4 ms·

>Unless you have already prescribed to the acceptance of big countries swallow the small ones at whim, it is not only our problem. The US is a big country. Wh

>Unless you have already prescribed to the acceptance of big countries swallow the small ones at whim, it is not only our problem. The US is a big country. Why would it be affected by a problem of big countries swallowing smaller ones? The Europeans always argue that the US only acts in its self-interest. But then when they explain why helping Europe is in the self-interest of the US, they always have the most nonsensical arguments. >Also Russia gaining control means often the USA loosing. I favor a policy of neutrality and world peace, not rivalry between major powers like the US and Russia. >It is that China is seen as evil anyway, so nobody expects them to sanction Russia for real, while we didn't saw the USA that way. Why is China more popular than the US in European opinion polls? >You don't criticize enemies, you criticize friends. That doesn't make any sense, you criticized Russia plenty. Furthermore, European "criticism" of the US is far too mean-spirited for it to be plausible that you are our friend. (That's been true for decades.) >I think the criticism also was more that you create authoritarian countries, partnering was also done by European nations, that's called realpolitik. Interesting how "realpolitik" can be used to explain European behavior but not American behavior.

mopsi 9mo ago
Nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee#Issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee#Issues
- 0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago
  That's exactly the problem. US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2, and that leads us to military misadventures all over the place. Utter foolishness. It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win.
  - mopsi 9mo ago
    Earlier you wrote: > I favor a policy of neutrality and world peace, not rivalry between major powers like the US and Russia. The thing is, nobody's offering you that. In the ideal scenario for Russia, the US would be mired in internal conflict and instability to such an extent that it would be unable to function as a country, leaving Russia to dominate the world: > Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States and Canada to fuel instability and separatism against neoliberal globalist Western hegemony, such as, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists" to create severe backlash against the rotten political state of affairs in the current present-day system of the United States and Canada. Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social, and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Con... In other words, they want an endless line of Donald Trumps to ruin your country and turn it into a banana republic so that you wouldn't have the energy to pay attention to Russia stomping over the rest of the world. Why would any American voluntarily choose this fate?
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago
      So according to you, the current state of the US is a result of us trying to "contain" Russia and protect Europe through NATO. Can you see why I wouldn't be particularly enthusiastic about continuing to do this? None of this would've happened if we had avoided imperialism post-WW2.
      - mopsi 9mo ago
        No, the Euro-Atlantic alliance produced incredible prosperity in its heyday. The current deteriorating state of the US is the result of departure from the previously held values and forms of cooperation. Nothing illustrates this better than the US president openly threatening the sovereignty of Canada and Denmark while accepting massive bribes from Arab sheikhs and calling genocidal dictators like Putin his "friends". This is the wet dream of people who want to see the US fail. Why would any American want to hit the gas pedal and accelerate even further down this road?
        0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago
        The US prosperity trend has been the same before and after WW2: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/GDP_per_person_in_the_United_States.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/GDP_per_... You yourself just explained how Russia saw us as a threat and destabilized our politics, which lead to the current situation. We would have been better off if NATO was never formed. If you believe I'm a Trump supporter then you're misunderstanding my position.
        1718627440 9mo ago
        Russia sees you as a threat since 1917 and you aren't going to change that. You can blame that on Germany if you want, but the German regime has been toppled since four times, so good luck holding anyone accountable for that now. Russia has made major leaps in destabilizing your politics since we (the EU too) believed we won the cold war and stopped treating the Russian empire and allies (which China definitely was, now it's more equal or the opposite) as a threat. The USA also has a superiority complex, like most European nations also had, which certainly isn't helping now. > If you believe I'm a Trump supporter then you're misunderstanding my position. You said the USA going isolationist is going to solve problems, which granted isn't as extreme as the Trump foreign policy, i.e. it won't fuel the worsening of the current situation, but it isn't going the improve it either.
