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.

I don't see how anything you just wrote answers my three main questions: threats to leaving NATO, starting trade wars and stop support from Ukraine. — Benkei

Influence isn't free, and NATO and project Ukraine cost resources to maintain; resources the US can no longer spare.

What the "trade war" is about, it is too early to tell. It could be mainly about decoupling US and Chinese markets, to avoid having to take that pain when real conflicts start appearing. It may be about something else, like the US wanting to become less dependent on foreign markets altogether, foreseeing perhaps global turmoil.

There also appears to be an inconsistency where the Blob is about US primacy and yet they are giving it up. — Benkei

The articles are somewhat older, from a time where primacy may still have been considered a feasible outcome. Modern developments have put that illusion to rest. Primacy is still the endgoal, mind you, but the US has lost it and will need to reclaim it.

It's over, therefore burn all your bridges? — Benkei

I don't think the US is definitively burning bridges. Trump said some words - that's it.

But to the extent that they are, they're burning bridges which are no longer useful - cutting off those parts of the US empire that will not be instrumental going into the future.

Threatening to leave NATO certainly will increase EU spending on military equipment. We'll just not be spending it on US material. Starting trade wars immediately affects both economic performance of the US but also its ability to produce military equipment due to its reliance on rare earth metals. Ukraine support is and was a fraction of what the EU provides and they can certainly stop such economic aid altogether but it doesn't make sense to alienate allies while doing so or to stop intelligence sharing. I mean, if the US would just say, we think China is the bigger threat and the EU needs to resolve Ukraine that's a different story than trying to blackmail Ukraine in surrender and giving a way half of the country to Russia and calling it "peace". — Benkei

If the Americans have to give up Europe to get Russia back on their side (something which the Russians were very interested in prior to 2014), they will. They need Russia to counterbalance China.

That is one bridge the Americans may have definitively burned, though. I think that's what recent diplomatic efforts are meant to find out.

Where have you read this and when was it that the US had ties with Russia with the goal to counterbalance China? I'm not familiar with it and nothing turns up searching for it. — Benkei

Yes, what I meant to say was that they used China to counterbalance the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Right now it would be the other way around - using Russia to counterbalance China.

Meanwhile, even if you want to improve ties with Russia, it's not clear why that needs to be at the expensive of NATO or existing alliances. — Benkei

The Europeans are committed to Ukraine, it seems, and have been resisting an ugly peace from being signed in favor of extending the war. So the reason is quite is obvious.

If the Europeans voluntarily start kowtowing before Washington again, then surely there is no reason to cut them off. But if they get uppity...

Apparently you consider certain things self evident but there are different and much smarter ways to go about it then what has happened now, [...] — Benkei

Let's hear it!

How would it work? What is the underlying grand plan that they allow Trump to threaten to leave NATO (alienating allies), start trade wars (alienating allies) and throwing Ukraine under the bus (alienating allies)? At what point is this going to turn in favour of the US primacy doctrine? — Benkei

The days of US primacy are obviously definitively over. The system has become multipolar and the US is having to shift its strategy accordingly.

The US empire is wildly overextended, leaving it no room to divert its resources towards China which is the only peer competitor in the system, and thus the most important.

In other words, the US is already in the process of cutting its losses to create a situation from which it can counteract China sustainably. It is weighing which interests to keep afloat, and which to cut off.

That's why the US is seeking to restore ties with Russia - it was historically used to counterbalance China. That's why the US is taking a more critical stance towards NATO - the Europeans lack the will and capability to engage in a power struggle in the Pacific. That's why Trump is trying to cut a deal with Iran - Israel cannot win a war on its own, and the US is too weak to bail it out. etc.

My main point here being: this easily fits into the changing global security and power structure, and thus there is little indication that 'the Blob' has lost control.

Most of the hysteria focuses around the idea that 'real damage' is being done. That's the image the media likes to project. But in reality markets will recover and Trump's rhetoric means nothing over the long-term, as Trump 1 already showed.

For those who still fail to see what the true face of the United States looks like:




It has nothing to do with Trump.

With or without him, the United States is morally bankrupt, utterly and completely. It doesn't need supposed threats of Trumpian fascism to turn into a mass murder machine. It already is one - has been for decades.

I used the term "deep state" to convey a broad idea, which I had assumed you would get the gist of. It is used colloquially even by academics, though obviously it is not an academic term, which is why I put it in parentheses.

