The classic image of South America, Asia, and Africa dug up, and North America and Europe covered in plunder seems to ignore that economic growth in Europe much more the cause of colonization than vice versa. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Really? The wealth of the British Empire grew out of the global trade they helped create. They didn't start out wealthy.

x% GDP on military spending doesn't translate too well to its effect on the long term differences in total GDP per capita between colonised and coloniser countries though does it? — fdrake

The colonized and the colonizer are quite different, typically. With exception of perhaps prior colonies like Canada, Australia or the US. I was thinking about the difference between First World countries that a) had colonies and those that didn't have them. And especially those that did fight against the freedom movements in their colonies (UK, France, Portugal) and those that didn't do much (perhaps the Netherlands). War is a costly endeavor, which is why now days European powers typically fight wars through NATO.

Typically defence expenditure over 5% means that a lot of wealth and prosperity is sacrificed to defence. 10% of GDP (and over) to defence means these times that basically the country typically is at war. And naturally if there is universal conscription with military service being over 2 years, that will have an effect on the economy also. If the society is totally put to serve the war, the percentage can go as high as 50%, which Great Britain put into the war effort in 1945. But that means severe rationing.

Here is an article authored by Blinken and Kagan from last year on American foreign policy:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/01/04/america-first-is-only-making-the-world-worse-heres-a-better-approach/

and those that didn't do much (perhaps the Netherlands). — ssu

Errr... No. This is the second black page in Dutch history together with its slave trade. We viciously shot Indonesians, who of course had no guns, when we first colonised it. Then we denied them independence by going to war against them from 1945 to 1949, which war to this day we still refer to as "the policing action".

And then there's the Boers...

Sorry for my ignorant view on this.

When attending a Far East history course in the university, much importance wasn't given to Dutch repression of the Islands when talking about the independence of Indonesia. Usually it doesn't compare with wars like the French had in Vietnam or the British in Malaya. Seen more as a hopeless endeavor from the start, which didn't do much. More emphasis was given to the fact that Sukarno waited for the Japanese to bless their independence, but didn't get it as Japan surrendered and then quickly made the proclamation.

Anyway, I've come across many who think that the most respectful, "nicest" colonial power were the Dutch. Let's say compared to your neighbors (the Belgians in Congo and the Germans in Namibia). Perhaps your historical PR department has done an excellent job! And don't you have some nice islands still in the Caribbean, so doesn't that make you still a colonial power?

And then there's the Boers... — Benkei

Well, people who were themselves put into concentration camps hardly aren't the first choice for moral condemnation in my view.

I was thinking "wealthy in comparison to the people they colonized." The English were vastly more advanced technologically, economically, and organizationally than the Powhatan for example, who had been ravaged by European diseases and we're isolated from the trade in technology and ideas in Asia.

By the time the English colonized India, they were vastly more organized and wealthy on a per capita basis, which led to a qualitatively better military.

When Europeans first got to Asia they had limited inroads off the coast because they're technology and doctrine wasn't exceptional compared to Asian cultures, only their shipbuilding. Centuries later, you had the US easily forcing Japan to open up with a skeleton force because the gap had grown.

I think the British specifically wanted to eliminate the Indian hold on the world's textile market. They invaded at a time when India was vulnerable. In general, they imported raw material and exported manufactured goods. This amped up British culture at the expense of whoever they dealt with. Beyond that, they took pains to intervene in other countries to cripple and divide.

The US doesn't have an empire in that sense, and probably never will. I think when we whine about American imperialism, we've just totally forgotten how devastating a real empire can be.

“ Well, good afternoon, everyone. Today, I’m pleased to announce nominations and staff for critical foreign policy national security positions in my administration. It’s a team that will keep our country and our people safe and secure. And it’s a team that reflects the fact that America is back, ready to lead the world, not retreat from it. Once again sit at the head of the table. Ready to confront our adversaries and not reject our allies. Ready to stand up for our values. In fact, in calls from world leaders that I’ve had, about 18 or 20 so far, I’m not sure the exact number, in the week since we won the election, I’ve been struck by how much they’re looking forward to the United States reasserting its historic role as a global leader, both in the Pacific, as well as the Atlantic, all across the world.”

-Joe Biden


I hope you’re ready to bow to your American overlords. Though, as history attests, suspect incompetence beneath a veneer of grandiloquence.

I fully suspect that NATO leaders have said that to Biden.

You see, nobody wants to fill in the place that the US left during the Trump years, as that would inevitable lead to a power struggle like what we can already see happening with the "allies" of the US in the Middle East.

There Turkey is flirting with Russia, Saudi-Arabia trying to take away the leadership position of the Arab states from Egypt and Israel doing extensive diplomacy with Russia understanding that now they have Putin as their neighbor. Saudi-Arabia among some states is hopelessly lost in a quagmire in Yemen and the GCC partners nearly went to war with one of their members. And all these allies being on separate sides in Libya. So that's great leadership!

