You're on a slippery slope when you call people racist based on an apparent bias. I don't think it's fair or accurate, but rather a type of knee-jerk reaction that isn't appropriate for this forum.

We have a poster who insists he doesn't see colour and has a whole shtick about the evils of affirmative action and whatnot but when it's whites allegedly being killed all of a sudden it's relevant they're white. — Benkei

If this is some sort of arch crime, I don't really get it.

With our unnamed genocide apologist I see where you're coming from.

You gotta chill out a bit. Falling for some narrative doesn't make someone a racist.

A lot of nonsense narratives are floating about, often constructed deliberately to play on people's fears and emotions.

People hear something repeated a couple of times and stick with it, assuming it's true.

I'm sure we've all been guilty of that one way or another.

'Dangerous opinions' to citizens are what running with scizzors is to toddlers. The grown-ups in government must protect us against the dangerous opinions!

No, but in all seriousness, there's scarcely a more iliberal thought than the various iterations of the 'dangerous opinions' argument.

If you don't believe citizens themselves are capable of telling right from wrong, then what's the point of a free society in the first place? Why argue for a free society if one believes citizens are essentially adult children that need to be nannied by the state about what to think, say and do?

That's probably what Trump thought as he entered office, but evidently it isn't so simple. Not only does he have to take on the US establishment, but also members of his own administration who are part of said establishment.

With regards to the course of action you propose, I think it is foolhardy.

Russia has been hit by probably the most extensive sanctions package ever, and it achieved nothing. Furthermore, increasing military aid to Ukraine probably will have the contrary effect, confirming to the Russians that a military victory in Ukraine is the only way they can achieve their goals.

Freezing military aid to Israel is another hot potatoe, considering the massive influence of the Israel lobby and the ramifications it may have for those who support pressuring Israel. This is why not a single US administration has managed to put meaningful pressure on Israel since ... Well, since ever?

So, recently Jeffrey Sachs gave this talk on an online talkshow in which he expressed what I thought to be a surprising amount of optimism and positivity about Trump's approach to foreign policy.

Sachs's points in summary:
- Trump pursues the right policy on Israel and Ukraine, namely peace.
- Trump's approach is effective.
- If successful, this could end 30 years of aggressive US(-Israeli) foreign policy, which would be historic.

Sachs is a person I regard as exceptionally well-informed and as having a moral character, so even though his take surprises me somewhat, I am forced to take it seriously.

Surely if Trump actually succeeds on either front, that would be nothing short of revolutionary. I used to be (and to a large degree still am) skeptical whether he will be, but there seems to be a glimmer of hope.

Any takes?

The US already has blood on its hands, and has for decades. Unwavering support for its genocidal pet monkey Israel has been the gold standard of US Middle-East policy since the death of JFK.

If Trump manages to break that 70 year old trend, it would be nothing short of a miracle.

So when a political party promises to deport millions of people to sustain the national identity, yes, it's not your libertarian party, but your nativist anti-immigration far-right populist party. — ssu

What you linked isn't a political party promising anything.

It's some random guy no one has ever heard of posting a tweet. Sometimes politicians say edgy things to get attention. Big whoop.

I see no problem with AfD's policies on immigration and remigration. If people come here illegally purely to profit off the welfare state, start criminally misbehaving and show clear signs that they actually hate our society and our societal norms, then send them back to whatever hole they crawled out of. I couldn't care less about what happens to them. (I say 'our' because the situation in the Netherlands is very similar to that in Germany)

Of course, that doesn't include decent, law-abiding people who migrated legally.

On the topic of education, I think it would require a radical paradigm shift indeed.

It's often said that education alone does not actually make people less susceptible to propaganda, and in fact might make people more susceptible, and that includes academics.

One reason for that is obvious, namely that the public education they're being given is often heavily influenced by the state apparatus, laying the bedrock for the propaganda people will be presented with later in life.

But the second reason is perhaps not so obvious, and in my view more interesting.

I think modern education has a way of disconnecting people from their intuition, and attempts to replace it with pure reason. Such people are, paradoxically, much easier to manipulate. Because reason has its limits too, and a clever mind can rationalize literally anything - something which the propagandist makes eager use of.