The articles outline my broader view of what comprises 'Washington', and how it functions. (After all, that's what you asked a source for!) E.g., the president's influence is limited, and long-term US foreign policy ('grand strategy') is largely determined by a political elite class that functions along completely different lines than the democratic process.

What Porter and Friedman are describing is more akin to an emerging property of structure, shared ideology and behaviour, then an elite, deep state or cabal, or whatever term you want to give to it. Even if the end result is named the "foreign policy elite", it's incorrect to understand it in other terms than structural. — Benkei

It's you who tries to warp that into talk of cabals, because probably the idea that states function along other lines than the democratic deeply conflicts with your worldview, and the way you cope is by writing me off as a 'conspiracy theorist'.

I've already given you the quotes in which both articles describe in detail what the elite class is comprised of, and it is clearly not strictly structural (though obviously, a considerable part is structural), by virtue of the simple fact that parts of the foreign policy elite have public panel discussions in which they openly discuss their ideas, the well-known power of lobbies, etc. - even single lobbies, for example AIPAC.

While the Blob may constrain the execution of some of Trump's plans, they aren't in control, given the sheer idiocy of policy in the past months. — Benkei

That much remains to be seen.

Only focusing on the short-term makes one miss the bigger picture, and if the various Trump threads attest to anything it's TPF's complete obsession with Trump's daily ramblings, or whatever Trump's political opponents vomit out at the same frequency.

In terms of geopolitics, a few months is insignificant. Even a single presidency is insignificant, as Trump 1 proves; back then people were exhibiting the same mass hysteria and nothing ended up happening.

But that too is clearly at odds with the Blob, since it undermines trust in the US and therefore its economic primacy. — Benkei

The US dumpstered its international credibility under Biden, due to its complicity in the Gaza genocide and its cynical dealings in Ukraine - both accumulations of decades of questionable US involvement. The only part of the world that continues to pretend the US maintains any credibility is the West itself, whose ties to the US are completely different in nature and not based on credibility at all.

As I have suggested before, Trump is being used, inadvertently or no, as a lightning rod to project all of America's problems on. When Trump is gone, "America is saved!" and the deeper causes for America's problems (which undoubtedly involve 'the Blob') will remain unexamined.

Moreover, unpopular but necessary actions, such as throwing Ukraine under the bus and re-establishing normal relations with Russia, can conveniently be blamed on 'madman Trump'.

I'll believe it's all the result of wanton incompetence when the American empire is definitively resting on the garbage heap of history.

My sense is that the West is no longer characterized by liberalism, but rather social constructivism.

Liberalism is a fig leaf used by the elite classes, who see Man as essentially an automaton that can be made to do or believe anything given the right inputs, and it is up to them to structure society in such a way that it produces the "ideal" outcome.

This ideal is communist (authoritarian egalitarian) in nature, which is why liberalism is attacked equally as often. Whenever individuals use their liberty to make decisions that do not correspond with the desired outcome, freedoms must be curtailed, "responsibilities must be taken!", etc.

Egalitarianism is being sold as liberalism - if everybody is equal, everybody is "free".

If you want to poke a hornet's nest in any western academic circle, you need only to criticize communism, and it betrays the elite's true colors.

Social constructivism is the means, communism the endpoint.

To the political elite, communism is seen as an efficient way of exercising total control over a large, ethnically diverse population. (Incidentally, that's why the Soviet Union and China adopted it as an alternative to fascism.) To the controlled masses, communism is a religion that sanctifies weakness and the victim - moral dickwaving (aka "liberal" virtue-signaling) the opium that has mobilized the useful idiots since time immemorial.

My main point is, most problems that people attribute to liberalism stem from a formerly liberal society that is currently being steered by communist ideals.

Who is "Washington"? What evidence do you have for it? — Benkei

In this context, "Washington" is primarily the United States foreign policy establishment aka "the Blob". — Tzeentch

The existence of a political elite that holds a lot of sway behind the curtains isn't really all that controversial among political thinkers, though some ascribe more power to them than others. — Tzeentch

This is what you asked evidence for, and that's what I gave. The sources provide a direct answer to your question, as I have underlined.

It's fine if you disagree, but you can disagree without all the phoney shit where you have to pretend there isn't an academic basis for the ideas I'm proposing, and without strawmans about cabals and what not.

If you're categorically uninterested in my line of thought, why be so disingenuous as to ask for sources, and then proceed to give me this cunty attitude when I go through the effort of finding quotes for you? I even literally asked you whether you were genuinely interested.

