comment: >
  
  We usually use the word economical to say that something is price conscious. Like a cheaper deal on something.
context: That means Germany is currently not importing any fossil fuels from Russia. They stopped importing Russian coal in summer. Russia cut natural gas pipeline deliveries to zero in autumn. The EU banned seaborne oil imports from Russia from early December and now Germany stopped importing Russian pipeline oil as well. >
  
  Amazing how quickly they have changed course from Merkel's disastrous Russian loving policies. >
  
  To be fair with Merkel, her actions where mostly done in an era that the West had this theory that if we integrated authoritarian regimes on the global economy unconditionally so to rise their population's life standard, they would become liberal democracies over time.
  Didn't happened. This theory began to falter with China, and Putin buried it for good. >
  
  
  Didn't happened.
  
  It did happen for loads of countries since WW2, like most of Europe for example. It’s just no one expected Russia to risk tanking it’s own economy just to try to maintain political influence over Ukraine. >
  
  Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.
  
  
  Most of Eastern European nations became democracies after the fall of Soviet Union evil empire. They choose to become democracies overnight by conscious effort of their populations after decades of totalitarianism and violent oppression, and lacked any kind of significant economical integration with the West before that. They choose democracy because they saw the West as a role model and the antithesis of Soviet communist system. Those nations that split from Soviet Union but kept being authoritarian (Belarus, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan...) are still authoritarian despite decades of economic integration with the West, specially in the energy markets.
  
  
  Half of Western European nations already where democracies before the WWII. Of those not democracies, two of the largest where in the loosing side of WWII and where forced into democracy (Germany and Italy) as part of their surrender. Portugal became a democracy after their previous authoritarian government effort to keep their colonial empire in Africa collapsed their own political system. Spain... well.... let's just say that Francisco Franco where a complex person.
  
  
  Most of the Middle East are still firmly in the authoritarian side, despite rivers of money flowing to them for decades thanks to the oil economy. The only stable democracy there is Israel, and they are a democracy from day one.
  
  
  Most of Latin America always swung back and forth from democracies to various forms of authoritarianism throughout their histories. Only since early 80s that they apparently got stabilized, and even still there's some regressions, like Venezuela, crazy people attempting coups (like Peru's Castillo just attempted last month) and plain dysfunctional systems like Argentina on verge of a collapse. They always where (and to some extent, still are) rather closed economies without significant foreign trade, and their political systems are still riddled with the worst of extreme-left and extreme-right populism and ultra-nationalism that prevents them from leaving the middle income trap or even do basic things like fixing their security apparatuses and having a decent urban planning strategy.
  
  
  Africa and South Asia is a mess.
  
  
  There's only two places that I can reliable trace their democratization process back to actual economical rise: South Korea and Taiwan. And even on them, a grain of salt is required.
  This always looked as a good strategy to make wars costly for the attacker and to stabilize nations that are young democracies, but I fail to see any nation that actually became democratic because of it. Looks like a plan that only the first half of it where thought (how to prevent authoritarian to become aggressive), in the hope that a plan for the second half (how to induce change toward democracy) would just show up along the way. >
  
  In general I agree with you. I think what we should be saying instead is that economic interdependence - not economic rise - has historically led countries to become more politically cooperative and less likely to become rogue states. Where this hasn't happened, like most recently with Russia, there have been very serious political and ultimately economic consequences which can lead to political change. >
  
  Plz say economic instead of economical 😭 >
  
  Ah, sorry! In my language both translate to the same word.