Yes it is giving free stuff. Unless you are all in support of France giving reparations to Haitii for how they were mistreated,
It's a legal thing, it's a matter of time, and they already got a whole bloody island out of the deal, if anything they should be paying because that's a pretty valuable island from what i've heard.
or that America should give reparations to Iraq for the invasion and damage it did?
To who? It would be a total mess, including paying to people who absolutely deserved damage (Saddam's enforcers) while the benefits (like Kurds not being gassed and Shia getting some political freedoms) would not be counted, perhaps the reparations would have to go the other way even.
Also your examples are shit because you don't seem to understand civil and criminal law exist because the government has authority over you, international law is a meme. Because there is no one above Russia legally the UN is not an actual thing, for international law to be real the UN would have to be a one world government and above the nations just like how the federal government is above the states. It would need an advanced army that is loyal to it instead of the nations, technology intelligence, etc. The only way you have someone above another nation is if you conquer them and impose your own laws, but as long as Russia has nukes that's not happening.
By that logic, if Ukraine drives out Russian armies from own territories, all it should do is simply take over some border cities from Russia and loot them down to the bricks, Russian way, and call it reparations. Kidnap some people into forced labor while at it. That's what you get without legal international reparations and international law, just plain eye for an eye.
Again people say thats not enough. Russia has no reason to pay, in that case. In the 1800's when reparations were a more minor thing if you lose a war and it was not seen as such a bad thing as today it would be diffrent. But now it's a moral thing and the government of Russia will flat out refuse.
a) Perhaps it will, but it won't be out of your reasoning stuck in the logic of western internal politics, Russia doesn't give a shit - it would be out of long term decision to remain in conflict with the West, Iran/NK style.
b) The moral thing goes only as far as the morality and ideology attached.
c) War reparations are a legal thing, and were that before they became a moral one.
d) Those certain movements demanding reparations from western countries, well, they never got non-war reparations back when they were relevant yet still demand them now, so not paying reparations in no way guarantees avoiding future demands for reparations. Discarding the particular ideology that demands it does.
Yes OPEC does not always get along, thats why I said you might be able to isolate ONE of the powers. But if they see you try to weaken OPEC itself then the other powers will wise up, and find some form of protection from the west maybe nukes maybe something else.
You are dramatically overestimating unity of OPEC and its competence, while underplaying the importance of western involvement in ME (so cursed by certain people) to the security of many OPEC members.
Yes they can't shut down everything because they won't get paid then. But they can affect production heavily and they do to make prices artificially high.
Also capping wells is not so quick, simple and easy, penalties for set contracts broken and so on.
I'm pretty sure there are places that are advanced that aren't western like China for those advanced electronics.
So why didn't Russia put those in their weapons instead of those from France, Taiwan and USA, knowing that West and company will probably cut them off from spare parts after their moves?
Yeah, China either doesn't have that or won't sell it if it does.
What if they stubbornly refuse to admitt guilt no matter what?
No one gives a shit as long as accounts are settled.
Do you honestly think a democracy is able to keep sanctions going and diplomatic isolation for hundreds of years? Those nations Iran and North Korea are sanctioned because they are ongoing threats Iran is a threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia, North Korea to South Korea. If those nations achieved their goals of taking over South korea for example and the US was soundly beaten and couldn't push them back eventually there would be no point as they can't go farther. A better example for you would be Cuba which has been sanctioned for 30 years for no reason it can't be used as a base for the Soviets anymore. For Russia it depends. If Russia is pushed back and Ukraine stays out of NATO then the threat remains so yes, if Russia is pushed back and Ukraine then joins NATO then while there might be a threat it is also less likely because Russia would not want to die to NATO. If Russia wins and conquers Ukraine then while there might be sanctions because we are salty we lost, again the threat would be minimized because they can't expand anymore without hitting NATO which would lead to nuclear war and everyone dies.
You are arranging fantasies of threats and lack of them according to personal imagination alone.
Where does North Korea expand so that it's a threat? SK is in alliance with USA too, let's not forget.
Likewise, without a major change in government Russia will remain a hostile neighbor to NATO, even if it no longer has low hanging fruit to expand into (also let's not forget how it fucked with countries that it could not expand into anyway, including Czechia, UK and Spain).
Same goes for Cuba, it's still a politically and ideologically hostile to USA shithole and is being treated accordingly.
Iran and NK are still sanctioned, and conveniently keep reminding everyone why.
If Russia acts the same way (and manages to remain stable in that for hundreds of years by a lot of luck), i see no reason why it wouldn't be treated the same way.
Tarriffs aren't what one normally considers "reparations" though. Yes you could take assets from Russia to try and recoup losses like material they leave behind, or assets in the west. But reparations mean you say you are sorry, admit you were wrong, say you will try not to do it again, and then give extra money.
No, war reparations are meant to compensate for damage done. Again, you are applying the logic of western internal ideological debate to international politics outside of the West.
What's the financial mechanism for paying them is a technical detail that's up for negotiation.
No those are NATO, that would lead to nuclear war.
If he uses nukes or gets some truly miraculous degree of success.
.