Man, didn't know you were such an asshole.

A few posts ago 'the Blob' was a "rabbit hole" that "made your eyes glaze over". Now you seem to agree that its existence is not controversial, but you downplay its importance.

I also never used words like "cabal" or claimed that Trump was being "managed." Those are assertions you made up yourself.

Here are quotes that support my previous assertions (1. continuous hawkish, primacy-based foreign policy, 2. bipartisan support among the elites):

Debate over grand strategy is nearly absent in US politics. Relative military power, over time, generated bipartisan support for primacy, a grand strategy that sees global US military dominance as the basis for US security. The elite consensus in favor of primacy saps political demand for critical analysis of it or consideration of alternative grand strategies. — Friedman & Logan

The democratic explanation for primacy’s dominance also lacks support. According to a 2014 Chicago Council on Global Affairs study, the public is far less enthusiastic about taking an “active” role in global affairs and global leadership than elites.That divide holds across partisan lines. There is a substantial gap between elites identifying as Democrat, Republican, or Independent and the public for each group. Similarly, elites are more supportive of using force to defend allies and long-term US military bases and more likely to agree that those garrisons produce stability.Various studies show that the public is historically less hawkish on issues of war and defense spending than elites. — Friedman & Logan

The Blob emerged from World War II, as the United States’ rising power generated a demand for security expertise. U.S. government officials turned to a group of experts who formed into a cohesive, influential class. Their commitment to primacy became an article of faith. As a grand strategy, primacy warrants scrutiny. It demands significant upfront investments, implicates national security in developments far and wide, and makes the United States prone to the frequent use of force. Yet the Blob’s achievement was to erect primacy as the seemingly natural framework of U.S. diplomacy. — Porter

The foreign policy establishment is not monolithic. Its members dispute issues below the grand strategic level, such as human rights, the extent of multilateral cooperation, democracy promotion, and specific interventions. Until the 1960s, it was mostly a patrician, predominantly white, Protestant class that internalized values nurtured “in prep schools, at college clubs, in the boardrooms of Wall Street, and at dinner parties.” It then incorporated nonwhites, women, first-generation immigrants, Jews, and Roman Catholics, to form a more heterogeneous class of coastal internationalists, oriented around the Ivy League. Still, this cross-section of internationalist elites is united by a consensus. They want the United States to remain engaged in upholding world order. They are primacists. They fear U.S. retreat from overseas responsibilities and warn that abandonment would lead to the return of rival power blocs, economic stagnation, and catastrophe. They have established primacy as the only viable, legitimate grand strategy, and as an ingrained set of ideas, while installing themselves as insiders, positioned to steer the state. — Porter

Both articles discuss also several presidencies, including Trump 1, as a showcase for how the Blob limits the power of US presidents, as I also argued.

It's rather sad you still seem hellbent on invalidating my views when the articles state literally what I've been saying here. That's why I've stopped bothering to share sources - people here aren't able to deal with information that conflicts with their own views and it's just not worth my time and effort.

I had hoped, after all your grandstanding about the quality of discussion and locking of a thread, you might've approach things differently, but alas.

They do. Both articles seek to explain the continuity of a hawkish, primacy-oriented US foreign policy, despite the wishes of US presidents like Trump and Obama, and despite the wishes of the general public.

Both articles point towards a foreign policy elite that spans both sides of the aisle. A 'deep state', if you will. Stephen Walt, Mearsheimer, etc. - they'll all say the same thing.

Who or what exactly comprises this 'deep state' is a more murky topic, but not necessarily all that relevant.

The bottomline is that the manoeuvre room of a US president is limited, and large swings in policy are unlikely to originate from the US president and his administration alone.

It's a bit ironic really that when something happens that you cannot rationally explain, it must be because they are stupid. Does it ever occur that you might be the one who is not seeing the full picture? A bit like how Ukraine did not see the full picture prior to jumping into bed with Uncle Sam.

By calling it a rabbit hole you're basically just betraying your own ignorance. This isn't really controversial, as I said. Have at it:

Why America’s Grand Strategy Has Not Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment (Porter, 2018)

Why Washington Doesn't Debate Grand Strategy (Friedman & Logan, 2016)

You can download the PDF to the full article.

In this context, "Washington" is primarily the United States foreign policy establishment aka "the Blob". If you're genuinely interested I can provide some sources, but considering your tone I doubt that you are.

