Why is the terminology always that the US gets to "punish" everyone else? It reeks of American exceptionalism and misguided paternalism, not to mention dubiously claimed moral high ground.<p>Russia has clearly made a tragic error by violently and unjustly invading Ukraine. They've escalated the world into a new cold war and perhaps dealt a death blow to globalization in the process. But...<p>If the US wants to de-escalate towards peace and prosperity, maybe it's best to reframe foreign policy in terms of cooperation and negotiation rather than discipline. Or maybe Americans are just that much better and more right that it's their job to keep the kids in line.<p>Do people really think this "big stick" attitude doesn't breed widespread resentment?
The argument may sound weird because Saudi war in Yemen has been more destructive than war in Ukraine.<p>International relations and geopolitics is de facto 90% amoral self interest. The language used to justify actions is very moral. This creates huge cognitive dissonance unless you can acknowledge the situation.<p>Ukraine matters more to the West than Yemen and Saudis are less a threat to the West, so it's understandable that and Saudis are punished for backing Russia and not other way around.
The more I read and see the more I am starting to see the USA as less "world policeman", which I thought was a bad idea anyway, and more "world bully".