So this is the kind of thing the world continues to develop while the evolving US goes through a celebrity phase of leadership:
There’s a graphic of a new silk road for a quick overview:
I don’t think Americans understand just how perilously close the U.S. is to losing its grip on global power, and there is seemingly no awareness of just what the implications of that might be. But has it dawned on Americans just how close we are to losing Turkey and now apparently Qatar? How exactly does the military stick function without any credible air support in the region? I won’t even get started on what happens when Europe decides there’s no more need for American troops there.
But with regard to Russia, I don’t know what’s more pathetic: Trumpists who seem to blatantly ignore the fact that a foreign power has hacked into our democratic process and want to pretend that this never happened, or the Establishment types who buy into the propaganda that we were just minding our own business and that Putin hacked us for the lulz.
Trump has alarmed a lot of educated Americans understandably, but the truth is, we’ve been administratively and politically incompetent for the better part of a generation now and it’s beginning to have very real consequences. These kinds of national emergencies happen when you pick political donors to be ambassadors or Secretaries of State or put them in other capacities that they’re not qualified for, and then you let ideological think tanks draft your policy memos.
We had a situation last week where the Mayor didn’t respond to the President of the USA - it’s just not worth his time. In the end the US Ambassdor tweeted something nice but the basic point is, people can’t even be bothered with the President.
Apart from people like Putin and Jong-un who enjoy trolling the USA for the sake of it, most countries have just moved into another room and do the work there.
There are some americans who do realize this. We voted for Hillary.
What is this referring to?
Maybe this?
But, I think he is actually referring to our carriers and the carrier groups with which we use to project our military might to all the far corners of the planet.
As someone who also voted for Hillary (like I had a choice), I will say bluntly that there is no evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton’s Russia policy would have good at all.
Assuming you meant “have been good at all”, I don’t know about that.
The russian situation is a tough one. One that I don’t personally know the best answer to. There may be no good solutions at all.
But, I do think that there is plenty of evidence that clinton would have navigated these treacherous waters we find ourselves in with much more competence, and that the outcomes would likely be more in our favor.
Russia, for all it’s chest thumping and praise from conservatives all over the world (including the ones in the US), is a decaying empire. It is a petro state with high levels of political instability, African levels of corruption, and a fragile economy.
Why would they be in our favor? Clinton would have continued doing what Obama did – was that a successful strategy?
See, what Obama didn’t understand about “resets” is that the Russians weren’t interested in a fucking reset when our economic, political, and military machine continues to encircle it. It’s not interested in a reset when the United States and Europe try to assert Western power in what has been historically the Russian sphere of influence. We didn’t like it when Russians put missiles in Cuba, right? Well Russians don’t like it when we put missiles in Turkey, or when we threaten to put “defense” shields in Eastern Europe, right in Russia’s back yard.
So, serious question here. What should Europe and the US have done? Stood by, thumb firmly up ass and told the breakaway nations and republics that, sorry, we can’t help you because Russia would be hurt if we did, and they need to wait patiently while Russia gets it’s shit together to eventually snap them back up because, well, that’s how it needs to be? Should we have told that to the Baltic states, the former republics, perhaps the nations in Eastern Europe? Sorry Poland…you need to wait until Russia takes you back over. You too Latvia and Estonia. Ukraine, well, you are a done deal so stop struggling and just sit back and think of Moscow…
I get the Russia wants to put it’s empire back together, now that it’s started to get it’s shit back together. I see why they want to do that, at least I see why THEY think they want to/need too. I don’t get why Europe or the US would or should just let it happen because otherwise Russia won’t be our friend. What do YOU think we should have done?
I’ve already told you my thoughts and the fact is Americans just don’t want to hear them – we’ve overstuffed ourselves on propaganda.
