5 ms·

US definitely has declined from its peak position of '90-'00. By the end of the last century, even allies were openly voicing concerns over US being a hyperpowe

US definitely has declined from its peak position of '90-'00. By the end of the last century, even allies were openly voicing concerns over US being a hyperpower and not just a mere superpower. [They are calling us a superpower again.] 9/11 is the inflection point (and subsequent matter is my opinion) and regrettably for us Americans, the store was in the hands of neocons, who stupidly (they wrote in late 90s a document announcing to the rest of the world that ~'US will never permit anyone reaching parity to challenge', shit like that) misused our global position, and give motivation for various powers, including w/o a doubt ~Western allies, to review Swift's Gulliver's Travels .. We pissed away blood, treasure, and reputation during the regime of the neocons (which spans D and R presidents, btw). Do you think the laughably comical criticism of "world order" by the "mutlipolarity" gang, the likes of RF or CPC and junior friends, would be taken seriously by other world leaders/nations if US had not acted like a bully these past 2 decades? We absolutely must re-examine our stewardship performance vis-à-vis the tacit acceptance of other major powers for this arrangement under sane leadership of US of A. Second, Putin's adventure would not have happened in an environment of robust US prestige and power, but you appear to forget just how oddly our nation has been acting (at least as viewed from an external lens) in terms of our domestic politics. We've lost prestige on that end as well. What made this little man so confident? Why is he still hanging on? It should have been well over by now. Finally, RF appears to have forced US to use mechanisms -- confiscation of sovereign reserves, etc. -- that I assure you must have scared the living light from all spectators with treasure trusted to the "international order". They are all saying 'but by the grace of god of mamon there go I'! So we need to get our act together as a nation, if we intend to continue to insist that we are the responsible steward of the Global order.

petre 4y ago
> Second, Putin's adventure would not have happened in an environment of robust US prestige and power, but you appear to forget just how oddly our nation has been acting (at least as viewed from an external lens) in terms of our domestic politics. I believe Putin perceived Biden as weak. Big mistake. Both of his more recent adventures were during Democrat administrations. The 2008 Russo-Georgian war was during the GW Bush administration, when the US was busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
bjornsing 4y ago
> We absolutely must re-examine our stewardship performance vis-à-vis the tacit acceptance of other major powers for this arrangement under sane leadership of US of A. I would much prefer a unipolar world with a benevolent US in the driver’s seat. I think the war in Ukraine shows that that is where we are right now. The idea that authoritarian regimes with a disdain for human rights (like China and Russia) should be allowed anywhere near an equal say in the future of this world is scary to me. I agree though that this requires more restraint on the use of force than the “neocons” showed. Hopefully US leadership has learnt its lesson over the past two decades: the fact that you have the power to utterly destroy a country does not mean that you have the power to build one. (I’m Swedish BTW.)
- eternalban 4y ago
  We're in general agreement. I will add that there is a legitimate concern, internal and external to the West that so far, given that this issue of ideological extremists (such as neocons) getting their hands on some elements of policy and executive arms of the West did not get a public accounting and redress -- how did it happen and what is to prevent it from happening again -- leaves open the possibility that the unipolar world may very well become uniformly fascist. This remains to be effectively addressed.
RC_ITR 4y ago
>US definitely has declined from its peak position of '90-'00. By the end of the last century, even allies were openly voicing concerns over US being a hyperpower and not just a mere superpower. [They are calling us a superpower again.] People in the '90's would have bemoaned that the US was well down from its peak in The 40's (you know, when we had nuclear superiority for c. 5 years). But in neither era would an average Congolese citizen use a US-developed product for most of the day (though now they sure as hell use Android and Google). Soft influence is a thing too. >9/11 is the inflection point George Bush et al really wanted Americans to believe that, but why? It's not like Iraq is that much different from Vietnam. Both were ill-fated wars we mostly lost, but not in a way that makes our enemies see us as weak (Iraq, particularly its leaders, got annihilated, The US just failed at rebuilding) >Second, Putin's adventure would not have happened in an environment of robust US prestige and power Yeah, the Soviet Union never invaded bordering nations during the 20th century. >We've lost prestige on that end as well. What made this little man so confident? Why is he still hanging on? It should have been well over by now. You really weren't alive during the Cold War, huh? Remember Chernenko? The one that invaded Afghanistan? He held on just fine. >Finally, RF appears to have forced US to use mechanisms -- confiscation of sovereign reserves, etc. -- that I assure you must have scared the living light from all spectators with treasure trusted to the "international order". They are all saying 'but by the grace of god of mamon there go I'! Or they are saying 'better to be a friend of the US vs. an enemy!" It's not like we are picky in who we like (cough MBS cough), we just are opportunists who will welcome anyone who plays along.
- eternalban 4y ago
  > People in the '90's would have bemoaned that the US was well down from its peak in The 40's >>9/11 is the inflection point >George Bush et al really wanted Americans to believe that, but why? It's not like Iraq is that much different from Vietnam. This to me fails to note the categorical difference between the US's role before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Before '90 US was representative of one of the candidate systems. After '90, "new world order" of George Bush (the elder). UN was supposed to be the mechanism for unleashing violent force. So Vietnam and Afghanistan may look the same on paper (superficially imo), but they are two entirely different matters as far as the "international community" is concerned. This was the sin of the neocons -- shattering that implicit accord among the powers.