Yes, the Middle East is a perfect example what happens what happens when alliances fall apart. In fact, there's a history of alliances that simply have become meaningless that the US first created. Presidents like Trump, who actually didn't know that the UK has a nuclear deterrent itself, will inevitably lead to thing collapsing.

Like CENTO or SEATO...


But that doesn't matter for you! You'll surely remind us again about the "peace process" of small GCC states (and Sudan) having diplomatic relations with Israel!!!

Assuming Trump does not have a sudden change of heart in the next two months, he will have been the first US president since Carter to not have sent US forces into new conflicts during his tenure. This is one of the few bright spots of his presidency.

Would anyone like to make bets as to how long this will last under a Biden admin? A PF betting pool, perhaps?

When covid is pretty much done for the US, then give it 3 to 6 months.

When covid is pretty much done for the US, — Benkei

Ah, so 2057 then.

You suspect a lot of things and make many predictions. But I have yet to see one come true.

You’re right, none of that matters to me. The idea that the US should not leave the Middle East to the Middle East because Turkey might flirt with Russia is absurd. This kind of globalist fear-mongering is what held us there in the first place.

It is just a simple fact the when the US leaves some area, it creates a void. And those countries left in the void, will have to adjust to the new situation.

That isn't absurd at all, if you would think of it.

But apparently you don't think as it doesn't matter to you, which is quite clear.

Yes, when the US leaves some area the US leaves some area. That’s the entire point.

I think when we whine about American imperialism, we've just totally forgotten how devastating a real empire can be. — frank

If that is the case I blame short memories.

American imperialism in its Manifest Destiny form in North America wasn't particularly more benign than any European project.

Arguably the only difference is that disease and then demographic replacement washed away the cultural memory of that era.

I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture of the US. It's just never met the definition of an empire.

Why is that? It certainly took over a lot of area from sovereign peoples, extracted resources, and peopled them with its own demographic.

If the US wasn't imperial as it annexed land across North America, was Russia not an imperial power either?

Yes, when the US leaves some area the US leaves some area. That’s the entire point. — NOS4A2

And don't think it won't have consequences.

You see, if the US simply disregards it's leadership and "goes home", it will simply be regarded as a somewhat bigger Canada. Canada is a big industrialized economy also, you know. One of the G8 countries. Yet nobody cares or knows what the Canadian prime minister says, few know who he or she is, actually.

And that is the reality for the US if it retreats out from the international stage, something that Americans would actually hate. You simply would be as other countries looked at the US prior to WW1 (and perhaps prior to WW2). A rich country, but not the most important player in the global scene.

Trump and Trumpism is the best example just why it's a pure delusion that the US would be OK with the stance of being just a "bigger Canada". Trump's rhetoric, MAGA, his insistence to beef up the military, and his actions on the World stage do make it perfectly clear that the US isn't willing to lose it's status and role enjoys.

Why is that? It certainly took over a lot of area from sovereign peoples, extracted resources, and peopled them with its own demographic. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The US never ruled the Iroquois Nation. They just took over and absorbed the population

Russia not an imperial power either? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure. They ruled central europe.

The US needs not lose its “status”, nor must it remain absent from world affairs while retreating from the mess of its former interventionist policies, which arguably exacerbated the problems to begin with. Afghanistan and Iraq were deadly mistakes. And, as critics of Trump’s foreign policy often fail to mention, until Trump came along ISIS was marauding across the land with near impunity. No amount of hopey-changey rhetoric or Biden’s finger-wagging could stop any of that.

Does their expansion into Central Asia count? Tajiks, Chechens, and Uzbeks were their own peoples, so I would argue that those are obvious examples of colonization. What about the, admittedly sparsley populated areas of Siberia?

Here I find myself thinking that Russian colonization was different from other nations, but why? Reflecting on it, the only real difference I can see is that the US and Russia were contiguous with the large areas they colonized, and eventually demographically replaced and assimilated the people on the land they claimed.

However, historically it's hard to draw a distinction from England in South Africa, or Belgium in the Congo, with the actions of these two "in the moment," aside from having those cases not be colonization because: "well it was contiguous land and they kept the land."

Same goes for the Ottomans and Seljuks. They invaded and colonized most Arab lands, but we generally don't call them colonizers, not do we speak of the Arabs as colonizers in North Africa. Maybe colonization has an element of faliure to keep the land to it? You have to not replace the native culture?

It also seems like a loaded term politically. Only European nations "colonize," an aggressive, morally condemable act. China in Tibet, the Ottomans, those seem less morally loaded, despite happening in the same time period.

Anyhow, the US did rule over semi-soverign nations within its borders, over the course of their long push West. If the British, French, and Spanish were imperialists in colonizing the coasts of North America, than the US was in its push westward.