What on earth are you talking about? The Soviet Union died out. Those nations had their independence and still do. The question after 1990 was what would become of NATO? What would NATO mean? The Soviet threat retreated, but NATO remained. Moreover, Germany, the nation that actually invaded Russia, reunified. Better yet, the United States took police action in Kosovo (arguably a rational decision), invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (arguably less wise and more threatening to Russia), brought Eastern Europe (“New” Europe / Old USSR) into its orbit. And…talked about putting missiles on Russia’s doorstep. Bad enough all of that happened, but the EU (which hosts American military bases, btw) “won” Ukraine’s influence, and that was the last straw.
Oh but Russia’s a kleptocracy. Russia imprisons critics – and we don’t? We have the largest fucking prison population on earth. We have a plutonomy, and we have a government that is basically run by billionaires. Who the fuck are we to be issuing global dicta on how to govern?
I have a question for you: where was Russia born?
[QUOTE=asahi]
I’ve already told you my thoughts and the fact is Americans just don’t want to hear them – we’ve overstuffed ourselves on propaganda.
[/QUOTE]
Quite unlike the Russians, who have a clear eyed view of things?
That’s a very slanted view. Here’s the converse. After the fall of the Soviet Union the nations and republics who had been under the Soviet boot for decades looked for a policy path to ensure that this wouldn’t happen again…so, they turned to NATO. NATO, by and large, didn’t go searching for them or seeking them out, and in fact was torn about this very issue…what would the Russians think if we allowed these former nations and republics with the boot print of the Soviets still fresh on their foreheads into NATO??
Ukraine, of course, we didn’t allow in for a variety of reasons, most of which were about stability and systemic corruption. When the Ukrainian thug of the day went so far over the top as to spark what amounted to a coup, NATO didn’t do anything except offer some small economic aid. I mean, Russia had promised the Ukrainian government that if they dismantled their old Soviet era nukes that they would have a non-aggression pact with them and wouldn’t threaten their borders. After Putin’s buddy was tossed out by his own people, however, that obviously changed…so, Putin et al trumped (heh!) an election in the Crimea (river) and annexed it, then basically supported ‘rebels’ (while innocently giving leave to some of their soldiers to play in the Ukraine and doing some totally innocent military exercises on the border) in a low grade bid to take the rest.
Yeah…my narrative here is biased, as yours was. But I think mine is closer to reality, and that the ‘propaganda’ is on both sides, with Russians narrative being even more spun than the US one. YMMV of course.
In a manger in Saint Petersburg, I expect.
So you’ve never heard of the Paris Accords? Don’t know which countries are most active in moving to cleaner power generation? Which countries are most active in making sure their citizens are healthy?
Sorry, XT but your comment comes across to me as blind nationalism. The US is not currently taking the lead on a bunch of issues, sadly.
? Saint Petersburg is a very young city, comparatively.
What **asahi **wanted you to know, with his Socratic question, is that Russia (well, Rus’) came out of Kiev. I am not sure how that excuses Russian aggression in Crimea (since if anything Crimea is Greek and Turkish/Ottoman) and its designs on Ukraine.
Maybe Ukraine (using that fact) should have designs on Russia.
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo]
So you’ve never heard of the Paris Accords?
[/QUOTE]
Sure I haven’t, Bo.
Well, in fact, the US has been on track until now to meet our goals wrt the Paris Accords targets in 2025. That might…hell probably will…change. However, I’ve heard a lot about China supposedly being the leader in clean energy these days, and while I find that ironic off the charts, I haven’t seen the Europeans across the board being the ‘adults’ either. Also, all the worlds issues that the supposed ‘adults’ are going to fix aren’t encompassed by only clean power and healthcare, and Europe seems to have enough issues that I think my lighthearted quip can be taken in the context of the hyper European centric and hyper anti-American view point of the poster I was responding too.