Even though the person themselves is disconnected from their intuition, the propagandist makes it their profession to understand, and often has a much better understanding of what makes their target audience tick than the audience itself.

Nonsense.

Go read for yourself what they say about remigration: https://www.afd.de/remigration/

You've fallen for the good ol' fascist canard, with which the establishments of Europe try to keep any and all opposition out of power.

Trump is like Hitler because he understands how to work our emotions to increase his own popularity. — Athena

The vast majority of political messaging is made to work people's emotions, though. That's not just Trump.

Worse still, with Trump it is very obvious, and thus limited in its effectiveness, whereas the messaging you ought to be really worried about is the stuff that is not obvious, and thus finds its way straight into their recipients' subconscious.

They become societal paradigms which are no longer questioned, no matter how defunct they might be.

It turns out people aren't too impressed by having political agendas jammed down their throat. Who knew?

My burning dislike for politicians is non-partisan, don't you worry. But what I loathe even more is to see people of reasonable intelligence falling for their game.

And no, the president's words don't matter. The only thing that matters is what group of impoverished people US bombs are dropping on.

That doesn't even register on the same scale of all the cooked up shit your government gets up to.

Also, weren't they gang members?

Of course that's what you are talking about. All you have are politicians' words about their commitments to xyz. There's no indication whatsoever that they plan or are even capable of keeping those commitments.

If we get down to the actual actions taken, nothing irreversible happened to US-European relations, and commitments to defense spending are only relevant if they stick for the long run, which I can virtually guarantee won't happen unless Russia invades a NATO country, which it won't for obvious reasons.

You're taking all of the lip service too seriously, and you're being sold hot air.

It might very well change, but my point is that whatever politicians say about it is not much of an indication.

Your whole argument that European countries are lazy and just expect the US to carry the can all the time is false. It was a legacy of the post war settlement. — Punshhh

It is a legacy of the post-war settlement, and that doesn't change just because some politicians said some words.

In fact, I can think of few things that carry less weight than the words of western politicians.

You're ascribing too much value to the words of politicians - those of Trump and those of European leaders.

Their words mean nothing.

Here's what factually happened so far under Trump:
- Trump said some things
- Trump imposed some tariffs
- Trump attempted to broker peace in Ukraine

None of this is irreversible, and one might even call it fairly insignificant.

People losing thier heads over some words the Orange Doofus said are dummies, and fundamentally misunderstand what geopolitics is about.

The AfD is not even remotely fascist or nazi.

It's a libertarian party, which is the diametrical opposite of the type of authoritarian far-right movements.

If you're going to make these underhanded suggestions, at least have the common decency to figure out what the people you're accusing believe:




The problem in Europe has long been the establishment itself, which is the party that shows the actual signs of authoritarianism, by ceding ever more power to the corrupt, untransparant, undemocratic cesspool that is Brussels, by cracking down on dissenting voices under the guise of 'misinformation', by calling everything to the right of themselves 'extreme right', etc.


People apparently have such a naive conception of how politics works, that they're unable to see how the establishment slaps labels of fascism and nazism on anything that challenges its power.

Europe has now been weaned off the U.S. teat. It won’t be going back in this generation. — Punshhh

That conclusion is rather premature.

It will depend on a lot of factors, the most important of which is whether Trumpism will continue after Trump's presidency.

If it doesn't, I can assure you Europe's Transatlantic clique will be back for more of Uncle Sam's grease. Things will return to 'business as usual' in the blink of an eye, just like they did after Trump's first presidency.

So, all I need to justify my ownership of my home is a "sense of property?" I just claim it's mine and, I guess, maintain possession of it against any who disagree with me, and that makes it so? — T Clark

I never said any of that. I merely pointed out that people's sense of ownership is fundamentally human and far precedes government arbitration.

As I noted earlier, you grossly underestimate people's ability to get by without governments micromanaging their every transaction, while grossly overestimating governments' ability to provide fitting solutions to complex problems.

