Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
I think that's reductionist. Countries can sometimes do quite a lot that's not really in their direct interest, but more importantly, there are times when countries decide to very definitely take sides.
India isn't taking Russia's side when it's buying discount Russian oil, but when Poland is sending Ukraine really significant portions of their own military hardware for free, that to me is taking a side. When neighboring countries fix Ukrainian military equipment for free, that's taking a side.
Sure, you can say that they're on Ukraine's side because their interests are deeply tied with Ukrainian interest, but that doesn't really change much.
Indian and Chinese interests aren't particularly tied to Russian interests.
Public opinion also matters hell of a lot in this stuff, and public opinion cares very little about national interest. If you want to be supercynical, you could argue European politicians are supporting Ukraine because that happens to be a very popular thing to do almost everywhere in Europe, but the politicians aren't any more "the country" than the people.
|
I'm obviously oversimplifying.
Even then, I'd say that countries act in alliances typically when it's in their best interests. Is it in Germany's best interest to stop buying Russian gas? No. However, in the larger picture, it's an awful idea to facilitate Russian acquisition of Ukraine and it's best to maintain a strong alliance (militarily and economically) with the rest of NATO.
I would also define "best interest" to include the will of the people living under the state, particularly in places where voters can remove the people running the state somewhat easily.