US Foreign Policy

Discussion of current events
User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:46 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:51 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
The only reason why there aren't yet common European armed forces is that France and the UK still think that they need their own armed forces to back their foreign policies.
Well, have not this proven to be true in practice? :)
No. The Malvinas incident and playing second fiddle to the US can hardly be seen as "policies" at all. The UK still dreams of an empire long gone, with the military tasks such empire imposed on them.
It's a bit odd that you'd select an example of the UK successfully repelling an invasion of its territory as a reason that they don't need armed forces.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Milo » Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:50 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:46 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:51 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
The only reason why there aren't yet common European armed forces is that France and the UK still think that they need their own armed forces to back their foreign policies.
Well, have not this proven to be true in practice? :)
No. The Malvinas incident and playing second fiddle to the US can hardly be seen as "policies" at all. The UK still dreams of an empire long gone, with the military tasks such empire imposed on them.
It's a bit odd that you'd select an example of the UK successfully repelling an invasion of its territory as a reason that they don't need armed forces.
And what does the 'Crimea incident' prove about Russia?

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:19 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:46 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:51 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:05 am
The only reason why there aren't yet common European armed forces is that France and the UK still think that they need their own armed forces to back their foreign policies.
Well, have not this proven to be true in practice? :)
No. The Malvinas incident and playing second fiddle to the US can hardly be seen as "policies" at all. The UK still dreams of an empire long gone, with the military tasks such empire imposed on them.
It's a bit odd that you'd select an example of the UK successfully repelling an invasion of its territory as a reason that they don't need armed forces.
They do. On an pan-European context. But rescuing the Malvinas would hardly justify having large armed forces. Of course, if you happen to have a large force in order to protect the global European interests, you might as well use it in a situation like the Malvinas. My criticism of British military policies has to do with the fact that the British military is being used in places like the ME - in support of American, not British, interests - and in quasi-colonial adventures like the Malvinas and Northern Ireland. Which prevents the UK joining European armed forces dedicated to defending European (and thus British) interests.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:39 am

The Good News About the Trump Presidency: Stupid Can be Good!

by The Saker

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-good-news ... n-be-good/

(...)

Just as we can sincerely thank President Obama for pushing Russia and China into each other’s arms, we can now all thank Nikki Haley and Trump for uniting the resistance to the state of Israel and the entire AngloZionist Empire. I can just about imagine the jubilation in Tehran when the Iranians heard the good news!

But the good stupid does not stop there. The fact that the US elites are all involved in a giant shootout against each other by means of investigations, scandals, accusations, talk of impeachment, etc. is also a blessing because while they are busy fighting each other they are much less capable of focusing on their real opponents and enemies. For months now President Trump has mostly ruled the US by means of “tweets” which, of course, and by definition, amount to exactly nothing and there is nothing which could be seriously called a “US foreign policy” (with the exception of the never-ending stream of accusations, threats and grandstanding, which don’t qualify). There are real risks and opportunities resulting from this situation

Risks: when nobody is really in charge, each agency does pretty much what it wants. We saw that during the 2nd half of the Obama Presidency when State did one thing, the Pentagon another, and the CIA yet another. This resulted in outright goofy situation with US allies attacking each other in Syria and Iraq because they all reported to different agencies. The risk here is obvious: for example, when US diplomats made an agreement with Russia in Syria, the Pentagon torpedoed it the very next day by attacking Syrian forces. The recent attacks on the Russian Aerospace Forces base in Khmeimim (and the latest drone attack on that same base) would exactly fit that pattern. The Russians have been complaining for months now that the US are “non-agreement capable” and this can clearly be a problem and a risk.

Opportunities: when nobody is in charge then the AngloZionist Empire cannot really bring its full force against one specific target. Think of a car or bus in which all the passengers are fighting each other for the control of the steering wheel. This is bad for them, but good for everybody else as the only place this car or bus is headed for is the ditch. Furthermore, since currently the US is, at various degrees, threatening no less than 9 countries (Afghanistan, Syria, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Turkey, Pakistan, China) these threats sound rather hollow. Not only that, but should the US get seriously involved in any type of conflict with any one of these countries, this would open great opportunities for the others to take action. Considering how the US elites are busy fighting each other there and threatening everybody else there is very little change that the US could focus enough to seriously threaten any of its opponents. But this goes much further than the countries I mentioned here. There is a French expression which goes “when the cat’s away, the mice will play” and this is what we might see next: more countries following the example of the Philippines, which used to be a subservient US colony and which now is ruled by a man who has no problems publicly insulting the US President, at least when Obama was President (Duterte seems to like Trump more than Obama). There have already been signs that the South Koreans are taking their first timid steps towards telling “no” to Uncle Sam.

I am not trying to paint a rosy picture of the situation, which is bad, no doubt about that. Having ignorant fools in charge of nuclear weapons is not good, by definition. But I do want to suggest two things: first, that no matter stupid Trump is, Hillary would have been infinitely worse and, second, that there are also some good aspects to the current vacuum of power in Washington, DC.