If you think that what you wrote sounds ridiculous, consider that that's exactly how governments operate. It has a sense of what belongs to whom, and uses a big stick to enforce that view.

Do you think there is any possibility that the nature of our economic system will change to allow small businesses and the average Joe to be in charge. Short of a total collapse of civilization. Given that it will never happen, it is reasonable to use government regulation to create a more balanced system. — T Clark

Sure. SMEs used to be the backbone of the Dutch economy, until the Dutch government got ever more involved, bestowed ever more privileges on large multinationals like Shell, ASML, Tata Steel, Philips, Unilever etc.

The Dutch economy used to punch far above its weight class, and that's how we used to finance our elaborate socialist policies.


Also, it should be clear from what I said that I am not categorically against government intervention. But I do recognize it as the double-edged sword that it is.

[...] business as it is currently practiced can not exist without government regulation. — T Clark

Corporations aren't the only form of business.

A person selling their chicken's eggs to their neighbors is a business. No government interjection necessary.

Who would organize the market if not the government? — T Clark

A state/government creates a basic framework of laws within which the market functions. It's not strictly necessary, but it's a modern reality.

Other than that, it should be left to the free market except when the free market clearly fails for reasons directly attributable to the free market, and assuming a government intervention is the most fitting solution.

I wasn't directly calling for more regulation, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of using regulation to aid business while resisting doing the same for workers, customers, and people in general. — T Clark

I don't think that's a matter of hypocrisy. It's a problem of the people have no lobbying power while big businesses do.

That will virtually always remain the case, which is why I would focus on reducing the government's ability to bestow privileges, thus making it senseless to lobby, and lowering the bar for SMEs - big businesses' natural enemy - to indirectly put the power back into the hands of the average Joe.

Ownership of all property is ultimately traceable back to government action - either grants, sales, leases, or legal recognition. Whether we like it or not, God does not establish property rights, governments do. — T Clark

If you're talking in a legal sense, that's rather obvious. Governments make the laws, which they then enforce through their monopoly on violence. (In that sense they are not so different from the feudal lords of old)

But a sense of property is a fundamental human trait that can already be observed in toddlers. No government necessary. Of course, governments can play a constructive role in resolving disputes.


What strikes me as rather odd is this distrust and underestimation of the average person, that apparently they need government supervision to do anything. I think it's typical of a state-centric view of mankind.

However, mankind throughout the ages got around just fine without governments micromanaging every facet of their lives. The 'nanny state' really is much more modern than people think. Even the Soviet Union didn't achieve the level of micromanagement that modern states do.

Free speech fundamentally concerns the sharing of ideas.

Platitudes about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre deliberately pretend otherwise, in order to get the so-called 'foot in the door'.

I believe that in the context of a civilized debate any idea should be able to be shared without legal repercussions, no matter how strongly I might disagree with those ideas.

Earlier in this thread I wrote that, at base, this does not need to be about taking responsibility for other's lives, it can just be about not benefitting from the suffering of others. I had never thought of it explicitly in those terms before. This issue has not been addressed in previous responses. I'd like to hear what both of you have to say. — T Clark

I think any reasonable person would, on some basic level, be against exploitation. I certainly am, and there is nothing in the classical liberal position that should suggest otherwise.

However, when one gets to the particulars of what constitutes exploitation and/or benefitting from the suffering of others, the subject often becomes a lot more murky. And in order to stage an effective government intervention, a general agreement that 'exploitation is bad' is not enough.

Here's my simplistic understanding of history. In the US Constitution, the government was set up restrict the power of large institutions which control social and economic life - the church and the government itself. Since then, I guess as a result of the industrial revolution, another institutional player has entered the field - business and especially corporations. That very powerful institution has a vast amount of power over our lives which our society is not set up to limit. That kind of limit is needed. Where can that come from if not government? — T Clark

Corporations are state-authorized, public entities - they exist by virtue of the state. If we need the government to protect us from the power of corporations, they should probably just stop creating them.

That aside, government intervention should be a last resort, and first and foremost the market should be organized in such a way that it lowers the bar of entry.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are the natural enemy of large businesses, because there is no way a gigantic multinational can compete with you buying eggs from your local neighbor. This is why natural monopolies are essentially impossible.

