9 ms·

It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden retrenchment which has been brought on by years of slow decline. They even say this - Rubio said tha

by pydry 2y ago

It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden retrenchment which has been brought on by years of slow decline. They even say this - Rubio said that we do not live in a unipolar world any more - a comment which attracted weirdly little notice. Biden's approach assumed a unipolar world which did not exist. That's why the Ukraine war, from the American imperialist perspective, backfired. The achilles heel of the American empire was, ironically, always profit and greed. If there is one thing that could be used to persuade America to let its industry rot it is profit and its industrial malaise is largely responsible for the ever-more-obvious decline in hard military power.

masklinn 2y ago
> It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden retrenchment Sounds like a destruction. The administration is abandoning both the US soft power and its abilities to project through allied countries.
- pydry 2y ago
  USAID and NED propaganda and agitation are nowhere near as effective as they used to be and they have a stronger tendency to piss off foreign leaders and push them into the arms of rival powers. The golden days of the color revolution are over. The failure in Georgia to push back on the "pro Russian law" (a law similar to one the US has which required all foreign propaganda to be clearly labeled) was probably seen as a watershed moment that it was about time to hit the reset button on that stuff. That one didnt just fail it backfired. No US military bases have been closed though, have they?
  - snailmailstare 2y ago
    Germany must be wondering why it is keeping enemy bases on its soil.
    - masklinn 2y ago
      Japan was just asked why the US spends so much defending it...
      - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
        Because they went in to protect their own interests in the world after the world war 2. They dropped 2 nukes on Japan, remained in the country, and now they want money. Crazy people.
        epoxy_sauce 2y ago
        We also wrote their constitution that they can't have a military. They still have the jdf but we kinda forced this position, it's a bit of a baffling question.
        masklinn 2y ago
        Of course it's only baffling if you assume it's asked in good faith.
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - rUwzx210 2y ago
    Given that all continuity of agenda posts are downvoted, they are probably true. Political truth is always downvoted. What is expected is to react to the latest headlines, accept them as truth and fight an approved R vs D battle.
standardUser 2y ago
> Biden's approach assumed a unipolar world Incorrect, Biden treated China as a rival power and pursued an industrial policy based on this view.
- pydry 2y ago
  Incorrect. He tried to box in China and contain it as a solely regional power by building military bases along the first island chain and flipping countries into the US sphere of influence. If China started doing something similar in North America the US would probably invade that country almost instantly (e.g. like it almost did to Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis).
  - mopsi 2y ago
    Probably not - the Cuban missile crisis was about nuclear missiles and nothing else. Cuba remained an ally of the USSR after the missile crisis and continued to host Soviet conventional forces, including fighter jets permanently stationed just 10 minutes from Miami, and regular temporary rotations of nuclear bombers like the Tu-95: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/tupolev-tu-95rts-bear-d-thetu-142-bear-f-cuba.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/tupolev-tu-9...
causal 2y ago
"backfired" makes it sound like you believe the US started the war
- pydry 2y ago
  Few wars have exactly one cause, but to deny that NATO expansion was the main cause of this one is to be a western equivalent of an unequivocal and passionate Putin apologist. Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    NATO didn't expand. More countries joined it. That's rather a significant nuance.
    - pydry 2y ago
      Im not sure it's a distinction worth drawing. Other kinds of gang also expand by luring in fresh meat who join voluntarily in a fractious security environment. It's very vulnerable position being a prospective member of a gang. The fact that you try to join one for protection doesnt mean you wont end up being sacrificed when the gang leaders demand you "prove yourself" first.
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        From whom do the joining countries feel they need security, in this "fractious security environment"? :)
      - Juliate 2y ago
        That's not a gang against another here. Those are democratic, sovereign countries, in an international order governed by law. Joining voluntarily a _defense_ alliance. And one bully country that keeps on bullying, and pretends to be the victim of everyone, and unlawfully attacks a neighbouring country. Despite its own twisted narrative, if someone took the wrong decision, that's Russia.
jajko 2y ago
I don't think you understand some terms you are using, ie unipolar

by pydry 2y ago

masklinn 2y ago

> It's not being dismantled at all. It's engaged in a sudden retrenchment Sounds like a destruction. The administration is abandoning both the US soft power and its abilities to project through allied countries.

pydry 2y ago
USAID and NED propaganda and agitation are nowhere near as effective as they used to be and they have a stronger tendency to piss off foreign leaders and push them into the arms of rival powers. The golden days of the color revolution are over. The failure in Georgia to push back on the "pro Russian law" (a law similar to one the US has which required all foreign propaganda to be clearly labeled) was probably seen as a watershed moment that it was about time to hit the reset button on that stuff. That one didnt just fail it backfired. No US military bases have been closed though, have they?
- snailmailstare 2y ago
  Germany must be wondering why it is keeping enemy bases on its soil.
  - masklinn 2y ago
    Japan was just asked why the US spends so much defending it...
    - rad_gruchalski 2y ago
      Because they went in to protect their own interests in the world after the world war 2. They dropped 2 nukes on Japan, remained in the country, and now they want money. Crazy people.
      - epoxy_sauce 2y ago
        We also wrote their constitution that they can't have a military. They still have the jdf but we kinda forced this position, it's a bit of a baffling question.
        masklinn 2y ago
        Of course it's only baffling if you assume it's asked in good faith.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    [flagged]
- rUwzx210 2y ago
  Given that all continuity of agenda posts are downvoted, they are probably true. Political truth is always downvoted. What is expected is to react to the latest headlines, accept them as truth and fight an approved R vs D battle.

standardUser 2y ago

> Biden's approach assumed a unipolar world Incorrect, Biden treated China as a rival power and pursued an industrial policy based on this view.

pydry 2y ago
Incorrect. He tried to box in China and contain it as a solely regional power by building military bases along the first island chain and flipping countries into the US sphere of influence. If China started doing something similar in North America the US would probably invade that country almost instantly (e.g. like it almost did to Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis).
- mopsi 2y ago
  Probably not - the Cuban missile crisis was about nuclear missiles and nothing else. Cuba remained an ally of the USSR after the missile crisis and continued to host Soviet conventional forces, including fighter jets permanently stationed just 10 minutes from Miami, and regular temporary rotations of nuclear bombers like the Tu-95: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/tupolev-tu-95rts-bear-d-thetu-142-bear-f-cuba.html https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/tupolev-tu-9...

causal 2y ago

"backfired" makes it sound like you believe the US started the war

pydry 2y ago
Few wars have exactly one cause, but to deny that NATO expansion was the main cause of this one is to be a western equivalent of an unequivocal and passionate Putin apologist. Even Donald Trump now admits that stalling NATO expansion and not treating Russian security concerns with utter contempt could have prevented this.
- Juliate 2y ago
  NATO didn't expand. More countries joined it. That's rather a significant nuance.
  - pydry 2y ago
    Im not sure it's a distinction worth drawing. Other kinds of gang also expand by luring in fresh meat who join voluntarily in a fractious security environment. It's very vulnerable position being a prospective member of a gang. The fact that you try to join one for protection doesnt mean you wont end up being sacrificed when the gang leaders demand you "prove yourself" first.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      From whom do the joining countries feel they need security, in this "fractious security environment"? :)
    - Juliate 2y ago
      That's not a gang against another here. Those are democratic, sovereign countries, in an international order governed by law. Joining voluntarily a _defense_ alliance. And one bully country that keeps on bullying, and pretends to be the victim of everyone, and unlawfully attacks a neighbouring country. Despite its own twisted narrative, if someone took the wrong decision, that's Russia.

jajko 2y ago

I don't think you understand some terms you are using, ie unipolar