Irony…off charts. Recalibrate, recalibrate…
We aren’t, and I didn’t say we were. You simply read it that way for your own reasons. And I think Trump is taking us down a very bad path. But I also know enough about Russia, and China, and our various Euro buddies to know that there are problems and issues across the board, and that no one is really the ‘adult’…and America, contrary to up_the_junction’s fantasies, isn’t going to be sidelined nor ignored, nor are the Europeans likely to turn their backs on us and embrace Xi or Putin. If nothing else there is the little matter of over a trillion dollars in trade between the US and Europe that might mean they will try and work things out, or work around our carrot haired leader. You also have the fact that, while Trump is getting out of the PA as a formal policy, there is a very wide streak of companies and states that are going ahead as if we were behind it…and Trump is basically the lowest rated president in modern times (and not all time only because we didn’t poll like we do today). So, this talk of the US, as a nation, being relegated to the kids table and countries turning away from us in a substantial way is, to me, the real ‘blind nationalism’ and parochialism of folks who don’t have a real grasp on how the real world actually works.
YMMV, and I’m very drunk, so perhaps you and up have the straight of it. :dubious:
[QUOTE=Okrahoma]
? Saint Petersburg is a very young city, comparatively.
[/QUOTE]
It’s where Putin was born. The current vision and path of Russia is from the mind of Putin and will continue so for the foreseeable future.
Yeah, I know what asahi was asking…I’m drunk, not stupid. But I think the actual answer is that today’s Russia was born in the mind and actions of one really brutal dude who is in charge.
As for your broader point, the Ukraine has had a rather rocky (Adrian!!) relation with the wider Russia.
Depending on where in the Ukraine you are talking about, either they feel they are Russians (they are…they are Russian colonists who completely associate their ethnic and culture with Russia) or they don’t want anything to do with Russians, seeing them as invaders and the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing of the region.
I do want to apologies though to asahi as my answer was pretty flip. I probably shouldn’t post when I’m like this.
I don’t have any “reasons” to read anything any way; I have no axe to grind here and no ox of mine is being gored. That was just my impression of your post.
[/shrug]
No worries, bro. I was PUI (posting under the influence) myself. I was also a bit aggressive and I’m sorry for that. I’ll respond to the posts later. Need coffee (or is that covfefe?) now.
Turning to NATO is not, in and of itself, a problem from the Russian point of view. I’m sure there are old die-hard Soviets (and Putin is one) who were opposed to it from the beginning, but they might have been able to live with it were it not for American empire building in the absence of Soviet empire building. The Soviet Union collapsed, but the paranoia had of being dominated in a world controlled by a global American juggernaut never subsided. Hell, even some of our staunchest allies have been wary of the United States in that regard, particularly in light of US conduct since 2001.
It’s a bit myopic to focus squarely on Russia’s behavior in 2008 and 2014 without taking a good hard look at American behavior from 2001 to 2008. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, we pulled out of the Moscow Olympics. Yet we’ve been occupying Afghanistan for the last 15 years and counting. We complain about Russia meddling in the affairs of its neighbors, and yet we ignored a UN vote and invaded a sovereign country 8,000 miles away. How does that get reconciled? On top of all that we openly discussed the implementation of a greater military and political presence in the former Russian sphere, including plans for a missile defense system. It would be one thing if after the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States had simply committed itself to a stable Europe, but its actions signaled to Russia that it wanted to expand its political, economic, and military influence far beyond what had existed up to that point. And until recently there wasn’t a whole lot that Russia could do about it. All of this was before South Ossetia, before Crimea and the rest of Ukraine.
As I’ve pondered before, I wonder how comfortable we would be if Russia or China started an agreement with Latin American countries to have a significant military presence there. What if Russia or China proposed missile shields in northern Mexico? What if Mexico got so fed up with Trump’s America that they agreed to it? Look, I’m not defending Putin – he’s a kleptocratic thug. And I think any “reset” needs to insist on addressing Russian police actions over the past decade and it absolutely needs to address hacking. I don’t see Trump being particularly helpful in that regard. We don’t need a Manchurian candidate but I doubt the Hillary Clinton playbook would have worked with Russia either. She would have doubled-down on sanctions and ultimatums, and what we need instead is real diplomacy.