Rules and regulations (which governments love) are the natural enemy of SMEs, however. And that's where big business and government find each other. Big business wants to raise the bar of entry for the competition, and governments want more control and more tax revenue.

So to echo your question: if businesses and corporations accumulate undue power and privileges, where can that power come from if not from government?

Is that the answer? I don't have to pay a living wage because I can count on families to fill in the gaps. That's incredibly cynical. — T Clark

I don't see what's cynical about it.

In fact, if people have their families to fall back on, there's a much greater chance that they won't have to accept an unreasonably low salary in the first place. Their families and social networks may help them bridge the gap between finding jobs for reasonable pay, or help them find better ones.

Furthermore, it's not like the problem of low wages is easy for solve. If simply raising the minimum wage was the clear-cut solution, then I wouldn't complain. But again, that money has to come from somewhere, the market will react, and the final results will not be what one had hoped for.

This is how government intervention often fails: it cuts off one of the hydra's heads, and several more grow back. Government then, in its unyielding belief that more rules and more intervention has to be the solution, keeps cutting off heads until the market eventually becomes completely and utterly broken.

Thanks for the kind words. :blush:

Not to derail, but what, if there is such a thing, is an example of a perfect institution? Who is it instituted by? Who or what ensures its perfection? Are they truly not able or is there rational, moral, and legal aspects that contribute to it's inherently or otherwise unavoidably flawed nature? — Outlander

I think institutions are inherently flawed, because they are ran by humans who are inherently flawed.

As a general rule of thumb, the bigger institutions become, the more flawed they become, because there is more distance between the institution, the people it's supposed to help and the problems it's supposed to solve. They also tend to grow more bureaucratic and less transparent.

Yet many people look at governments the exact opposite way: the bigger they are, the more power they have and thus the more problems they can supposedly solve.

Personally, I am a fan of decentralized institutions, thus putting more power in the hands of local governments.

Unfortunately, power tends to consolidate and move in the opposite direction - towards centralization and control.

But that aside, sometimes "forcing someone to do the right thing" is a matter of social survival. — Outlander

I agree, and there are many situations imaginable where forcing people to behave in certain ways is necessary.

But the main point I'm trying to make is that this comes at a cost as well. Contrary to what argues, I believe that forcing people to behave in certain ways takes away their individual responsibility and moral agency.

Too much of this and you end up with a 'nanny state' which tries to micromanage every facet of individual life - a category which I think European countries, including my own, are getting dangerously close to.

With every law that is implemented the question should be asked whether the solution really is to put more power in the hands of the government. The government, after all, is not comprised of superior moral beings, but the same normal, fallible people as those who would forego placing 'slippery when wet' signs.

_____________________________________________________________________________

As I see it, it's not a question of expressing concern for humanity, it's about taking responsibility for their welfare. To lighten that a bit, it's at least about not benefitting from their misery. — T Clark

In my opinion, arguing for more taxes and expecting the government to fix things isn't taking responsibility.

Taxes have to come from somewhere - and that includes the lower income strata. The idea that there is a huge pile of money lying around that governments can freely dip into without it being missed, is magical thinking.

In the Netherlands, normal people end up paying like 50% of our income in taxes, and still there is poverty, homelessness, misery, still our social programs are shitty, etc.

Money doesn't grow on trees, and governments are rarely able to create real solutions to human problems.

If government is not the solution, tell me what is. — T Clark

Individuals creating social bonds and taking individual responsibility.

Government cannot replace this, try as they might.

Do you really think these institutions are capable of meeting the needs of people with no decent healthcare, housing, education, nutrition, etc. — T Clark

Oh, definitely and without a doubt.

I would much rather rely on a friend or family member for any of those things. And they're much more likely to provide actual help, because it is based on a personal relationship.

In the Netherlands all of these things are closely managed by the government, and it fails to provide on all four counts, forcing people to fall back on their social networks anyway.

That's where shedding 50% of your income to the government gets you.