If we can agree that anything that weakens the AngloZionist Empire is a good thing (including for the American people!), as is anything which brings its eventual demise closer, then there is a lot to be grateful for the past year. The Empire really began to crumble under George W. Bush (thanks Neocons!), and that process most definitely continued under Obama. However, Donald Trump is the one who truly given this process a tremendous acceleration which has, I think, brought it to a qualitatively new level. The risks ahead are still tremendous, but so far the Empire is losing and the Resistance to it is still winning. And that is a very good thing.
Most of you will disagree with this analysis, but I find it quite interesting, from a Russia's point of view.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1559
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Doc » Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:39 am

Breaking: Kim Jong Un has less than four months to live

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... ile-launch

Japan issues false alarm over missile launch, days after Hawaii alert gaffe
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:00 pm

The Opinion of a Former British Diplomat

Sputnik spoke to former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, to ask whether any further US involvement in the Syrian conflict is only likely to exacerbate division in the country, thus perpetuating the war.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested on Wednesday that the Trump administration would be taking on an open-ended military commitment to Syria as part of a stated strategy to prevent the regrowth of Daesh and to forge a new 'solution' that hopes to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad removed from power.

Sputnik: The US — under both the Obama and Trump administrations — has long framed its objective in Syria rather narrowly to the defeat of Daesh. Now that the terrorist group's so-called caliphate is effectively gone, and there are forces in the country — such as the Syrian Arab Army — capable of destroying any possible Daesh resurgence, why does the US need to remain?

Peter Ford: Well it doesn't is the simple and obvious truth. In its own eyes, it needs to remain because Trump is being accused of having lost Syria to the Russians. This is, quite simply, now a power play by the US to show that it still has influence in Syria and the wider Middle East, and it's part of the US power game against Iran. It has nothing to do with removing terrorism from Syria, nothing to do with humanitarian issues, nothing to do with democracy in Syria. It's quite simply arm wrestling that the United States wishes to engage in with Russia or any other power that dares to question, in the slightest way, American pre-eminence in the world.

Sputnik: How do you see the potential long-term presence of US forces in the country hindering any effort to reunify Syria in the future?

Peter Ford: This appears to be part of the US plan: precisely to prevent Syria being stabilized as a unitary sovereign state. It has been a long-term goal of the United States going back at least forty years, and now they see a way of partially implementing it: encouraging the formation of a Kurdish statelet in the north and northeast. There is no way that this can help to stabilize Syria. In fact, I would characterize the US policy — now openly more or less avowed by Tillerson — as the continuing destabilization of Syria. Given that America cannot impose its will in terms of regime change, it's settling for what it sees as the next best thing, which is to keep Syria constantly destabilized.

Sputnik: And finally, what does international law have to say about the US first of all even being in Syria, and secondly maintaining a presence there, uninvited by Damascus?

Peter Ford: What the Americans are doing is completely flouting international law. It is a gross breach of international law to maintain a presence on the territory of a member state of the United Nations, which has a seat in New York, which is recognized by most countries around the world. It is totally illegal to maintain a military presence without the express permission of the host government. But America plays by different rules. In the American playbook might is right for America. America is a scofflaw, an international scofflaw and has been in many instances, not only Syria.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/2018 ... ign-state/
Although this is an interview conducted by Sputnik, the person interviewed is a former UK ambassador to Syria, which means he knows what he is talking about. But some people prefer to think that the US is only trying to establish a "democratic" regime in Syria...

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:28 am

US SANCTIONS, BAFFLED RUSSIANS, HOT AIR AND HISTORY
by The Saker

(...)

The paradox: US sanctions – a blessing in disguise?

Let’s think about what the USA has been doing over the past couple of years. Officially, the USA has been trying to “isolate” Russia. But isolate from exactly what? From Peru? Or maybe from cultural exchanges with Morocco? Hardly. When the USA says that it wants to isolate Russia it means cut Russia off the western markets (trade), the western financial system (credit) and the western political elites (fora). These sanctions were supposed to hurt Russia precisely because Russia was, at least in part, dependent on trade with the EU, credits from western financial institution and her participation in G8 (now G7) type of events. Putin predicted that it would take 2 years for Russia to recover from these sanctions (and the concomitant drop in energy prices) and he was right: Russia not only created new trade ties, but also finally began investing in her internal market, she found credits elsewhere (China) and in terms of fora, it really turned out that the G7 without Russia was more or less like the Council of Europe or, for that matter, the UN Security Council: useless. Instead, world leaders began booking flight and visiting Moscow. Now the latest US sanctions are putting an immense amount of pressure on Russian oligarchs to bring their money back home. It sure looks to me that US sanctions made it possible for Putin to do something he might never have been able to do without them: to seriously begin reforming Russia (which badly needed such reforms). Remember, Eurasian Sovereignists are just that – sovereignists; whereas Atlantic Integrationists are just that – integrationists. By “cutting off Russia from the West” – whose agenda did the USA really hurt, the integrationists or the sovereignists? Could it be that Putin owes his immense popularity, and Russia her success, at least in part to US sanctions?