petre 4y ago

> Second, Putin's adventure would not have happened in an environment of robust US prestige and power, but you appear to forget just how oddly our nation has been acting (at least as viewed from an external lens) in terms of our domestic politics. I believe Putin perceived Biden as weak. Big mistake. Both of his more recent adventures were during Democrat administrations. The 2008 Russo-Georgian war was during the GW Bush administration, when the US was busy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

bjornsing 4y ago

> We absolutely must re-examine our stewardship performance vis-à-vis the tacit acceptance of other major powers for this arrangement under sane leadership of US of A. I would much prefer a unipolar world with a benevolent US in the driver’s seat. I think the war in Ukraine shows that that is where we are right now. The idea that authoritarian regimes with a disdain for human rights (like China and Russia) should be allowed anywhere near an equal say in the future of this world is scary to me. I agree though that this requires more restraint on the use of force than the “neocons” showed. Hopefully US leadership has learnt its lesson over the past two decades: the fact that you have the power to utterly destroy a country does not mean that you have the power to build one. (I’m Swedish BTW.)

eternalban 4y ago
We're in general agreement. I will add that there is a legitimate concern, internal and external to the West that so far, given that this issue of ideological extremists (such as neocons) getting their hands on some elements of policy and executive arms of the West did not get a public accounting and redress -- how did it happen and what is to prevent it from happening again -- leaves open the possibility that the unipolar world may very well become uniformly fascist. This remains to be effectively addressed.

RC_ITR 4y ago

>US definitely has declined from its peak position of '90-'00. By the end of the last century, even allies were openly voicing concerns over US being a hyperpower and not just a mere superpower. [They are calling us a superpower again.] People in the '90's would have bemoaned that the US was well down from its peak in The 40's (you know, when we had nuclear superiority for c. 5 years). But in neither era would an average Congolese citizen use a US-developed product for most of the day (though now they sure as hell use Android and Google). Soft influence is a thing too. >9/11 is the inflection point George Bush et al really wanted Americans to believe that, but why? It's not like Iraq is that much different from Vietnam. Both were ill-fated wars we mostly lost, but not in a way that makes our enemies see us as weak (Iraq, particularly its leaders, got annihilated, The US just failed at rebuilding) >Second, Putin's adventure would not have happened in an environment of robust US prestige and power Yeah, the Soviet Union never invaded bordering nations during the 20th century. >We've lost prestige on that end as well. What made this little man so confident? Why is he still hanging on? It should have been well over by now. You really weren't alive during the Cold War, huh? Remember Chernenko? The one that invaded Afghanistan? He held on just fine. >Finally, RF appears to have forced US to use mechanisms -- confiscation of sovereign reserves, etc. -- that I assure you must have scared the living light from all spectators with treasure trusted to the "international order". They are all saying 'but by the grace of god of mamon there go I'! Or they are saying 'better to be a friend of the US vs. an enemy!" It's not like we are picky in who we like (cough MBS cough), we just are opportunists who will welcome anyone who plays along.

eternalban 4y ago
> People in the '90's would have bemoaned that the US was well down from its peak in The 40's >>9/11 is the inflection point >George Bush et al really wanted Americans to believe that, but why? It's not like Iraq is that much different from Vietnam. This to me fails to note the categorical difference between the US's role before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Before '90 US was representative of one of the candidate systems. After '90, "new world order" of George Bush (the elder). UN was supposed to be the mechanism for unleashing violent force. So Vietnam and Afghanistan may look the same on paper (superficially imo), but they are two entirely different matters as far as the "international community" is concerned. This was the sin of the neocons -- shattering that implicit accord among the powers.