I would be more sympathetic to the libertarian view if there were any acknowledgement of a societal obligation to create a society where people can live decent, secure lives. Fact is, I don't think it ever crossed most of their minds. They don't really care. Do you? — T Clark

This is a very uncharitable view, and I think it is also false.

In my experience, libertarians and classical liberals (I consider myself the latter) care just as much about their fellow man as anyone else. They simply disagree on how that care should be expressed.

Turning charity and humanism into a state-mandated process is objectionable for various reasons. The most obvious one being that states are flawed institutions that simply aren't able to provide the solutions they promise. The other is that it replaces the personal process and turns it into an anonymous one - the giver no longer feels like they did a good thing, and the recipient no longer feels they were given anything other than what they were entitled to in the first place. If you force people to do 'the right thing', then they no longer get to choose out of their own volition and thus the moral act is devalued if there is any moral act left to speak of at all.

What institution other than government can protect regular people living and working in the society from business, corporations, oligarchs, and, yes, government itself? — T Clark

The (extended) family has fulfilled this role throughout the ages, and I believe it should have a much bigger role in modern society.

In general, I believe people should be encouraged to create and maintain social networks that they can fall back on. Social bonds between people cannot be replaced by a government surrogate.

Do you have some representative examples of heavily regulated industries that are monopolistic and lightly regulated industries that are not? — T Clark

I doubt you'll find a lightly-regulated industry that can in any way be said to be monopolistic.
As for heavily-regulated ones that are either monopolistic or completely broken: housing, energy, pharmaceuticals, airflight, insurance, foodstuffs, etc.

I could probably think of a couple more, but since I'm speaking from the perspective of my country (the Netherlands) and you of yours, I'm not sure how productive this will be for our discussion.

One of the foundations of conservative and libertarian political ideology is that the less regulation of commerce the better. On the other hand, the great majority of government regulation is put in place to benefit business and property owners. Large scale businesses such as banking, finance, communications, agriculture, and publishing could not exist without the Federal Reserve, SEC, FCC, FDA, and Copyright Office. And this doesn't include the most fundamental of all government regulations - property rights.

Regulation only seems to be a problem when it benefits the people who actually use the products and services of these industries and who have to face the consequences of their ineptitude, negligence, and malfeasance. Worker safety, environmental, and consumer protection regulations cost money and reduce profits so they are considered unreasonable, too restrictive. — T Clark

Large businesses have always used their lobbying power to gain special privileges, which is one of the primary mechanisms through which market regulation tends to favor them.

This is why market regulation often misses its mark: the big businesses it is meant to target have ways to circumvent, bend and change the rules, while the small businesses that are instrumental in counteracting the power of large businesses are disadvantaged.

Not only is this why regulation generally fails to curb the power of big businesses, but one of the reasons why big businesses themselves may promote market regulation; to heighten the bar for new competition.

Without fault, you will find the areas of the market with the most regulations to be the most monopolistic, and most broken.

Do note that it takes a powerful government to hold any power worth lobbying for in the first place.

Someone who is intellectually crafty enough can construe arguments for pretty much any position, as Singer proves.

Since definitive philosophical arguments have yet to be found, determining what is true or false is, ultimately, a matter of intuitive discernment.

And intuitively, Singer is a moron.

There is no deep state. — frank

Of course there is. The US is corrupt down to the bone. The "deep state" is, for example, whoever is paying off your politicians to start and market wars that nobody asked for.

If lobbies have the power to push the United States to war with entire regions of the world (eg. the US response to 9/11), then how does that not fit the idea of an elite class that has gigantic political influence that circumvents and/or manipulates the democratic process?

If people criticise your teet-weening point on Russia, it's "no, it's a long game". — Benkei

If you reduce my argument as such, there should be no problem with me reducing your argument to "The White House is stupid".

Well, Benkei, experts seem to disagree. And I think it is vastly more likely that you are wrong, than the White House being stupid.

Maybe you should contact the NOS and give them your take.

I've not seen a working hypothesis from you and how what is happening now supports getting to your theorised end goals. — Benkei

I've given you plenty of suggestions. You're just refusing to read them, apparently.

