gnuhaut

1. If the exploitation stops, people will be less inclined to migrate, since poverty and exploitation-related violence and wars are the major contributors.
2. They won't. Plus, liberal democracies aren't really democratic to begin with, since the only voices that actually count or those of the rich. If the ruling class can no longer rely on loot from the colonies, they'll need to actually take on real structural problems at home, or be replaced, since they can no longer afford to just bribe the working class with cheap consumer goods. This is a chance to actually push for more democracy.
3. The majority of people do not respect human rights right now, you being a good example, since you argue that the human rights and democratic rights of poor PoCs are somehow less important than your own rights. Also, in case you haven't noticed, the West is going fascist rather quickly right now, and it's not the fault of the immigrants at all.

You can be an atheist in very many poor countries with no problem, and LGBTQ rights weren't very good in the West not so long ago either, and seem to be getting worse. I expect reactionary attitudes to go down globally when this injustice is addressed. In the third world, reactionary attitudes are pushed by the comprador ruling classes there, often by allying with religious institutions, and driven by a desire to fight socialists. In the West, the recent fascist wave is caused by a desire of the ruling class to maintain power and profits, firstly by blaming scapegoats and secondly because the fascists are more willing to use violence to crush the opposition and uphold capitalism and imperialism. Hence why they're getting money from billionaires. All this reactionary shit is intrinsically linked to the need to maintain the exploitative status quo. Heck, this whole argument started about borders and the fascists are the ones that advocate for the most brutal border policies. Why? Because that strengthens the system. The system is in crisis, and fascists are needed to keep it going with violence, as it might collapse otherwise.

Western governments will never give up that global apartheid system, unless they have no other choice. They will need be forced into accepting terms. This means their militaries and other institutions need to be thrown out of the colonies, and they won't go without a fight. It means they need to lose all leverage over international trade and finance. When they are defeated and no longer able to exploit, the border guards will become pointless and self-defeating. I think and hope this would also trigger/coincide with a revolution in the West, but who knows. The Western countries will have to change for sure.

Then you go on about rights and freedoms, but this system does not meet the basic needs of most humans, does not respect their human rights, and the majority of people are therefore far from free. Do you think your freedom hinges upon oppressing others? Because that's absurd. Are you thinking of privilege maybe? I guess privilege is a kind of freedom, just not for everybody.

Yes. There's a system of global apartheid, where people in many regions are super-exploited and are forced to live precarious lives without human dignity, safety and their basic needs met. This system can only work due to people getting pushed back and murdered at the borders, and being discriminated against if they make it over the border somehow.

The whole system needs dismantling, and getting rid of the borders is going to be key.

Most countries aren't worth defending tbh

Why?

The makers of this map, Freedom House, receive funding mainly from the US government. They also took money from BAE Systems, Britain's biggest arms manufacturer.

Do people actually recognize these? I don't think I'd recognize most of them whatever the icon pack. Might as well be hieroglyphics.

Why though? Can't imagine that these rounds are going to change the course of the war, so why? Are they out of non-Uranium ones?

I don't think I can go any more official than the OHCHR, and I don't think I can convince you of your good vs evil narrative with any source. People got shelled, it's obviously implied they got shelled by the other side, and no theory to the contrary is put forward in the report.

I'll let you ponder this: This would be the first conflict in which one side commits all the war crimes. Even more curious, the side which commits no war crimes has a bunch of volunteer units literally using Nazi, SS and Bandera iconography. You know, the guys that marched hundreds of thousands of civilians into the woods and murdered them. Does that seem plausible to you?

You do realize that direction of the shelling wouldn't be hard to determine? If you look at the side of a shelled building you know roughly which direction the shells are coming from. In your worldview OHCHR was duped by some elaborate conspiracy of repeated false flag attacks. That doesn't even pass the sniff test. Also, why bring MH-15 into this? You cannot discredit my OHCHR source by bringing this up, what's the connection there?

Yes it says that exactly, unless you think the "armed groups" shelled themselves.

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/UA/OHCHRThematicReportUkraineJan2014-May2016_EN.pdf

OHCHR estimates that between mid-April 2014 and 31 May 2016, at least 9,404 people, of which up to 2,000 are civilians, have been killed as a result of the conflict. The vast majority of civilian casualties, recorded on the territories controlled by the Government of Ukraine and on those controlled by armed groups, were caused by the indiscriminate shelling of residential areas, in violation of the international humanitarian law principle of distinction.

Na better believe Prigozhin, that guy never told a lie or said anything that was totally wrong.