The Economist article, "Can the West win?" argues the importance and growing relevance of neutral or non-aligned countries in the greater conflict between Russia and Ukraine (or the West). The article mentions that over 4 billion people spread amongst more than 100 countries are remaining neutral in the war and continuing to trade with both the US and Russia in many instances. The US has encouraged countries to join the fight against Russia by limiting trade and giving up their neutral position. The article, however, acknowledges the economic strength and growth of these countries since the Cold War as being greater than growth in Europe. This, however, is not surprising given out previous discussions on growth rates being much higher in the first years of industrialization and production than consequential years showing that Europe industrialized before the 100+ neutral countries. Nonetheless, these countries are also becoming unexpected champions for free trade by not letting the political decision Russia made to invade Ukraine to interfere with trade. Although morally it may not be supported, these countries are in fact doing well economically because of their decision to stay neutral and the article begs the question that if the West's decision to stop trade and tear down relationship with neutral countries really to their benefit?
8 comments:
The west should absolutely continue trade with neutral countries and i even think economically we should stop funding Ukraine in this war completely. We are in a spot where we see our currency being doubted, and economy falling apart. I think the only decisions we should make should benefit us. I think that America first policy is the best way to go to help save our domestic economic issues.
The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine could potentially affect trade relationships between neutral countries and the US or Russia. The conflict also raises questions about political alignment, as some countries may choose to remain neutral while others may align with the US or Russia. The West's decision to stop trade and tear down relationships with neutral countries could potentially have an impact on their economic growth. The article acknowledges that the decision to remain neutral may not be morally supported, but these countries are doing well economically as a result of their decision. This raises questions about the balance between morality and economic interests in foreign policy decisions.
While limiting trade with neutral countries may seem logical to pressure them to take a stance in the conflict, I think this approach could have unintended consequences. For instance, these countries could pivot to other trading partners, such as China, which could lead to the U.S. losing out on potential economic benefits.
I feel as if the world doesn't work as it did in past years with war. Wars are being fought differently in todays world, and it feels as if the neutral countries do not want the economic instability of switching consumption away from Russia and it is not worth it to them to have their own people suffer from potential higher prices. I feel that history plays an important role in the way the US has handled it, and other country's have not held onto that history like we have been able to do with the resources we have to not purchase from Russia.
While the US urging countries to limit trade with Russia it does not huinder there plans by much because Russia has been continuously making most of their military products in country for the majority of the war. Many smaller countries might not also want to give up their oil supply in fear of oil reaching a height that can not be controlled.
I think every country has the right to first focus on its own economic growth and then extend its hands to aid others. These neutral countries have been struggling for ages; finally, they are back on track. Moreover, the consequences of Covid-19 are still not over for many countries, so it is wise that these neutral countries stay neutral in the Russia-Ukraine war and trade with both US and Russia. If one talks in terms of moral codes, then I would say yes, these neutral countries should stand against violence, but other than that, they are just trying to protect themselves and don't want to be part of the Us-Russia conflict.
Brittani,
This is a very good article with many good points. In my opinion, the moral thing to do would be to cut off trade with Russia so they perform worse economically and stop the conflict between Ukraine. However, I understand that countries would want to stay neutral because the trade they have with Russia benefits both parties and represents a large part of most countries GDP. On top of this, many countries are still struggling with the effects of COVID-19. This is important to know because these countries are in a way forced to continue trade with Russia because they cannot afford any more loss within their economy - lower GDP.
Overall, this is a really good post. Well done.
Your post highlights the intersection between politics and economics and more specifically how at times the two contradict each other given their influence on the other. Economically, I don't think Russia will be heavily affected if these countries limit trade because China is taking advantage of the War in Ukraine to trade with Russia. This has a huge impact on Russian economy as well as other neighboring European nations who rely on Russia for oil
Post a Comment