World News

History teaches what can happen when countries seek to avoid war against an aggressive country. Both the UK and France ended up at war.

Yes it does, but you have to realize that the problem isn't my knowledge of history and the conclusions I draw from it. The problem is the knowledge of history of the electorate and what conclusions they draw from it. You lecturing me on history I already know is a complete waste of time.

Reality can change depending on the future. Suppose Putin is on the verge of victory.

So again engaging in nebulous hypotheticals.

No, the war is draining the economies of Europe because Europe is supplying Ukraine with weapons. The US is forcing Europe to pay for the weapons it supplies.

Please go and look at the actual numbers. It's not draining anything.

It must not be a bluff. If Putin doesn't accept my proposal, the UK and France must send troops into Ukraine.

I agree but unfortunately it's not happening at least for now.

War would be costly, but sending weapons to Ukraine is straining Europe economies and what would Europe do if Putin is on the verge of victory?

Unfortunately people don't usually tend to plan for the long run especially when the outcome is not fully known yet. That's why when we have the knowledge and technology to mitigate climate change and a lot of diseases, we have done so little compared to what we could be doing despite that the cost is lower than the total cost of damages in the future. If people in power think the cost is too high right now to be worth it, then the change becomes too slow, this is true especially when these people are of the older generations where the future outcome won't effect them like it would do to younger generations.

People are willing to change if it makes sense.

True but that change faces high resistance from some groups and the system itself, and thus sometimes it's decided that it's not worth the backlash, the risk, and the cost even if everyone will benefit at the end.

I'm not saying change doesn't happen what I'm trying to say is that it's slow, hard and face resistance which only discourage it if it doesn't have short term instant results. For representative democracies war doesn't make since since the damage is short term while the benefits are long term which is the opposite of votes depends on. On the other hand, dictatorships don't care about votes it only cares about the benefits for the rulers, therefore if they will have direct benefits they can just go for it.

You will only get war when the government no longer cares about it's citizens and their votes (US), or the ideological and strategic benefits are too good to pass (Israel) or there is absolutely no choice.

many countries have accepted but

True but I believe it's more of a survival decision for some countries. For example where I live the government accepted refugees only because it meant they would get aid money and donations. For some western and European countries I believe it's their aging population. The pension system became too expensive when you had more older individuals and less young people of working age. Immigration was a temporary fix to delay the eventual collapse of the welfare capitalist system due to the changing demographics.

some European countries have allowed a flood of migrants resulting in an increase in crime and fears that the cultural identity of the country will be changed.

This is my point. Even when lots of people accepted it still faced backlash and resistance from day one that has only increased ever since. This delayed establishing better systems and laws to allow integration and benefits for both native citizens and immigrants only making the situation worse and as a result hurting genuine hard working people who were willing to integrate.

It's also worth noting that there are no strict rules when it comes to politics or sociology but rather a general tendency.

Your English is very good.

Thanks I appreciate it.