The fundamental theory of deterrence hold that “deterrence is in the eye of the beholder”. In other words, I cannot assume that what would deter me would also deter you. In order to deter you I need to understand what your goals and values are. I submit that when the US elites decided to sanction Russia (putatively to deter her from further resisting the Empire) they made a fundamentally wrong assumption: that Russia was ruled by Atlantic Integrationist types who would be horrified and deterred. Instead, these sanctions ended being a blessing for the Eurasian Sovereignists who used these sanctions to paralyze the Atlantic Sovereignists, to push through much needed reforms and basically eliminate the pro-Western opposition. In so many ways Russia is still a mess and a struggling country, but thanks to US sanctions none of that will have any impact at all on the next Presidential elections in Russia and the Eurasian Sovereignists are more powerful than ever before. Thank you, Uncle Shmuel!

Possible Russian reactions:

Whatever the reasons for all this nonsense, this does beg some kind of reaction from Russia and I think that judging by all the similar situation in the recent past, the Russian reaction is fairly easy to predict.

First, there will be no grandiose gesture or loud hyperbolic statements out of the Kremlin. Putin jokingly deplored that his own name was no on the list, Peskov said that this was a hostile act, a few Russian Duma members canceled planned trip to the USA and Russian commentators expressed various degrees of dismay and disgust. But, all in all, this is very, very little. As usual, this will be completely misunderstood in the West where the culture is roughly “if your enemy slaps you in your face, you have to immediately slap him back lest you look weak“. In most of Asia (and the Middle-East, by the way), the norm is totally different: “if your enemy slaps you in the face you step back and plan how to bring him down in the long run because what matters is not the short-lived posturing, which can be even dangerous and counter-productive, but playing the long run and winning“. You could say that in the West the attention span and long-term planning is counted in days or weeks, while in Asia and the Middle-East it is counted in years and decades. So while there might not be anything particularly photogenic or quote-worthy coming out of the Kremlin, a few Russians did drop hints of what the Russian policy will be: “good luck to the Americans trying get anything major done on the planet without our support“. And just to make that point clear to those who can connect the dots, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, speaking on the Russian TV channel Rossiya One, declared that the Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergei Naryshkin, recently traveled to the USA and met with some high level US personalities (including, according to US sources, CIA Director Mike Pompeo). As Newsweek wrote, Naryshkin would be “the Russian spy chief behind 2016 election hacking campaign” which various nutcases even called an act of war. He is on the very top of all these sanctions list, but there he is, traveling inside the USA and meeting with top US officials. Why did Antonov leak this? Simply to show that for all the huffing and puffing and hyperbolic grandstanding from the USA, the reality is that the USA and Russia are still very much working together because they really cannot afford not doing so (as I write these words I got a link to a WaPo article now saying that Alexander Bortnikov, the head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and even Colonel-General Korobov, the head of the Main Directorate of the General Stuff (GU GSh), the military intelligence service (ex-GRU) also took part in this trip to the USA.)

So that is the real Russian message to the USA: you need us a heck of a lot more than we need you because you need to work with us or else you won’t get anything done, we are still willing to work with you, but if you go crazy then your global interests will suffer much more than our ours; for all your hot air, you have been working with us all along and if you go overboard with the nonsense we will first reveal the extend of our collaboration and, if that is not enough to cool you down, we will terminate it.

There is no doubt in my mind that for most inhabitants of the AngloZionist Empire the notion of the almighty USA needing the struggling (and economically comparatively small) Russia more than Russia needs the USA is laughable. These folks would say something like that: “what is the Russian share of the gross world product, how many aircraft carriers does Russia have and what is the Russian weight in international financial institutions? And how is your vodka-soaked Ruble doing anyway, buddy?!” The Russians wouldn’t reply much of anything, most would just smile in contempt and think something along the lines of “when is the last time you got anything successfully done, you dumb pompous ass“. That’s fundamentally fine since this message is really not destined to ideological drones but to those in power in the USA who are aware of the real scorecard of Uncle Sam and who realize that right now it is the Empire, not Russia, which is almost completely paralyzed, and isolated (oh irony!) on all levels.

(...)

https://southfront.org/saker-us-sanctio ... r-history/
A lot more worth reading in the original linked article.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:48 am

Sputnik... SouthFront... and the endless parade of "non-ideological academic" Russian propaganda continues....
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1156
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by Sertorio » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:02 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:48 am
Sputnik... SouthFront... and the endless parade of "non-ideological academic" Russian propaganda continues....
Anything says that Sputnik or SouthFront cannot be factual, or true, or publish articles worth reading?... Do you have any evidence to the contrary?...

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: US Foreign Policy

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:09 pm

Honestly? When they talk about Russia, it's total rubbish. But when they stick to talking specifically about Western hypocrisy, I'm more inclined to believe them, because it's not like Western policymakers don't give them enough ammunition on a regular basis.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Post Reply