behavior.
Rather than rejecting outright the norms and laws on which the international order is built, some states, particularly China and Russia, can be expected to undertake efforts to reshape them to advance their own strategic interests and create what scholar Tom Ginsburg termed authoritarian international law. Indeed, China, in particular, has called for a great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, a key aspect of which entails efforts by China’s leaders to take an active part in leading the reform of the global governance system. Broadly illustrative of this point are China’s efforts at creating a veneer of legal legitimacy for its ambitions in the South China Sea and, more recently, to publish maps that encroach on territory claimed by Russia, India, Malaysia, and others.
As if he would support funding if Ukraine were making more gains…
Russian State TV Praises Kevin McCarthy For Zelensky Snub
Russia is celebrating Republicans a lot these days