3 ms·

> “We are on the right side of history — with our commitment to democracy, with our resistance to aggression in Russia,” he said. “But it’s looking a bit lonely

> “We are on the right side of history — with our commitment to democracy, with our resistance to aggression in Russia,” he said. “But it’s looking a bit lonely on the right side of history, as those who seem much less on the right side of history are increasingly banding together in a whole range of structures.” The key bit that seems to be missed here is that fewer and fewer people see us as being on the right side of history and it's not "our commitment to democracy" driving them away. It's painful to read someone say something so obtuse.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
It doesn't matter. No other power is willing to lend out their military power to project influence overseas. Until that changes, the bread and circus of the media are just that, navelgazing. Popular opinion only goes so far when it comes to foreign policy and the Great Game cares only for the side that wins, not for having the right or wrong ideology. Take a random middle east/African country, if a civil war breaks out tomorrow, how many countries do you think are willing to singlehandedly commit troops to turn the tide for their favored party? Aside from the French and the Russians, most other countries are happy to send only supplies, not actual boots on the ground. No amount of free infrastructure and bribes can replace actual hard power. The Brics countries are nominally non-aligned and none of the global south is willing to stick their necks out for each other when things get hot. Alternate supply routes and logistics/currencies are only useful if they can be defended. There is no replacement for the US military as an instrument of global force projection. The allegedly great militaries of China and India spend all their time at home and the only border "conflicts" they participate in involves literal sticks and stones in the Himalayans. Those two make up more than a quarter of the human civilization and their military activity in terms of foreign adventure is terribly underwhelming. You are not a superpower if your hard power is only on paper.
- tough 3y ago
  Civil war breaking in sudan as we speak
- nubinetwork 3y ago
  > Take a random middle east/African country, if a civil war breaks out tomorrow, how many countries do you think are willing to singlehandedly commit troops to turn the tide for their favored party? I believe Canada just sent some people to Haiti.
- jacooper 3y ago
  > There is no replacement for the US military as an instrument of global force projection. Not by choice but by force. The U.S. will absolutely not allow any foreign military bases or an other country to protect its own supply routes.
adhesive_wombat 3y ago
Summers the guy who permitted 2008 to happen though deregulation of and then deliberately turning a blind eye to the teetering pile of debt-amplifying derivatives despite being repeatedly warned. Then he parlayed being pivotal to causing a financial crisis into Harvard presidency and millions in hedge fund consultancy. If he wasn't so obtuse, he'd have face up to the moral consequences rather then shoving fistfuls of cash into his pockets. I couldn't imagine showing my face in public after that, let alone pontificate about how terrible it is that other countries might not be all-in on American financial hegemony.
hackerlight 3y ago
> it's not "our commitment to democracy" driving them away Some of it is. If the US didn't support democracy in HK and Taiwan, then the sentiment inside China would be less anti-US and more pro-US.
hakfoo 3y ago
The problem is that "the commitment to democracy" has long had huge disclaimers and asterisks next to it. If your democracy starts to get a bit frisky about nationalizing assets, suddenly it's going to become an "illegitimate regime" backed by "sham elections". The US isn't a reliable supporter of anything but direct US interests, particularly in regards to private property. This means that it will always have a hard time having solid long-term relationships with peers of equal power, or maintaining respectful "we'll do X, you do Y" disagreements. We've gotten along with Europe and the English-speaking world because none of them really pose a significant challenge to the dance America calls. But we could barely make it through the length of WWII before deciding we couldn't coexist with the USSR.

KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago

It doesn't matter. No other power is willing to lend out their military power to project influence overseas. Until that changes, the bread and circus of the media are just that, navelgazing. Popular opinion only goes so far when it comes to foreign policy and the Great Game cares only for the side that wins, not for having the right or wrong ideology. Take a random middle east/African country, if a civil war breaks out tomorrow, how many countries do you think are willing to singlehandedly commit troops to turn the tide for their favored party? Aside from the French and the Russians, most other countries are happy to send only supplies, not actual boots on the ground. No amount of free infrastructure and bribes can replace actual hard power. The Brics countries are nominally non-aligned and none of the global south is willing to stick their necks out for each other when things get hot. Alternate supply routes and logistics/currencies are only useful if they can be defended. There is no replacement for the US military as an instrument of global force projection. The allegedly great militaries of China and India spend all their time at home and the only border "conflicts" they participate in involves literal sticks and stones in the Himalayans. Those two make up more than a quarter of the human civilization and their military activity in terms of foreign adventure is terribly underwhelming. You are not a superpower if your hard power is only on paper.

tough 3y ago
Civil war breaking in sudan as we speak
nubinetwork 3y ago
> Take a random middle east/African country, if a civil war breaks out tomorrow, how many countries do you think are willing to singlehandedly commit troops to turn the tide for their favored party? I believe Canada just sent some people to Haiti.
jacooper 3y ago
> There is no replacement for the US military as an instrument of global force projection. Not by choice but by force. The U.S. will absolutely not allow any foreign military bases or an other country to protect its own supply routes.

adhesive_wombat 3y ago

Summers the guy who permitted 2008 to happen though deregulation of and then deliberately turning a blind eye to the teetering pile of debt-amplifying derivatives despite being repeatedly warned. Then he parlayed being pivotal to causing a financial crisis into Harvard presidency and millions in hedge fund consultancy. If he wasn't so obtuse, he'd have face up to the moral consequences rather then shoving fistfuls of cash into his pockets. I couldn't imagine showing my face in public after that, let alone pontificate about how terrible it is that other countries might not be all-in on American financial hegemony.

hackerlight 3y ago

> it's not "our commitment to democracy" driving them away Some of it is. If the US didn't support democracy in HK and Taiwan, then the sentiment inside China would be less anti-US and more pro-US.

hakfoo 3y ago

The problem is that "the commitment to democracy" has long had huge disclaimers and asterisks next to it. If your democracy starts to get a bit frisky about nationalizing assets, suddenly it's going to become an "illegitimate regime" backed by "sham elections". The US isn't a reliable supporter of anything but direct US interests, particularly in regards to private property. This means that it will always have a hard time having solid long-term relationships with peers of equal power, or maintaining respectful "we'll do X, you do Y" disagreements. We've gotten along with Europe and the English-speaking world because none of them really pose a significant challenge to the dance America calls. But we could barely make it through the length of WWII before deciding we couldn't coexist with the USSR.