Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

katsumojo t1_j56da5t wrote

The problem with this statement is it places all of the fault on the people stuck in the cycle. Yes, they play a role BUT they are just making the best choices that are in place for them.

Imagine an example where Frank and Lisa are leaders of their respective population groups in the same country. When the war in Ukraine breaks out all grain supply is cut off to their country until a few months later when negotiations finally allow for a modest amount of grain to be exported to their country. It’s not as much as before the war and this instantly puts Frank and Lisa at odd’s. If Frank gets more grain, Lisa might try to negotiate but that would be fruitless because it’s not even enough grain for Frank. Next Lisa might resort to political/economic/social pressure. And if it get serious enough, Lisa’s people will demand war. They’re starving after all.

This is a dumbed down situation but this dynamic occurs in developing countries all over the world as a result of action without forethought by developed countries. Layer decades of this happening again and again and that’s how you end up with regional conflict zones.

1

Aleyla t1_j56htnj wrote

> Yes, they play a role BUT they are just making the best choices that are in place for them.

I think we are going to disagree on this. Often those leaders are making the best choices for them personally, not for the country the are running. Unfortunately this is a big part of human nature so the government that is put in place has to take that into account.

> This is a dumbed down situation but this dynamic occurs in developing countries all over the world as a result of action without forethought by developed countries.

A big part of being a leader is managing risks. Both internal and external. If Lisa and Frank are running a country and they aren’t actively trying to mitigate risks to their basic needs then what are they doing?

0