The existence of a political elite that holds a lot of sway behind the curtains isn't really all that controversial among political thinkers, though some ascribe more power to them than others.

Calling the people at the top dummies is a little naive, in my opinion. It's much more likely that you simply don't understand what's going on, because the political elite have a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed.

You're shifting the frame from economics to political realism, fine. — Benkei

This is the geopolitical power struggle of the modern age. Everything about this is political first, and various other things second, whether we like it or not.

Even enemies trade. — Benkei

Yes, and it shouldn't be controversial to suggest that trading with enemies is potentially dangerous and the calculus becomes more complex than supply and demand.

If you’re serious about "rivalry" as the defining framework, then you need to think in strategic terms, not just emotional ones. — Benkei

I'm not sure what emotional terms I would be talking in. I assume as a bottomline that whatever American politicians say are narratives meant to disguise the actual policy and sell it to the American people. I'm interested in figuring out what the actual policy is, and what it is meant to achieve.

It was part of a strategy to integrate China into the rules-based order, stabilize global supply chains and secure cheap goods and capital inflows that benefited US consumers, corporations and investors. You can call that “feeding the beast” if you like, but it also fueled decades of low inflation and higher real incomes in the US (and the West). — Benkei

Sure, and there was a time that such perspectives made sense. Now times have changed, and it's not like a Machiavellian to get hung up on past friendships.

If you want to unwind that relationship now, fine - but udnerstand the costs. This approach does not just cut off your enemy. It's cutting off your own economy from the financial and logistical circuits it has been built around for decades. Doing that without understanding how capital flows and trade balances interact is not realism. It’s just self-harm with a flag on it.

Strategic rivalry doesn't mean throwing out your central position in the global economy. It means using it intelligently. Right now, China still needs dollar access, still needs external demand and still holds US Treasury debt. That’s leverage. You don't use that leverage by blowing up your own system.

If your argument is that the US needs a more self-reliant economy and less exposure to adversarial regimes, I agree. But dressing up a dumb tariff war as strategic realism just replaces one illusion with another. — Benkei

This isn't so much about what I want, rather it's about how I believe great powers look at global affairs.

I know it's very popular to chalk all of this up to Trump's incompetent machinations, but I don't subscribe to such a view. I don't think he's all that important or powerful. Washington drives this bus - they aren't dummies - and people like Trump are the perfect lightning rod.

What follows in no way, shape or form addresses my comment and just reiterates economic nonsense. Countries with surpluses do not profit relatively more. It's like saying that the seller in a sale, profits more than the buyer. If my posts aren't clear enough for you I'd be happy to give you a reading list to clear up these economic misunderstandings. — Benkei

You're not getting my perspective at all.

They shouldn't be likened to buyers and sellers, but to economic and geopolitical rivals; enemies.

The United States has been facilitating China's export-oriented economy for decades, and China has benefitted greatly. You might call that a 'win-win', whereas a political realist might call that 'feeding the beast'.

It's not an analysis but reflects common intuitions that are wrong. This is a classic case of taking a few surface-level truths and spinning them into a deeply confused and wrong position. — Benkei

No, I think it is quite right. Though, I look at it a bit from a more cynical perspective.

The US has one interest, and one interest only: power. The reason it made the dollar the reserve currency is because of power. The reason it championed an "international rules-based order" is because of power, and so forth.

When it runs a trade deficit, it means other nations - in the case of China, a peer competitor - relatively profit more, turning it into a dynamic that over the long-term cedes power to other countries by virtue of the fact that, even though on paper it is 'mutually beneficial', one side is profiting more than the other. In the Machiavellian terms Washington thinks in, that means losing.

It makes zero sense for the United States to uphold a system that has fed and continues to feed its main geopolitical rival China. The US started this policy way back when China was not seen as a major geopolitical threat. Times have changed.

Moreover, upholding the system is increasingly no longer an option. The United States is sitting on a giant bubble - waiting for the mother of all economic crises to hit - made worse still by the dollar's world reserve currency status being under pressure and probably being history somewhere in the next ten years.

The United States has two options: retreat to its island or go down with the ship.

That's a pretty solid analysis. :up:

Red? No idea how anything I have said can possibly be interpreted as such.

Considering you're coming at me with the standard "Everything's the other guys' fault!" spiel, maybe you should be checking your own lenses?

Do you see a trend there? — tim wood

Primitive tribalism?

