boldotter2 said:Actually, if you look at history, autocratic states were actually the ones dealing with the most trouble regarding migrants, minorities, and refugees. That's why they persecuted them—usually unsuccessfully—only to eventually collapse under all that pressure.
Europe and the whole West wouldn't be what they are today if Rome and Byzantium hadn't known how to handle newcomers at their borders. I guess we’re all literally descendants of refugees.
Democracy, industrialization, Western-style socialism, and capitalism have, for the first time in history, created a functional social model where you can actually turn a profit from minority groups.
The USA was built first on the British misunderstanding of "human rights," and then by directly profiting from migrants.
3) Trump was also sucking up to him, which I bet American intelligence circles used to egg Putin on about being invincible, walking him right onto thin ice.
4) The Chinese person also patted him on the back under the guise of "eternal friendship" while he was stepping out onto that thin ice. It was basically, "Go ahead, we've got your back... well, not really."
Putin is just incredibly stupid.
I have to disagree there, though I won't dive too deep into it since it feels a bit off-topic. Migrants, minorities, and refugees are actually distinct concepts and represent very different social phenomena.
We are all, quite literally, the descendants of refugees.
I don't quite see it that way, though I would certainly agree that we are all descendants of migrants—that part is absolutely true.
Democracy, industrialization, Western-style socialism, and capitalism have, for the first time in history, achieved a functional social model where minority groups can be directly leveraged for profit.
Minorities and migrants aren't the same thing; they are separate terms entirely.
Within a certain society, a member of a minority group might indeed be a descendant of migrants, but that isn't always the case (take the Basques in Spain, for example).
The USA was built first on a British misunderstanding of "human rights," and subsequently on direct profiteering from migrants.
Migration can be a boon for some societies under certain conditions, while for others, it can be a hindrance.
It is such a complex issue because it relies on an incredibly wide array of factors—affecting both the people arriving and the communities receiving them.
I'll concede that the USA has certainly profited from migration (partly because refugees there often have to work just to survive, unlike in much of the European Union where robust social safety nets exist).
However, even in the USA, there is a massive emphasis on strictly regulating and filtering that migration.
If the formula "more people equals a stronger, better, or healthier nation" were actually true, you'd see people from Switzerland or Finland fleeing to India, China, or Pakistan today. We obviously don't see that happening.
Anyway, we're drifting off-topic here, so I won't get sucked into a massive debate about migration; it's just too broad a subject.
Putin is as stupid as they come.
While the 2022 invasion of Ukraine was a colossal blunder, I wouldn't say Putin played his hand well right up until that invasion.
He managed to hook half of Europe on gas, he secured Crimea for nothing, and he even positioned his own players within the USA. You could say plenty of things about Putin, but calling him "stupid" isn't how I would characterize him.
