Democracies have safeguards in place that complicates many radical actions, such as starting wars. So the long-term solution to problems like these is to get rid of all dictatorships, as peacefully as possible but with strong determination.
I'd like to see a UDN - a united democratic nations. The base rules should be that no country that has had the same person in the top two political positions of power for more than a decade can be part of the UDN and there should be steep barriers for trade with non-UDN nations.
This should be done while democratic countries still have the largest economies in the world, after that it's too late.
The US gets involved in a new war every 2-3 years [0]. In the 21st century pretty much every time they start something it has been effectively unprovoked. Democracies are notably more bloodthirsty than dictatorships; dictatorships need to preserve their troops at home to suppress dissidents but can't afford for the army generals to be too powerful which leads to a level of self-contradiction and ineffectiveness in undemocratic armies.
It is quite possible that if Russia were a democracy, the only change would be that they prosecuted the war more competently.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
This page explains how grassroots democracy and public participation works in China. https://news.cgtn.com/event/2021/who-runs-the-cpc/index.html
This is a good overview of how the party is structured, and how people participate in the governing process. This is fundamentally different from how electoral parties work in western countries. https://news.cgtn.com/event/2019/whorunschina/index.html
The party in China is predominantly composed of working class people as opposed to a ruling political class as seen in the west. This goes a long way in helping ensure that the interests of the government align with the interests of the working majority http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/
Furthermore, a study spanning many decades of US policy shows that US can hardly be called a democracy in practical terms:
What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to pretend to be shocked that in a country who's censorship apparatus is not only the worlds best, but well known by the name "The Great Firewall of China"[^1]. The same country who has demonstrated they will jail you for having or expressing thoughts contrary to the ruling party's stance[^2]. That people who live in said country, when asked, agree their country is the best. If I was worried that admitting I have questions about my country would get me sent to an interment camp, for some forced "re-education". I'd likely adamantly agree my country was democratic.
But even I'm mistaken about all the human rights abuses in China, and it's actually a great, misunderstood place. I still wouldn't trust the majority public opinion about something. Because unless I'm curious about sentiment, it's far better to trust and rely on experts, rather than the feelings of an opinion poll. Which is something I'd hope you agree with given you cite a Cambridge study in this very comment.
[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_China [^2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_China
Having a peaceful mandatory transfer of power from any individual after a set number of years is not the only requirement but it's one of the most fundamental. China has removed that. The US for all its problems still has that, despite the troubles during the most recent election.
A democracy that has been subverted by corporate interests and is not acting in the best interests of its population still has mechanisms in place by which the population can detect and change such subversions. The forced transition of power being one of the most important.
There simply isn't enough political chatter coming out of China to support the idea that there is a healthy democratic process at work. Although I take no position on how stable their foreign policy may or may not be.
Given that Russia has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council with veto power, this is basically making it impossible to sanction Russia.
Section 2 is a clear condemnation of NATO expansion into Ukraine.
>The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs.
I don't think there is any other way to read this. Russia is not expanding a military Bloc. A "military bloc" is a set of countries with military alliance. This is perfectly in line with China's historic perspective on the issue.
NATO is a defensive alliance.
So you are saying China don't want their neighbors to defend themselves?
Absolutely not, and especially so if those neighbors were aligning with the USA. Do you think China would be excited about Taiwan or Mongolia forming a military alliance with the USA? Even if it is defensive?
Read point 2. It clearly condemns defensive Alliances.
“The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs.“
...
“All parties should oppose the pursuit of one's own security at the cost of others' security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.“
I can't think of another way to read this
2. Abandoning the Cold War mentality. The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed properly. There is no simple solution to a complex issue. All parties should, following the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security and bearing in mind the long-term peace and stability of the world, help forge a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture. All parties should oppose the pursuit of one's own security at the cost of others' security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.
>The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs.
The most clear interpretation of this section is a condemnation of NATO expansion into Ukraine. NATO is the "military bloc" described here.
A military bloc is a military alliance of states. Russia invading Ukraine isn't a "strengthening or expansion" of the Russian military bloc.
NATO alliance Ukraine clearly advances the security of the EU and Ukraine itself.
It seems some countries don't want their neighbors to defend themselves?
China and American Conservatives are an demanding immediate halt of Western support for Ukraine followed by "peace talks". What exactly is there to talk about when Russia doesn't even recognize Ukraine's right to exist?
Russia has been somewhat effective in misleading the West into thinking that the conquest is only about Donbas and Crimea. Meanwhile Russian officials all the way up to Putin himself have been hinting or outright stating that the war is about annexing all of Ukraine.
No one thinks that.
"Ukraine-Russia Peace:
- Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.
- Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).
- Water supply to Crimea assured.
- Ukraine remains neutral."
That's clearly: If Ukraine gives away Donbas and Crimea, Russia will leave.
There seems to be millions of twits that have forgotten that Russia assaulted Kyiv, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, Chernihiv, and Sumy oblasts
Putin can start doing that today if he's serious about peace. China should demand Putin to do these things if China is serious about peace.
But they're not serious, are they.
would a person that is capable of starting a war ever accept those terms ?
especially since pulling back now puts them in a worse state than before having invaded, with NATO expansion, losses etc