Evening all, and thank you EL for submitting this knotty and eternal problem: the intersection of morality and self-interest.
And then there is "enlightened" self-interest, which rarely presents as the fast and easy fix.
I think that Britain and America, at least, have come round to where many of us initially began: allowing Putin to get away with this may have initially seemed like self-interest, but only in the shorter-term. In the longer-term, it is in the West's enlightened self-interest to see that Putin fails, both for moral AND geopolitical reasons. If Biden's comments at his last press conference are anything to go by, it seems that morality and opportunity are aligned enough. Those stars do not often enough align.
As for Britain - it is to be hoped that whatever happens with the government, looking toward the national council elections on 5 May that IF the Tories have their hind-ends handed to them, which is likely, it is to be hoped that Johnson's vocal support for stopping Putin by any means is continued. For Americans, please note that these are not Parliamentary elections in which MPs are selected and whichever party achieves a majority with enough MPs becomes the party in power - these are national/local elections, with only a handful of Parliamentary by-elections involved. Nevertheless, if a party loses 800 council seats, the fallout could certainly lead to a snap Parliamentary election (snap elections: the graveyard of political ambition), which the Tories would almost certainly lose, although Labour may still not achieve a majority. OR Johnson could be ousted with a No Confidence vote, and a leadership contest despite there being scant compelling candidates in the ranks to replace him. We will only have a better bead on that after 5 May.
So a change in government in Britain quite soon isn't impossible, and it is to be hoped that even if this does occur within a short time, the policy toward stopping Putin will not change. It is mostly Britain and America carrying this flag.
Evening all, and thank you EL for submitting this knotty and eternal problem: the intersection of morality and self-interest.
And then there is "enlightened" self-interest, which rarely presents as the fast and easy fix.
I think that Britain and America, at least, have come round to where many of us initially began: allowing Putin to get away with this may have initially seemed like self-interest, but only in the shorter-term. In the longer-term, it is in the West's enlightened self-interest to see that Putin fails, both for moral AND geopolitical reasons. If Biden's comments at his last press conference are anything to go by, it seems that morality and opportunity are aligned enough. Those stars do not often enough align.
As for Britain - it is to be hoped that whatever happens with the government, looking toward the national council elections on 5 May that IF the Tories have their hind-ends handed to them, which is likely, it is to be hoped that Johnson's vocal support for stopping Putin by any means is continued. For Americans, please note that these are not Parliamentary elections in which MPs are selected and whichever party achieves a majority with enough MPs becomes the party in power - these are national/local elections, with only a handful of Parliamentary by-elections involved. Nevertheless, if a party loses 800 council seats, the fallout could certainly lead to a snap Parliamentary election (snap elections: the graveyard of political ambition), which the Tories would almost certainly lose, although Labour may still not achieve a majority. OR Johnson could be ousted with a No Confidence vote, and a leadership contest despite there being scant compelling candidates in the ranks to replace him. We will only have a better bead on that after 5 May.
So a change in government in Britain quite soon isn't impossible, and it is to be hoped that even if this does occur within a short time, the policy toward stopping Putin will not change. It is mostly Britain and America carrying this flag.
TC