Read: I disagree with what others say, here's something that does agree with my view. — Benkei

I don't feel one way or the other about the article. But it's clear to me that the situation is scarcely as cut and dry as you pretended.

Your argumentation means nothing to me if at the end of the day all you're doing is calling the White House stupid.

Who do I trust? Benkei, who thinks the governing body of the world's most powerful nation is stupid, or the people who put in an effort to understand what's actually going on?

Trump neemt enorm risico met handelsoorlog, maar kan die wel winnen

(translation: Trump takes huge risk with trade war, but is able to win it)

Trumps escalerende handelsoorlog in vijf scenario’s: impact op de Nederlandse economie (en breder)

(translation: Trump's escalating trade war in five scenarios: impact on the Dutch economy (and broader))


Oh boy... TPF looking mighty silly once again. Ya'll gotta stop basing your opinions on regurgitating below-average media slop.

Your go-to reaction seems to be "wait and see" [...] — Benkei

On the contrary, I am actively hypothesizing possible reasons for the things we see, while the rest of the forum cannot seem to produce anything beyond "it's stupid".

In the military there is a common axiom that says you must always be prepared for at least two scenarios: the enemy's most likely course of action, and the enemy's most dangerous course of action.

And this translates well into conducting geopolitics.

Imagine where Ukraine would be, had they taken into consideration what the United States' most dangerous course of action could be.

Instead they assumed surface-level appearances told the whole story, and now they are being hung out to dry while their country is being wrecked - something which people have said would happen years in advance, and this forum would undoubtedly dismiss as "reading too much into it".

Nothing the US has done in the past week suggests the existence of a grand geopolitical master plan. — Benkei

I wasn't suggesting as much. But only a fool would assume there isn't one.

Are you ignoring that all nations are reshaping their trades right at this moment? — Christoffer

We've already been here once before, hysteria and all. No idea why this time it would be fundamentally different.

The anti-Trump trumpeteers have a vested interest in spreading alarmism and framing every mouse fart as the end of days. That's the main thing we're seeing happen. What, if anything, corresponds to truth remains entirely to be seen.

The past 2 weeks of complete shock and market uncertainty, even from his closest supporters, suggests otherwise. — Mr Bee

Two weeks of tariffs is like a mouse fart in terms of geopolitics. No idea why people are getting overly emotional about it.

In 4 years is the US policy gonna be as pro-Russia and maniacally protectionist as it is now? — Mr Bee

It could very well be.

The main question that is on the table is whether all of this is truly the work of "madman Trump", or whether the shift in US policy is carried by a much wider base within the US foreign policy elite.

As I've outlined before in this thread, due to the way US politics works I am inclined to lean towards the latter. Presidents simply don't have that much power, as the Obama and Trump 1 administrations attest to. I might change my mind if I see the US becoming fundamentally unsecure on a geopolitical level, but for now the US is safe and secure on its island.

The days of a US-led global order are simply behind us, and even the hawkish US foreign policy elite will have to contend with that reality. Therefore radical shifts in US foreign policy are to be expected.

Russia isn't gonna abandon a stable China for an unstable US, but the EU may abandon the unstable US for a more stable China. — Mr Bee

Not now, but if Trump achieves normalization with Russia and we are 10 years down the line, who is to say?

Russia and China used to have very serious differences which disallowed them from forming a unified bloc against the West during the Cold War. After the Cold War, the Russians put a lot of effort in aligning themselves to the West, clearly preferring the West over China.

So again, it's not as far-fetched as it might seem at first glance. Not to mention, the international system is very unpredictable at the moment, and it's impossible to tell how countries' relations will develop if another great crisis hits; a conflict in the Pacific, for example.

Perhaps good ties with Russia won't split the alliance, but it might keep the Russians from taking China's side militarily.

↪Tzeentch
This fixation with Russia seems a bit outdated. She really is a basket case, a pariah state and run by a tinpot dictator. She is going to become an irrelevance. It was only the money Putin was getting for oil and gas that gave them the ability to start this war. That income stream is largely gone now (apart from what she can trade with China) and what money is left will be poured into this crazy war in which the working age men of Russia are being sacrificed en masse for a vanity project of their tin pot dictator.