Gestapo/KGB tactics on the streets, abuse of law - abuse of everything and everybody - disappearing people, destroying lives, delivering a steady stream of lies and "alternate facts" as justification. — tim wood

How is that in any way different from the way the establishment used to run things? :chin:

Trumpsters and people who voted for Trump are "stupid", yet TPF categorically ignores what gave rise to Trump, and fails to provide a suitable alternative other than a return to the pre-Trump status quo - a status quo that American voters rejected.

Populists are the product of a bankrupt system, which Trump critics are inadvertently defending if they fail to critique that system and don't come up with a better alternative.

This isn't something the Trump administration randomly cooked up on a Wednesday.

These current moves vis-á-vis the global economy are quite fundamental in nature.

The fact that the US is choosing economic pain for greater economic independence and to curb foreign economies implies to me that they are preparing for major conflict.

It is a learning disorder. — javi2541997

In a school system that requires you to sit still for hours on end, I can certainly understand why it would be classified as such.

I doubt highly energetic individuals were problematized in older times, though, for obvious reasons. Isn't it a great quality to have?

The US seems to have its hands full, trying to deal with these 'basket cases'.

It appears to me that the US establishment is seeing the writing on the wall, and is retreating to its island to regroup.

In today's geopolitical circumstance, it simply cannot compete with a united Russia-China-Iran bloc. And while the US would have to spend all its energy counteracting this bloc, other power blocs would start to pop up, creating more unsolvable headaches for the US.

The best thing there would be to do is to fall back on the Monroe-doctrine of US primacy in the western hemisphere - the bedrock of US foreign policy - which the Trump administration is already hinting at wanting to reinforce.

We can of course talk about how crazy all these moves supposedly are, but likely we are not fully aware of the economic realities that led to them - for example, how great the threat of a US default might actually be. For obvious reasons these things cannot always be made public.

In my opinion, everything points to full-blown panic within the US establishment. The jig is up.

I wonder whether ADHD is a disorder at all. Except in perhaps extreme cases, people with ADHD are perfectly functional and healthy in a general sense. It's society that problematizes them, because they don't fit society's straight-jacket. And then kids fall from being problematized into medication (medication for psychological problems I find a very prickly subject, especially for chidlren), and then a kid goes from just being overactive to being 'a patient'.

What if all that energy was put to good use instead?

Is that really so? — ssu

So get your history and historical perspective correct, Tzeentch. — ssu

The United States was instrumental in creating the pretenses necessary for the Khmer Rouge takeover and the genocide that followed. The United States bombed the Cambodian countryside comprehensively in the beginning of the 1970s to disrupt supply routes of the
communist Viet Cong along the Ho Chi Minh trail.

In actuality, the bombings destabilized the relative economic stability of Cambodia and radicalized shell-shocked Cambodian peasants to join the Khmer Rouge to avenge their dead relatives and friends. Not only did the United States inadvertently provoke the Khmer Rouge coming to power, they also shielded Pol Pot and his lieutenants from prosecution during the 1980s, massively contributing to impunity for crimes against the people of Cambodia. According to Ben Kiernan, a leading scholar in the Cambodian genocide, the United States had two main reasons for delaying justice for Cambodia.

The first reason being that, due to the Cold War, the United States provided military and financial support to the Khmer Rouge during the 1980s in order to undermine the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, which demonstrated that they saw Cambodia as a dispensable pawn in a larger ideological struggle between the dominant nations of the day. The United States waited until “1997…to condemn the Khmer Rouge” because then they no longer posed a military threat to the Vietnamese and, therefore, their role to the US was over.6

The second reason that the United States delayed justice in Cambodia was because of their muddy involvement in the genocide. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) was limited to prosecuting Khmer Rouge crimes from 1975-1979 because the United States could have been culpable for their contribution to the genocide with the bombing campaigns and the aid they provided to the Khmer Rouge after the official genocide ended. — Elmhirst, 2023

-

You should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them. — Henry Kissinger

I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” According to Brzezinski, the USA “winked, semi-publicly” at Chinese and Thai aid to the Khmer Rouge. — Zbigniew Brzezinski

-

That Kissinger quote is from 1975, by the way. If you know your dates, you'll know exactly what that means.

What you're inadvertently engaged in is the denial of responsibility for genocide - apparently not something that only Likud-sympathizers are guilty of.