Another interesting question, is Western Europe becoming a colony for peoples from Asia and Africa? Obviously Europeans aren't subject to imperialism, but colonization isn't necessarily imperial, it's settlement. France, the UK, and Germany will have populations that are a majority non-European in descent by around 2080, so a major wave of settlement. Or is the movement of peoples post globalization a different concept?

The US needs not lose its “status”, nor must it remain absent from world affairs while retreating from the mess of its former interventionist policies, which arguably exacerbated the problems to begin with. Afghanistan and Iraq were deadly mistakes. And, as critics of Trump’s foreign policy often fail to mention, until Trump came along ISIS was marauding across the land with near impunity. No amount of hopey-changey rhetoric or Biden’s finger-wagging could stop any of that. — NOS4A2

You don't notice just how illogical you are.

Firstly, retreating from the mess Bush and the neocons made was the reason for Al Qaeda to morph into ISIS/ISIL (as the US military aligning with some Sunni insurgents was winning the war against Al Qaeda with the "Sunni Awakening" was a great success, no thanks to US politicians).

And FYI, Operation Inherent Resolve was started during the Obama years in June 2014 and Trump just inherited it in a situation where already ISIS had lost huge chunks of land and was being pushed back, hence to say the "until Trump came along" that nothing had been done is simply flatly false.



But the real illogical part is your idea that the US won't lose its "status" by withdrawal. What "status" you just have in mind? Sure, the US can withdraw from many parts of the World, but that simply means that it isn't then a Superpower. If you leave, well, you don't have a say. You aren't an ally to be trusted, hence countries will adapt to a new situation in a post-US environment. There has been enough of discussion of what would happen if the US would leave NATO to understand that simply then Europe would form a similar defense pact without the US.

If the US leaves Africa -> France and others (China etc.) reclaim it
If the US leaves the Middle East -> the power struggle is already quite visible there
If the US leaves Europe -> Likely an EU dominated pack with Britain will be tried to be formed, but Russia will get a huge influence over Eastern Europe (Finlandization of place like Poland?)
If the US leaves Far East Asia -> Countries there (Australia, Japan, etc) adapt to Chinese dominance
If the US leaves (alone) Central & South America -> don't be suprised of Latin America's new ties with China.

(Flags to the replace the Stars & Stripes)


We've all seen how this plays out with the example of the UK. If you read let's say pre WW2 literature, the British Empire seems as this huge power having tentacles all around the World. Then especially after Suez, it wasn't anymore the player in Middle East or anywhere. What it just tried to do is to push for weapon deals to wealthy Arab countries. And didn't have even the deterrence (as it didn't have any flat top aircraft carriers) to keep an Argentinian junta off from trying to take British soil.

The assassination of Mohsen Fakrizadeh seems to be the final Trump era action on Iran before the Biden administration takes over. Seems that Trump and/or the Israelis pushed for a strike at Iran, but some sources say that MBS of Saudi-Arabia got cold feet. Hence the assassination was the next "best" option.

What was interesting was the response from former CIA director John Brennan about it. And as with the previous assassination then openly done by the Trump team (at the Iranian general, which got Iran to fire missiles into US bases), this seems to be the choice of Trump how to do things.



The perils of being in the Iranian nuclear programme:

The assassination of Mohsen Fakrizadeh seems to be the final Trump era action on Iran before the Biden administration takes over.

There is zero evidence to support this fantasy because Iran has refused to offer any.

I think the former CIA directors outcoming says it all. If it was an Israeli/US/joint venture, that isn't certain. But that it had the US approval is obvious to anybody (except for those living in La-la-Trumpland).

Whoever carried out the hit, it is all but certain that Trump gave it the nod. Once again, he is trying to put a stamp on the Middle East that Biden will find difficult to scrub out. His actions would hardly be without precedent; Obama, Clinton and Reagan all made last-gasp moves in the region to shape it in their image.

(see here)

And of course as the Trump administration inherently leaks, this was for everyone to notice:

See:

Trump asked advisors for options to attack Iran's main nuclear site just days after sacking his Defense Secretary

Trump asked for options for attacking Iran last week, but held off

McMaster, Cheney, and Panetta have all mused Israel might attack post nuclear deal, and another article suggested there is reason for Israel to act before a Biden admin can take effect. A bomber was also flown out to "reassure allies." Foreign advisory "purge" also seems peculiar.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1IB08E

"Knowing that a Biden victory is a strong possibility, Israel may decide to act in its national interest and attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure sooner rather than later, before Biden could be in office to stop it."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/will-israel-strike-iran-639911/amp

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/11/24/b-52-bombers-just-sent-a-message-to-iran-dont-build-nuclear-weapons/?sh=1ca1413531f7

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/25/pentagon-purges-leading-advisors-from-defense-policy-board/

So after the recent Russian hack of sensitive US data, I wonder if Russia will stop fucking with the US sometime before the two go to war.

@jamalrob according to the Conflicted podcast this is a good thing:

"The US has carried out an air strike targeting Iran-backed militias in Syria, in the first military action undertaken by the Biden administration."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56205056