The real geopolitics is between the U.S., China and Europe. Which is now being won hands down by China, while the U.S. keeps repeated shooting herself in the foot and Europe is now stepping more onto the world stage. The pragmatism of Europe will balance well with the pragmatism of China and could potentially introduce some stability. Countries like the U.S. and India are too gung-ho at this stage which will push the EU and China closer together. — Punshhh

This is a bit short-sighted.

Geopolitics is all about the long-term, and thus about potential. Looking at the world as it is right now and assuming it will always be that way is not geopolitics.

Europe has the population and GDP to rival the US and China, but right now it is not even a great power, mainly due to their own ineptitude and voluntary vassalage to the United States. The post-Cold War European structure is so categorically defunct that it will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed at all.

War in Europe seems an impossibility today, but if European nations fail to unite it's a virtual guarantee over the long run. The problem for them is that the main political structure, the European Union, is a complete disaster and will not facilitate unity unless it is completely restructured.

Russia on the other hand is a great power, albeit the smallest of the three by quite a distance. Russia is the largest country on earth, rich in natural resources and is located on one of the most geopolitically important stretches of land on the planet:

(Mackinder, Heartland Theory)


Russia is, and will be for the foreseeable future, in prime position to connect and/or unite (parts of) the 'World Island', which is the most important geographical area on the planet due to the concentration of population and natural resources.

America's principal strategy to maintain primacy has been to keep the World Island divided.


Obviously, Russia took a big hit from the Cold War, but despite its post-Cold War weakness, it managed to stay relevant because it retained its geopolitical knowhow. It plays a weak hand, but it plays it well.

Europe came out of the Cold War strong, but threw any and all geopolitical knowhow out of the window and made itself completely irrelevant in geopolitical terms. The European Union is a joke internationally, and while nations like France, Great Britain and Germany maintained some composure, none of them seem to realize that on their own they're completely irrelevant as well.

Because Europe lacks the geopolitical insight and political structure to fight for its own interests, the only question is who gets to exploit it. Currently, that is still the United States.


All of this is to say, the China-Russia alliance is by far the most important geopolitical development of the post-Cold War geopolitical structure.

Without Russia on its side, China has no guarantee it will maintain access to foreign markets in the case of a conflict with the United States, which will undoubtedly involve a general naval blockade.

Iran and Central-Asia are important for the same reason, and Pakistan and Bangladesh are critical links in connecting China and India overland. It is no coincidence that the United States has been deeply involved in this region since the end of World War 2.

I find the presupposition that it is realistic to ween Russia from the Chinese teet a pipe dream. — Benkei

People probably thought the same thing about splitting the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

To discount the idea completely is simply short-sighted. But I do agree that under today's circumstances I don't find it likely.

Over the long-term, US strategy will be with virtual certainty to try and use Russia to balance both Europe and China. It's a question of when that option becomes feasible again.

This is the most stupid idea that is now thrown around. Russia has been now for a long time an ally of China and believing this lunacy of Russia turning it's back on China because Trump loves Putin is insanity. — ssu

I agree under current circumstances it seems far-fetched, but geopolitics is a game of the long-term, and it's strictly business.

Russia has tried since 1991 to align itself with the West; they thought that was the winning strategy. In 2014 this stopped because the Ukraine conflict created an unbridgable gap.

That conflict is now coming to end, and it's a legitimate question whether the Russian-Chinese alliance will hold, and whether it will hold in the long-term. Or whether a normalization between Russia and the West will cause a drift back to the pre-2014 status quo.

Personally, I don't think the Russians will be as interested in close ties with the West as they were in 1991, simply because China was a developing nation back then, whereas today it is increasingly the center of global affairs together with other Asian countries like India.

But I don't blame the Trump administration for trying. From a geopolitical standpoint it's the logical thing to try and do. A Russia-China alliance, accompanied by support from Iran, India and several Central Asian nations, unite 2/3rds of Eurasia - essentially a fail condition for the American empire, which can only flourish if the rest of the world remains divided.