Anything without the Americans seems to be totally meaningless for you. That's your biggest problem. And this is the insane navel-grazing that either some Americans and anti-Americans fall into where they cannot see any other actors than their hated USA. — ssu

I think quite the opposite is the case, actually.

Every time I point out what kind of an awful country the United States is, people look for ways to twist the facts so they don't have to acknowledge its long list of transgressions.

Anything not to have to face the fact that the US can compete with the absolute worst humanity has had to offer.

The US commited genocide in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, in all three cases murdering large percentages of their peasant populations through indiscriminate carpet bombing and chemical warfare - each several orders of magnitude above what Israel is doing is Gaza, I remind you. The total destruction of the Cambodian societal structure was a direct cause for Pol Pot's power grab, which the US then supported in full knowledge of what Pol Pot was about.

The reason you feel the need to shift the topic away from America's role is because you are unable to accept it.

So again, you just have no idea?

You've got the gal to criticize my opinions, and you need citations to know what the fuck even happened?


How convenient that Yale university has a webpage dedicated specifically to sources on this topic...

U.S. Involvement in the Cambodian War and Genocide


Several books by Michael Haas - nominee for a Nobel Peace Prize by the way...

Cambodia, Pol Pot, and the United States: The Faustian Pact

Genocide by Proxy: Cambodian Pawn on a Superpower Chessboard


And of course what was confirmed by WikiLeaks documents...

Wikileaks: US supported Khmer Rouge to weaken Soviet-allied Vietnamese communists


Oh, why not throw in something recent as well while we're at it...

Delayed Justice: How US Actions Paved the Way for the Khmer Rouge and Prevented Justice in Cambodia


Tip of the iceberg.


Ah, I see. So Uncle Sam is just about as bad as Mao. Got it. I sort of agree, actually.

Every nation has got its black pages, but there isn't a single one that seems so eager to repeat them as the United States.

This alone demonstrates your ignorance disqualifies your "opinions" from consideration as anything worthy. — tim wood

Many agree with that view, considering the number murdered at the hands of the Khmer Rouge must be seen against a backdrop of a population of only 7 million people, making it one of the worst genocides in human history.

Of course, being the well-informed and non-ignorant American that you are, I'm sure you already knew that.

But don't let me keep you from your 'worthy' opinions. :vomit:

Ah, I see.

The US is exceptional. So exceptional in fact, that they get to commit a little genocide every now and then. Just a little. Or a lot.

But hey, those are just details. No use in getting hung up on a little genocide.

And what wanton destruction? — tim wood

It's always the Americans that have no clue about what their own country gets up to.

In terms of mass murder, Stalin and Mao each make Hitler look like a small-timer. — tim wood

Pol Pot was possibly even worse, and guess who he was funded by?

And that's just one example.

(And btw, a pet peeve is a small but particularly annoying annoyance.) — tim wood

Thanks for the correction, though.

We’ve been here before. — Punshhh

So have you done any research into that shining US track record since the last time 'we were here'? Pol Pot, East-Timor, Vietnam, endless wars in the Middle-East, etc. and of course Uncle Sam's retarded pet monkey Israel? Do these ring any bells?

Now imagine a world dominated by China and Putin, or more realistically BRICS. You think there will be less genocide? — Punshhh

Probably so. Obviously I don't expect either of them to usher in the new utopia, but continental powers work fundamentally different from peripheral powers like the US.

The US functions on a basis of destroying what it cannot control - it has to, because of its inherently weak position - and evidently that frequently involves laying waste to unruly regions, and their populations if need be, in every far-flung corner of the world.

Continental powers have no such inherent incentives to go scorched earth on their neighborhood.

It really isn't. Neither Russia nor China can hold a candle to the wanton destruction the US has wrought upon the world.

Did you know Uncle Sam seems to have a pet peeve for conducting and supporting genocides?

The above commentary though might be considered a simplistic strawman that no one really submits, but I offer it just to ask the question of why do we think it matters if women fared better in prehistoric times than today? — Hanover

Catharsis for people who have a chip on their shoulder, probably.

Trump's election is like national catharsis for Americans. (And some confused Transatlanticists)

For a few years they pretend all of America's trouble stem from Trump, so that when he's gone they can pretend America has been cleansed of evil, ready to once again take the moral high ground in the name of freedom and democracy!

The blinders go back on, and America can go back to its rapacious ways with full consent of its people. The powers that be creep back into the shadows, and the people go back to sleep.

Of all things to come out of Trump's presidency, this will be the worst.