  - 1718627440 9mo ago
    Both intervening with the military jimmy like toppling democratic regimes and turning a blind eye like going isolationist are two sides of the same coin of ignorance and thinking it won't actually affect you. > US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2 If "US foreign policy analysts" would actually think that these situations might lead to the next WW2, then you wouldn't counter them with destabilizing countries, that leads to the rise of extreme parties and then treating them with ignorance. Because THAT is exactly how WW2 happened. > If we are involved, we're called imperialist Deploying the military is not the only way to get involved. > It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win. If other countries say that has bad consequences, you deploy the military, if they say we need your help here, you turn the blind eye. I mean you are a sovereign country and can do what you like, but you do it, because your administration thinks that is a good idea, not because all the other countries would tell you to. You frame it like other countries called for action and you did them and now they complain. No, they told you they won't like that, and you did it either way.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago
      >Both intervening with the military jimmy like toppling democratic regimes and turning a blind eye like going isolationist are two sides of the same coin of ignorance and thinking it won't actually affect you. Nope. Just the opposite. The reason the US did regime changes during the Cold War was because we were paranoid that communism would affect us. We need to be less paranoid. >Deploying the military is not the only way to get involved. Doesn't matter, we're called imperialist however we choose to get involved. Ever heard the term "neocolonialism"? >If other countries say that has bad consequences, you deploy the military, if they say we need your help here, you turn the blind eye. Even when US military action is requested or approved of by people in the country, we're still called imperialists. Consider the war in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese were attacked. We came to their aid for some time. They kept fighting after we left. Yet this was still described as "neocolonialist" activity on our part. That's how our actions are always described.
      - 1718627440 9mo ago
1718627440 9mo ago
> Why would it be affected by a problem of big countries swallowing smaller ones? Because of less trading partners? Because supply chains exist? Because big evil empire is still better than bigger evil empire that is also a neighbor? Because treating problems when they are "small" is less resource-intensive then when they have grown? Because you have military-bases in these regions that you use to project power across the world? Sorry, but don't say you don't find them useful. If you wouldn't have a use for them, you wouldn't use your software power and money to maintain and them. Europe has long appeased the national interests of the USA as inheritance of the world war two, which like you say has also raised reluctant opinions. > they always have the most nonsensical arguments. Do you seriously think, that globalization can let you reap the world as a cash cow, but aggression, war and destruction in a not so far part of the world, even if it is no longer your ally, won't affect you? > Why is China more popular than the US in European opinion polls? I already addressed exactly that: >> The USA has become a new unpredictable adversary, while China is an old enemy. Human nature is just to choose certainty over uncertainty even if that is actually worse. It is just not known what the USA are going to do in the next 10 years. From slippery-slope to an open alliance with Russia to do a Polish-style division of Europe and America, over war with China to actually having midterms and a 180° turn in policy, all seems possible. > That doesn't make any sense, you criticized Russia plenty. While believing to have some power via financial ties. Now it's back to formal complaints and deadlines. > European "criticism" of the US is far too mean-spirited for it to be plausible that you are our friend. From the European viewpoint the criticism on the US administration is what would be also in the interest of the US populace. The US electorate of course begs to disagree, they elected Trump after all. Sorry, that protesting against expansion of corporate and state surveillance, influence of the military industry conglomerate and erosion of worker and environment regulation offends you personally. I fail to see how that is mean-spirited. > That's been true for decades The same criticism has existed for decades, but the official policy has stayed the same for a long time, namely that supporting "our" camp in world politics is worth compromising on international law, human rights and national security interest. > Interesting how "realpolitik" can be used to explain European behavior but not American behavior. It literally just used the word to explain American behaviour.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago

mopsi 9mo ago

Nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee#Issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee#Issues

0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago
That's exactly the problem. US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2, and that leads us to military misadventures all over the place. Utter foolishness. It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win.
- mopsi 9mo ago
  Earlier you wrote: > I favor a policy of neutrality and world peace, not rivalry between major powers like the US and Russia. The thing is, nobody's offering you that. In the ideal scenario for Russia, the US would be mired in internal conflict and instability to such an extent that it would be unable to function as a country, leaving Russia to dominate the world: > Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States and Canada to fuel instability and separatism against neoliberal globalist Western hegemony, such as, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists" to create severe backlash against the rotten political state of affairs in the current present-day system of the United States and Canada. Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social, and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#Con... In other words, they want an endless line of Donald Trumps to ruin your country and turn it into a banana republic so that you wouldn't have the energy to pay attention to Russia stomping over the rest of the world. Why would any American voluntarily choose this fate?
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago
    So according to you, the current state of the US is a result of us trying to "contain" Russia and protect Europe through NATO. Can you see why I wouldn't be particularly enthusiastic about continuing to do this? None of this would've happened if we had avoided imperialism post-WW2.
    - mopsi 9mo ago
      No, the Euro-Atlantic alliance produced incredible prosperity in its heyday. The current deteriorating state of the US is the result of departure from the previously held values and forms of cooperation. Nothing illustrates this better than the US president openly threatening the sovereignty of Canada and Denmark while accepting massive bribes from Arab sheikhs and calling genocidal dictators like Putin his "friends". This is the wet dream of people who want to see the US fail. Why would any American want to hit the gas pedal and accelerate even further down this road?
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago
        The US prosperity trend has been the same before and after WW2: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/GDP_per_person_in_the_United_States.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/GDP_per_... You yourself just explained how Russia saw us as a threat and destabilized our politics, which lead to the current situation. We would have been better off if NATO was never formed. If you believe I'm a Trump supporter then you're misunderstanding my position.
        1718627440 9mo ago
        Russia sees you as a threat since 1917 and you aren't going to change that. You can blame that on Germany if you want, but the German regime has been toppled since four times, so good luck holding anyone accountable for that now. Russia has made major leaps in destabilizing your politics since we (the EU too) believed we won the cold war and stopped treating the Russian empire and allies (which China definitely was, now it's more equal or the opposite) as a threat. The USA also has a superiority complex, like most European nations also had, which certainly isn't helping now. > If you believe I'm a Trump supporter then you're misunderstanding my position. You said the USA going isolationist is going to solve problems, which granted isn't as extreme as the Trump foreign policy, i.e. it won't fuel the worsening of the current situation, but it isn't going the improve it either.
- 1718627440 9mo ago
  Both intervening with the military jimmy like toppling democratic regimes and turning a blind eye like going isolationist are two sides of the same coin of ignorance and thinking it won't actually affect you. > US foreign policy analysts think that every issue is the next WW2 If "US foreign policy analysts" would actually think that these situations might lead to the next WW2, then you wouldn't counter them with destabilizing countries, that leads to the rise of extreme parties and then treating them with ignorance. Because THAT is exactly how WW2 happened. > If we are involved, we're called imperialist Deploying the military is not the only way to get involved. > It's always the same double bind. If we are involved, we're called imperialist. If not, we're called complicit. There's no way to win. If other countries say that has bad consequences, you deploy the military, if they say we need your help here, you turn the blind eye. I mean you are a sovereign country and can do what you like, but you do it, because your administration thinks that is a good idea, not because all the other countries would tell you to. You frame it like other countries called for action and you did them and now they complain. No, they told you they won't like that, and you did it either way.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago
    >Both intervening with the military jimmy like toppling democratic regimes and turning a blind eye like going isolationist are two sides of the same coin of ignorance and thinking it won't actually affect you. Nope. Just the opposite. The reason the US did regime changes during the Cold War was because we were paranoid that communism would affect us. We need to be less paranoid. >Deploying the military is not the only way to get involved. Doesn't matter, we're called imperialist however we choose to get involved. Ever heard the term "neocolonialism"? >If other countries say that has bad consequences, you deploy the military, if they say we need your help here, you turn the blind eye. Even when US military action is requested or approved of by people in the country, we're still called imperialists. Consider the war in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese were attacked. We came to their aid for some time. They kept fighting after we left. Yet this was still described as "neocolonialist" activity on our part. That's how our actions are always described.
    - 1718627440 9mo ago

1718627440 9mo ago

> Why would it be affected by a problem of big countries swallowing smaller ones? Because of less trading partners? Because supply chains exist? Because big evil empire is still better than bigger evil empire that is also a neighbor? Because treating problems when they are "small" is less resource-intensive then when they have grown? Because you have military-bases in these regions that you use to project power across the world? Sorry, but don't say you don't find them useful. If you wouldn't have a use for them, you wouldn't use your software power and money to maintain and them. Europe has long appeased the national interests of the USA as inheritance of the world war two, which like you say has also raised reluctant opinions. > they always have the most nonsensical arguments. Do you seriously think, that globalization can let you reap the world as a cash cow, but aggression, war and destruction in a not so far part of the world, even if it is no longer your ally, won't affect you? > Why is China more popular than the US in European opinion polls? I already addressed exactly that: >> The USA has become a new unpredictable adversary, while China is an old enemy. Human nature is just to choose certainty over uncertainty even if that is actually worse. It is just not known what the USA are going to do in the next 10 years. From slippery-slope to an open alliance with Russia to do a Polish-style division of Europe and America, over war with China to actually having midterms and a 180° turn in policy, all seems possible. > That doesn't make any sense, you criticized Russia plenty. While believing to have some power via financial ties. Now it's back to formal complaints and deadlines. > European "criticism" of the US is far too mean-spirited for it to be plausible that you are our friend. From the European viewpoint the criticism on the US administration is what would be also in the interest of the US populace. The US electorate of course begs to disagree, they elected Trump after all. Sorry, that protesting against expansion of corporate and state surveillance, influence of the military industry conglomerate and erosion of worker and environment regulation offends you personally. I fail to see how that is mean-spirited. > That's been true for decades The same criticism has existed for decades, but the official policy has stayed the same for a long time, namely that supporting "our" camp in world politics is worth compromising on international law, human rights and national security interest. > Interesting how "realpolitik" can be used to explain European behavior but not American behavior. It literally just used the word to explain American behaviour.

0xDEAFBEAD 9mo ago