https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/talks-could-have-ended-war-ukraine | Archived
At the first meeting, the Russians presented a set of harsh conditions, effectively demanding Ukraine’s capitulation. This was a nonstarter. But as Moscow’s position on the battlefield continued to deteriorate, its positions at the negotiating table became less demanding. So on March 3 and March 7, the parties held a second and third round of talks […]
Regarding territorial issues, parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Donbass would remain under Russian control
Moscow ostensibly wanted Kiev to slash the size of its army to 85,000 people, while Ukraine insisted on retaining a strength of 250,000.
Edit: Replaced “reporter” with “politician” in the post title
Edit2: Changed title from “microphone cut” to “segment cut short” in the title
Yes so it can not Proclaim a Policy that trys to Extract “Labour” and “Professional Labour” from the Imperial Periphery to the Imperial Core as this will
A: Decrease the Wages of Workerpower in the Reciever Country
(Industrial reserve army)
B: Extract the Flowers of the “Schoolsystem” of the Periphery country from it.
(Imperial Ressource Extraction)
I mean, yeah, imperialists hate immigrantion into the imperial core (especially if they are brown and/or Muslim).
Nationalism and imperialism go hand-in-hand, along with anti-immigration policy.
they pretend to hate it , simulatiously they never really stop it when in Power as the Issue itself “is their Powerbase” , their figleaf for their Powergrabs/ the excuse for the diminishing of personal rights , etc. its a Paradox. Look at “Imperialistic” Trump and the H1-B visas split with his Racist Base.
H1-B visas are also NOT immigration, it’s indentured servitude.
For ruling class Imperial Capitalists it’s the best of both worlds: stoke horizontal hostility through working class tensions, and get your cheap vulnerable servant labor.
Mind you, with healthy generous immigration policy, foreigners wouldn’t need to resort to exploitive H1-B visas, they could just become outright citizens.
This still continues the practice of extracting skilled labor from the third world. I’m not against immigration, but it’s not an actual solution to imperialism even if done right. It’s harmful to the global south because it causes skilled labor and capital to flow out towards the global north.
From the perspective of the German right (and some chauvinists among the left), they oppose immigration because they’re racists and chauvinists. However, from a leftist perspective the correct solution is to stop exploiting the third world and allow it to develop itself (actually, the correct solution is to pay reparations), rather than offer the possibility of “a better life” where all the wealthiest and most trained citizens take their capital and training and move it to a first world economy. It is in fact true that imperialists promote immigration to rob the third world of its people, even sometimes legitimate immigration and not servant visas.
Again, the European right and their anti-immigration stance should still be opposed. They’re proposing destroying these people’s countries AND locking them inside. If you have a choice between imperialism and refugees die, or imperialism and refugees live, the choice is obvious. However, allowing some of them (or even all of them) to immigrate would not undo the fact that their country is being destroyed and the emigration is contributing to it. The correct choice is no imperialism and no refugees are created (meaning, instead of worrying about the economic effects immigration on either country we should be tackling the cause). Once countries are at similar levels of development and there is no longer pressure that extracts skilled labor from the less developed to the more developed, this ceases to be an issue altogether.
I didn’t really touch on reduction of wages in the wealthier country (which is a major part of the reason capitalists sometimes promote immigration), but all the same principles and conclusions apply (different side of the same coin as extracting skilled labor from the poorer country). Chauvinists on the left and right, though, will often focus on only one side of this coin (wage depression rather than imperialist extraction).
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: