Is Russia about to invade Ukraine? (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Russia continues to mass assets within range of Ukraine - though the official explanations are that they are for various exercises. United States intelligence has noted that Russian operatives in Ukraine could launch 'false flag' operations as a predicate to invasion. The West has pressed for negotiations and on Friday in Geneva, the US Sec. State Blinken will meet with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Certainly the Russian movements evidence some plan - but what is it? Some analysts believe that Putin's grand scheme involves securing Western commitments that NATO would never expand beyond its current composition. Whether that means action in Ukraine or merely the movement of pieces on the chess board remains to be seen.

VIENNA — No one expected much progress from this past week’s diplomatic marathon to defuse the security crisis Russia has ignited in Eastern Europe by surrounding Ukraine on three sides with 100,000 troops and then, by the White House’s accounting, sending in saboteurs to create a pretext for invasion.

But as the Biden administration and NATO conduct tabletop simulations about how the next few months could unfold, they are increasingly wary of another set of options for President Vladimir V. Putin, steps that are more far-reaching than simply rolling his troops and armor over Ukraine’s border.

Mr. Putin wants to extend Russia’s sphere of influence to Eastern Europe and secure written commitments that NATO will never again enlarge. If he is frustrated in reaching that goal, some of his aides suggested on the sidelines of the negotiations last week, then he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt acutely in Europe and the United States.

There were hints, never quite spelled out, that nuclear weapons could be shifted to places — perhaps not far from the United States coastline — that would reduce warning times after a launch to as little as five minutes, potentially igniting a confrontation with echoes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Russia Issues Subtle Threats More Far-Reaching Than a Ukraine Invasion

If the West fails to meet its security demands, Moscow could take measures like placing nuclear missiles close to the U.S. coastline, Russian officials have hinted.

www.nytimes.com

Blinken Will Meet With Russia as U.S. Pushes for More Diplomacy

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken will meet with Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia in Geneva on Friday as the United States warns that Russia could soon attack Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com

How to think about war in Ukraine

Start with the Ukrainians

snyder.substack.com

 

[DaveXA]

According to one study, the U.S. performed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000.[6] Another study found that the U.S. engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War.[1]

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States has led or supported wars to determine the governance of a number of countries. Stated U.S. aims in these conflicts have included fighting the War on Terror, as in the Afghan War, or removing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), as in the Iraq War.

Just from the 1990's and beyond where the US was involved in regime change:

1991 Iraq
1991 Haiti
1992 Iraq
1994 Haiti
1996 Zaire
2000 FR Yugoslavia
2001 Afghanistan
2003 Iraq
2005 Kyrgyzstan
2005 Syria
2011 Libya
2012 Syria

United States involvement in regime change - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Foreign electoral intervention

Theoretical and empirical research on the effect of foreign electoral intervention had been characterized as weak overall as late as 2011; however, since then a number of such studies have been conducted.[1] One study indicated that the country intervening in most foreign elections is the United States with 81 interventions, followed by Russia (including the former Soviet Union) with 36 interventions from 1946 to 2000—an average of once in every nine competitive elections.[2][3][4]

Foreign electoral intervention - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America:

Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Guatemala
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay

CIA:

Enduring Cold War Imperialism: On Vincent Bevins’s “The Jakarta Method” | Los Angeles Review of Books

A review of Vincent Bevins’s reflections on America’s efforts to maintain power during the Cold War....

lareviewofbooks.org

The Jakarta Method - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I posted this before in this thread, but it was ignored:

It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war | Seumas Milne

Seumas Milne: The attempt to lever Kiev into the western camp by ousting an elected leader made conflict certain. It could be a threat to us all

www.theguardian.com

Ian Traynor: US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev

Analysis: Ukraine, traditionally passive in its politics, has been mobilised by young democracy activists and will never be the same again.

www.theguardian.com

The British-American coup that ended Australian independence | John Pilger

John Pilger: In 1975 prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died this week, dared to try to assert his country’s autonomy. The CIA and MI6 made sure he paid the price

www.theguardian.com

Coup in Kiev - Antiwar.com

Ukraine is exploding, and the force of the eruption may plunge not only the country but also Europe and the US into an abyss out of which there is no easy - Justin Raimondo for Antiwar.com

original.antiwar.com

What You Should Really Know About Ukraine - FAIR

Media echoed the view that the US should have an active role in Ukrainian politics and enforce its perspective through military threats.

fair.org

Those aren't Russian sources as someone claimed earlier. Can anyone point out what's not true in those articles especially the FAIR article? Something short is fine.

Once again, pointing out the US's hand in Ukraine or other countries doesn't excuse Russia for their invasion or mean that I think the US caused Russia to invade Ukraine. Putin is a bad guy and I don't support him at all. I know it's easy to accuse anyone of supporting Russia who brings up the US's role of using Ukraine in a proxy war against Russia.

What the hell is your point? We already know all of that. Not one person here is denying that the US is complicit in engaging in shadow diplomacy, coups or proxy wars, often with disastrous consequences.

Again, keep your eye on the ball. The thread topic is the Russia Ukraine conflict. Ukraine is a sovereign country and Russia is responsible for attacking Ukraine...without provocation. The US along with a unified NATO is helping Ukraine defend themselves. Ukraine has asked the world to support them and many are stepping up to the plate. What Russia is doing is indefensible. Let's just start with that and we can address our shortcomings in another thread.

 

[SystemShock]

Agree. The cold war lead to many partnership contrary to America s idealistic foreign policy. Iran pre revolution and even today Saudi Arabia's Alliance of convenience comes to mind. However the belief of those in the foreign services will be undoubtedly that liberal democracies would lead to more peace and stability. and it is to that end that they would tend to focus.

I don't know what to tell you about this idealistic foreign policy, but I will tell you that the cold war wasn't the only motivation, and that liberal democracies weren't the only goal. Again, it is a mixed bag.

I'll add, supporting someone is not the same as installing someone (even though it may feel that way in some cases), and that the interests of the U.S. have not always aligned with the interests of the people living in a country in which the U.S. aided someone or some party achieve control. Again, mixed bag.

As for Ukraine, I don't see it even as part of the bag.

 

[J-DONK]

I never claimed Russia wasn't busy doing bad things in Ukraine. Why is it okay for the US to support or install friendly puppets throughout the world, but not okay if Russia does it? For the record I don't think any country especially the US and Russia should be meddling in other countries and installing leaders who will do what they want.

The constant calls of someone being a Russian supporter or a troll for pointing out what the US does and their hypocrisy is tiring and idiotic.

This is more of a general question and not necessarily aimed at you; is there anyone here who thinks the US didn't push and support coups in Ukraine not once, but twice?

Is there anyone claiming that the US isn't the world leader in destabilizing countries that don't do what we want through covert or overt operations?

Ian Traynor: US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev

Analysis: Ukraine, traditionally passive in its politics, has been mobilised by young democracy activists and will never be the same again.

www.theguardian.com

It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war | Seumas Milne

Seumas Milne: The attempt to lever Kiev into the western camp by ousting an elected leader made conflict certain. It could be a threat to us all

www.theguardian.com

Here's Victoria Nuland discussing who should be the next leader of Ukraine

Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call

A transcript of the alleged conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the crisis in Ukraine.

www.bbc.com

Also:

The British-American coup that ended Australian independence | John Pilger

John Pilger: In 1975 prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died this week, dared to try to assert his country’s autonomy. The CIA and MI6 made sure he paid the price

www.theguardian.com

You have no argument if you think Russia influencing Ukraine for decades was fine. Also, it appears that overt actions like Presidential assassination attempts did more to turn the populous against Russia then any influence from America. How many times has America successfully caused a coup via soft power? Again, if America was so good at this, Cuba, and Venezuela would be capitalist countries.

You make this huge logical error that American influence is bad, and destabilizing in Ukraine. If Russia never touched that country. Right now, Ukraine would be whole, and their GDP would be higher via producing GAS exports in the Black Sea. That is NOT DESTABLIZATION. American influence would have helped Ukraine, and hurt Russia via less reliance on their oil/gas exports.

Are you willfully missing this basic point? I feel like everyone else in this thread understands that.

 

[UriUT]

I don't know what to tell you about this idealistic foreign policy, but I will tell you that the cold war wasn't the only motivation, and that liberal democracies weren't the only goal. Again, it is a mixed bag.

I'll add, supporting someone is not the same as installing someone (even though it may feel that way in some cases), and that the interests of the U.S. have not always aligned with the interests of the people living in a country in which the U.S. aided someone or some party achieve control. Again, mixed bag.

As for Ukraine, I don't see it even as part of the bag.

I agree with you. As I've said, there are times that the US veered away from it's idealism. Reagan may have said the US is that city on a hill, yet he supported dictators. What I'm saying is that at the core is that US diplomacy truly believes that liberal democracy leads to peaceful coexistence. How much they adhere to it as you've said is a mixed bag or maybe even referred to be hypocritical. If we're not cynical about it, the neocons fall into this category with the 2nd Iraq invasion.

 

[UriUT]

The Orange Revolution and the Maidan Parliament

In this speech, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Green Miller provides a first-hand account of the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine. Amb. Miller was an election observer for all three rounds of Ukraine's presidential election, including the December 26 election ordered by Ukraine's...

www.wilsoncenter.org

Here is a credible account of the Orange Revolution. Yes, very grassroots.

At the same time, the grassroots organizations so necessary for democratic political action were beginning to coalesce, building in part on the youth groups from earlier national movements like Rukh and the environmental organizations arising out of the Chernobyl catastrophe. For over ten years, observer groups for elections were trained, helped in part by OSCE, NDI, IRI, and other U.S. and European NGOs. These observer groups, largely made up of students and young people, became a formidable element in the demand for free, fair, transparent, and honest elections. CVU, for example, turned out 10,000 observers, while over 7,000 international observers joined the ranks of those who watched the votes being cast at the polls to assure their legitimacy. The fight for free, honest elections already evident in the 1998 presidential elections and the 2002 parliamentary elections helped to create, particularly among the youth, a new popular movement of growing strength at the grassroots level. One good example evident in the over 1,000 tents camped on the Kreshchatyk next to the Maidan was Pora (Pora means, "it's time").

The miracle of the Orange Revolution is how the parliament of the Maidan came together so suddenly, so coherently, and so effectively. Most importantly, as the Orange Revolution coalesced and became an evolving organism that grew in size and complexity day by day--a growth that I witnessed from its beginning-- and as that crowd of ten thousand or so outraged and angry voters realized they had been cheated by massive fraud, manipulation, and government malfeasance, protest was quickly transformed into a legitimate national expression of popular will. I was fortunate to have rented an apartment just a few footsteps from the Maidan—on Sofieska, the street that descends steeply to the Maidan from St. Sophia Cathedral, the birthplace of Kyivan Rus. Because the Maidan was so close, I was able to witness and participate in the proceedings on the Maidan at all times of day and night. For over three weeks, the tens of thousands who were first on the Maidan were joined by additional tens of thousands who streamed into the center of Kyiv.

The role of outside forces had a significant impact but overall these were far less important than that played by Ukrainian actors. Putin's interference had a negative effect. Russian pressure served to stiffen Ukrainian resolve and resistance, while the mediation efforts of Kwasnewski, Solana, and others blunted efforts to take forceful police and military measures to maintain control on the part of the Yanukovich forces. Over 7,000 foreign observers monitored the elections along with over 10,000 domestic observers. The cumulative effect of these foreign and domestic observers and of the foreign mediators was a third round election that was relatively free, fair, and transparent. All these measures helped stage the outcome, but the great victory was the result, principally, of the will of the majority of the Ukrainian people who knew they had to fight for their constitutional rights by protest and direct action if they were to elect the man they believed best reflected their view of what a decent, honest leader should be—a man like Viktor Yushchenko.

 

[SystemShock]

I agree with you. As I've said, there are times that the US veered away from it's idealism. Reagan may have said the US is that city on a hill, yet he supported dictators. What I'm saying is that at the core is that US diplomacy truly believes that liberal democracy leads to peaceful coexistence. How much they adhere to it as you've said is a mixed bag or maybe even referred to be hypocritical. If we're not cynical about it, the neocons fall into this category with the 2nd Iraq invasion.

You keep mentioning this liberal democracy... the U.S. has always been a republic... I guess that makes the U.S. good dealers: they don't get high on their own product. And U.S. diplomacy doesn't like it when liberal democracy elects far-leftists to power.

But it's not all bad... Japan and Germany are great success stories; it wasn't out of the goodness of our hearts, but they turned out great.

And, sometimes you have to give a little credit to the people in other countries; it's not all U.S. influence... after all, the U.S. didn't invent democracy.

 

[UriUT]

You keep mentioning this liberal democracy... the U.S. has always been a republic... I guess that makes the U.S. good dealers: they don't get high on their own product. And U.S. diplomacy doesn't like it when liberal democracy elects far-leftists to power.

But it's not all bad... Japan and Germany are great success stories; it wasn't out of the goodness of our hearts, but they turned out great.

And, sometimes you have to give a little credit to the people in other countries; it's not all U.S. influence... after all, the U.S. didn't invent democracy.

I don't think we're on the same page. When I speak of the Wilsonian foreign policy I'm speaking of the school of thought that the world order should spread democracy, protect human rights, self determination, and rules based order...via the UN as an example. It has dominated US policy at least since wwii.

Here is an article with snippets that may better explain what I mean.

The End of the Wilsonian Era

Why liberal internationalism failed.

www.foreignaffairs.com

But American foreign policy is always a coalition affair. As I wrote in my book Special Providence, Wilsonians are one of four schools that have contended to shape American foreign policy since the eighteenth century. Hamiltonians want to organize American foreign policy around a powerful national government closely linked to the worlds of finance and international trade. Wilsonians want to build a world order based on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Jacksonian populists are suspicious of big business and of Wilsonian crusades but want a strong military and populist economic programs. Jeffersonians want to limit American commitments and engagement overseas. (A fifth school, of which Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, was a leading proponent, defined the U.S. national interest around the preservation of slavery.) Hamiltonians and Wilsonians largely dominated American foreign-policy making after the Cold War

And up until recently, yes, the US primacy dictates the world policy not within the Soviet hegemony. One can even argue that the EU have adopted it as it's fundamental in its core beliefs. And apropos, since you've brought the idea that other countries should be credited. That's one of the primary critique towards the Wilsonian order. And I agree with it. Afghanistan and Iraq clearly demonstrated that spreading democracy doesn't guarantee stable liberal societies. Whereas I view Ukraine in a different lens. They seem to have developed liberal ideas at the grassroot level and it sprung upwards.

https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko

This guy is a war reporter and he expresses liberal ideas (absolute freedom of speech). It seems ubiquitous in their society or at the very least a good portion of their society strives towards it.

 

[UriUT]

So in the past few days there were two very suspicious murder-suicide within the Russian oligarchs (the oligarch killed his family and committed suicide). One in Spain and one in Russia. Well supposedly this this Gazprom manager fled to Ukraine and is now fighting against Russia. And he is suggesting that the murder-suicides were actually murders. Very crazy if it's true.

 

[J-DONK]

I don't think we're on the same page. When I speak of the Wilsonian foreign policy I'm speaking of the school of thought that the world order should spread democracy, protect human rights, self determination, and rules based order...via the UN as an example. It has dominated US policy at least since wwii.

Here is an article with snippets that may better explain what I mean.

The End of the Wilsonian Era

Why liberal internationalism failed.

www.foreignaffairs.com

And up until recently, yes, the US primacy dictates the world policy not within the Soviet hegemony. One can even argue that the EU have adopted it as it's fundamental in its core beliefs. And apropos, since you've brought the idea that other countries should be credited. That's one of the primary critique towards the Wilsonian order. And I agree with it. Afghanistan and Iraq clearly demonstrated that spreading democracy doesn't guarantee stable liberal societies. Whereas I view Ukraine in a different lens. They seem to have developed liberal ideas at the grassroot level and it sprung upwards.

https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko

This guy is a war reporter and he expresses liberal ideas (absolute freedom of speech). It seems ubiquitous in their society or at the very least a good portion of their society strives towards it.

Do people really believe America has promoted democracy in the world? I don't know what you would call my world view, but I got a good chuckle at this. America is aiding Ukraine because doing so weakens Russia. Liberal ideals probably "sprung up" in Ukraine because the EU is next door. Also, America has disposed of so many democracies that were not friendly. You could probably make a list of 20-30 lawfully elected governments that we disposed of, and installed dictators. Off the top of my head: Iran, Korea, and half of LATAM all had dictators installed by America.

I find almost all of America's decisions make sense through the lens of containing perceived threats, and ensuring global trade. It has nothing to do with democracy, or liberal ideals.

Also as far as global trade, one of the bigger things that probably didn't even get posted here was this:

BlackRock's Larry Fink, who oversees $10 trillion, says Russia-Ukraine war is ending globalization

Larry Fink, CEO and chairman of the world's biggest asset manager, BlackRock, said Russia's invasion of Ukraine has ended globalization.

www.cnbc.com

 

[brandon]

America is aiding Ukraine because doing so weakens Russia.

America is aiding Ukraine because we are ideologically aligned and Russia invaded them without cause, and because Ukraine is one country short of being on the NATO border, and because Russia has done this before, multiple times, and appeasement as a strategy has historically not gone well.

 

[J-DONK]

America is aiding Ukraine because we are ideologically aligned and Russia invaded them without cause, and because Ukraine is one country short of being on the NATO border, and because Russia has done this before, multiple times, and appeasement as a strategy has historically not gone well.

You don't have to take my word for it. This is our stated goal.

Austin’s assertion that US wants to ‘weaken’ Russia underlines Biden strategy shift | CNN Politics

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has transformed into a grinding war of attrition with no meaningful peace deal in sight, the US and its allies have begun to convey a new, longer-term goal for the war: to defeat Russia so decisively on the battlefield that it will be deterred from launching such...

www.cnn.com

That message was delivered most clearly on Monday, when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told reporters after a trip to Ukraine’s capital city of Kyiv that “we want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

 

[SystemShock]

I don't think we're on the same page. When I speak of the Wilsonian foreign policy I'm speaking of the school of thought that the world order should spread democracy, protect human rights, self determination, and rules based order...via the UN as an example. It has dominated US policy at least since wwii.

Here is an article with snippets that may better explain what I mean.

The End of the Wilsonian Era

Why liberal internationalism failed.

www.foreignaffairs.com

And up until recently, yes, the US primacy dictates the world policy not within the Soviet hegemony. One can even argue that the EU have adopted it as it's fundamental in its core beliefs. And apropos, since you've brought the idea that other countries should be credited. That's one of the primary critique towards the Wilsonian order. And I agree with it. Afghanistan and Iraq clearly demonstrated that spreading democracy doesn't guarantee stable liberal societies. Whereas I view Ukraine in a different lens. They seem to have developed liberal ideas at the grassroot level and it sprung upwards.

https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko

This guy is a war reporter and he expresses liberal ideas (absolute freedom of speech). It seems ubiquitous in their society or at the very least a good portion of their society strives towards it.

We are not on the same page because you are talking philosophy and I am talking practice.

The UN is a paper tiger.
You call Iraq and Afghanistan "spreading democracy", when they were occupations.
The spread of democracy, protection of human rights, self determination, and rules based order only work when interests align. Once this democracy elects a far leftist who doesn't want to do business with the U.S., then there are issues.

And to be clear, I am not demonizing the U.S. as an evil empire. I don't blame the U.S. for looking after themselves: business is business, and overall, democratic models that combine capitalism with social programs have proven to be better for nations and human rights in the long run. But at the same, we can't make the U.S. some white knight and a paragon of democracy, human rights, and the order of law, especially after the last decade or two, or three, or four....

Aiding Ukraine, sure, it is the right thing to do, but the U.S. is aiding Ukraine not only out of the goodness of our hearts and for the Ukrainian people... the U.S. is aiding Ukraine because Putin is a threat to U.S. political and economic interests, and that's ok.

 

[UriUT]

We are not on the same page because you are talking philosophy and I am talking practice.

The UN is a paper tiger.
You call Iraq and Afghanistan "spreading democracy", when they were occupations.
The spread of democracy, protection of human rights, self determination, and rules based order only work when interests align. Once this democracy elects a far leftist who doesn't want to do business with the U.S., then there are issues.

And to be clear, I am not demonizing the U.S. as an evil empire. I don't blame the U.S. for looking after themselves: business is business, and overall, democratic models that combine capitalism with social programs have proven to be better for nations and human rights in the long run. But at the same, we can't make the U.S. some white knight and a paragon of democracy, human rights, and the order of law, especially after the last decade or two, or three, or four....

Aiding Ukraine, sure, it is the right thing to do, but the U.S. is aiding Ukraine not only out of the goodness of our hearts and for the Ukrainian people... the U.S. is aiding Ukraine because Putin is a threat to U.S. political and economic interests, and that's ok.

I'm telling you it is a school of thought that drives american practice for the most part. I didnt think of this out of thin air. This is a topic taught at a college level. Sure the UN has limitations and sure the reality of the world are made up of individual nations with their own goals and aspirations. And in that chaos is this wilsonian philosophy that foster the current world order. The need to protect individual rights, the need for free markets, a world of rules dictated by the UN. That was all created because US believes in it.

The prime example of this change in the world order has alway been western europe and japan post wwii. They fostered democratic countries and provided aid. They could ve easily followed the soviets path and installed puppet regimes but they didn't. They could ve repeated the same isolationist views from wwi and left but they didn't. Now again I'm not saying this is the only influence to our policy. The cold war and containment played an important hand.

Again one can cynically say we went into Iraq for the oil or for wmd...hell even to avenge Saddam for targeting George senior. What you can't deny is that the neocons openly wrote that ushering in a democratic Iraq would start a new mid east order. Right or wrong that was their intent. Afghanistan is a different beast since it served zero purpose other than bin Laden being there. But once there and despite overwhelming burdens and American lives we stayed for 20 years to build up the nation both democratically and militarily. Cynically you can say its an occupation. But for what purpose? We left military hardware and trained their troops. We established democratic institutions. It was a failure clearly but that doesn't erase that we tried.

And yeah hurting Putin is good. But what if Ukraine didnt fight back and declare that they are fighting for Europe and the free world? What if it is a Belarus that was attacked? Would we repeat 2014 and inflict sanctions? No we reacted to the human rights abuse. As a nation we are supporting Ukraine because it is easier to support a fellow democratic nation that was invaded.

 

[brandon]

You don't have to take my word for it. This is our stated goal.

Austin’s assertion that US wants to ‘weaken’ Russia underlines Biden strategy shift | CNN Politics

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has transformed into a grinding war of attrition with no meaningful peace deal in sight, the US and its allies have begun to convey a new, longer-term goal for the war: to defeat Russia so decisively on the battlefield that it will be deterred from launching such...

www.cnn.com

Yes, but that was not the reason we started aiding Ukraine. "Strategy shift" is literally right there in the headline.

The goal is now to weaken them to prevent them from doing the same thing to someone else in the future. We're now shifting focus to making sure that they can't continue being aggressors.

 

[SystemShock]

I'm telling you it is a school of thought

i.e. philosophy

that drives american practice for the most part.

The most part?

I didnt think of this out of thin air. This is a topic taught at a college level.

Lots of things are thought at a college level that don't jive with real life.

Sure the UN has limitations

That's a nice way to say they have no teeth.

and sure the reality of the world are made up of individual nations with their own goals and aspirations. And in that chaos is this wilsonian philosophy that foster the current world order.

China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Iran? How's Wilson doing there?

a world of rules dictated by the UN.

I should stop replying to you after that comment.

The prime example of this change in the world order has alway been western europe and japan post wwii.

The only example, I believe. And it's not like many Western Europe countries didn't already have more advanced concepts of human rights and laws, not to mention democracy.

Again one can cynically say we went into Iraq for the oil

No. I can say very matter of fact that the U.S. went into Iraq because of oil. While Saddam Hussein was fighting Iran, Saddam was an ally of the U.S., receiving aid from the U.S., regardless of being a ruthless, genocidal dictator who didn't give a damn about anyone's human rights or the rule of law other than its own. Once Saddam went after the oil, then he became an enemy. Very much in the same vein as Daniel Ortega, who as a dictator wasn't in the same league a Saddam, but the U.S. looked the other way as long as the U.S. could control the canal. Once Ortega put the U.S. control of the canal in jeopardy, the U.S. looked the right way.

What you can't deny is that the neocons openly wrote that ushering in a democratic Iraq would start a new mid east order.

That's what's called rhetoric. "We are bringing democracy to the savages" has long been a front for "we are going to change things to favor us".

As a nation we are supporting Ukraine because it is easier to support a fellow democratic nation that was invaded.

I think the term you are looking for is proxy war.

Seems to me you have a very academic, idealistic view of U.S. foreign policy. That's fine. But the reality of the U.S. foreign policy trumps any college course (as it often happens in college vs real life).

And again, I am not demonizing the U.S. as some evil empire because the U.S. have always looked after themselves, there is nothing wrong with that...yet, we have to admit, there have been some hits and some misses along the way; financial gain and strategic positioning have trumped human rights and the rule of law in other nations on occasion. ... but hey, no one is perfect.

I certainly still prefer the U.S.' way over China's or Russia's Our Saudi Arabia's.

 

[UriUT]

i.e. philosophy

The most part?

Lots of things are thought at a college level that don't jive with real life.

That's a nice way to say they have no teeth.

China? Russia? Saudi Arabia? Iran? How's Wilson doing there?


I should stop replying to you after that comment.

The only example, I believe. And it's not like many Western Europe countries didn't already have more advanced concepts of human rights and laws, not to mention democracy.


No. I can say very matter of fact that the U.S. went into Iraq because of oil. While Saddam Hussein was fighting Iran, Saddam was an ally of the U.S., receiving aid from the U.S., regardless of being a ruthless, genocidal dictator who didn't give a damn about anyone's human rights or the rule of law other than its own. Once Saddam went after the oil, then he became an enemy. Very much in the same vein as Daniel Ortega, who as a dictator wasn't in the same league a Saddam, but the U.S. looked the other way as long as the U.S. could control the canal. Once Ortega put the U.S. control of the canal in jeopardy, the U.S. looked the right way.

That's what's called rhetoric. "We are bringing democracy to the savages" has long been a front for "we are going to change things to favor us".

I think the term you are looking for is proxy war.

Seems to me you have a very academic, idealistic view of U.S. foreign policy. That's fine. But the reality of the U.S. foreign policy trumps any college course (as it often happens in college vs real life).

And again, I am not demonizing the U.S. as some evil empire because the U.S. have always looked after themselves, there is nothing wrong with that...yet, we have to admit, there have been some hits and some misses along the way; financial gain and strategic positioning have trumped human rights and the rule of law in other nations on occasion. ... but hey, no one is perfect.

I certainly still prefer the U.S.' way over China's or Russia's Our Saudi Arabia's.

And I can say you have a cynical view of foreign policy. You hammer that the UN is inept and to some extent yeah, but it exists because those that believe in those institutions made it so. The rain drops on a sunny day but you believe it isn't because the sun is out. Yet there it is. The UN sits. It may not fulfill your standards, but there it is. It does what it can with what power it has. This world order that you don't think exists, has been the dominant force because of America and has made the world relatively peaceful. Sure America isn't a knight in shining armor and it is far from perfect but it did not wield its massive power post wwii that past great powers did. The fine folks that committed the atrocities in the balkans were tried in the hague because you don't believe that the current world order exists.

And sure, Saddam had his hands slapped in the first iraq war because he tried to grab oil. But what of the 2nd? Are we reaping the benefits of the oil in Iraq? Did we try to install democratic institutions there? I have stated that it was a mistake to impose democracy onto a nation that doesn't believe in liberal ideas. Yet the neocons tried. That cannot be denied.

I gave you one article articulating the possible end of this world order, that you deny exist, and I linked another from Anne Applebaum earlier in the thread similarly describing this demise. And more importantly, the policy makers believe in this world order whether you like it or not. And no, it isn't some homogenous view. There are deviations as I've stated. The article I linked examined that point.

And I don't even care that you are demonizing the US or not. You are screaming at me for presenting you with a picture of what is: that the policy makers shaped the world based on Wilson's 14 points.

 

[DaveXA]

Do people really believe America has promoted democracy in the world? I don't know what you would call my world view, but I got a good chuckle at this. America is aiding Ukraine because doing so weakens Russia. Liberal ideals probably "sprung up" in Ukraine because the EU is next door. Also, America has disposed of so many democracies that were not friendly. You could probably make a list of 20-30 lawfully elected governments that we disposed of, and installed dictators. Off the top of my head: Iran, Korea, and half of LATAM all had dictators installed by America.

I find almost all of America's decisions make sense through the lens of containing perceived threats, and ensuring global trade. It has nothing to do with democracy, or liberal ideals.

Also as far as global trade, one of the bigger things that probably didn't even get posted here was this:

BlackRock's Larry Fink, who oversees $10 trillion, says Russia-Ukraine war is ending globalization

Larry Fink, CEO and chairman of the world's biggest asset manager, BlackRock, said Russia's invasion of Ukraine has ended globalization.

www.cnbc.com

I read the article and Fink's comments aren't particularly surprising or even revealing. Globalization has always been a bit of a house of cards because any one superpower can disrupt that by marching to the beat of their own drum. Every country does that to some degree, and as humans are wont to do, competing interests will inevitably lead to conflict. A Russia led by Putin is more Soviet throwback than new age, cutting edge Russia.

Others in the global community have the same issue and haven't caught up to the global synergy and security that would make the world a better place.

Democratic/liberal ideals are a part of the equation, but not always practical or desired depending on the country and climate. I'm not going to defend all or even most foreign policy since WWII, but our approach is never made in a vacuum and countries change, often of their own volition. Our attempts at shadow diplomacy, influencing governments and building alliances have had decidedly mixed results.

In short, has the US promoted democracy in the world? Yes, absolutely. Have they done so in every engagement? No, of course not. Whether that should be pursued depends on whether a country is possibly receptive to the idea. Places that reject the concept out of hand require other means of diplomacy. Which is why places like Cuba and Venezuela remain what they are, in spite of our efforts to influence them. Other countries are a bit more open to it.

There are others where we've supported dictatorships or authoritarian governments. They're not ideal, but sometimes supporting those will have more potential influence than not having any influence at all.

Not justifying all of them, but they're certainly not all the same. It's all really complicated and a lot depends on who's in the WH, what public sentiment is and global economics/stability.

 

[SystemShock]

And I can say you have a cynical view of foreign policy. You hammer that the UN is inept and to some extent yeah, but it exists because those that believe in those institutions made it so. The rain drops on a sunny day but you believe it isn't because the sun is out. Yet there it is. The UN sits. It may not fulfill your standards, but there it is. It does what it can with what power it has. This world order that you don't think exists, has been the dominant force because of America and has made the world relatively peaceful. Sure America isn't a knight in shining armor and it is far from perfect but it did not wield its massive power post wwii that past great powers did. The fine folks that committed the atrocities in the balkans were tried in the hague because you don't believe that the current world order exists.

And sure, Saddam had his hands slapped in the first iraq war because he tried to grab oil. But what of the 2nd? Are we reaping the benefits of the oil in Iraq? Did we try to install democratic institutions there? I have stated that it was a mistake to impose democracy onto a nation that doesn't believe in liberal ideas. Yet the neocons tried. That cannot be denied.

I gave you one article articulating the possible end of this world order, that you deny exist, and I linked another from Anne Applebaum earlier in the thread similarly describing this demise. And more importantly, the policy makers believe in this world order whether you like it or not. And no, it isn't some homogenous view. There are deviations as I've stated. The article I linked examined that point.

And I don't even care that you are demonizing the US or not. You are screaming at me for presenting you with a picture of what is: that the policy makers shaped the world based on Wilson's 14 points.

I don't know where you get this idea that there is a "world order". There isn't one.

That's great that the were trials in The Hague over the atrocities committed in the Balkans. Can you tell me about the trials in The Hague for the atrocities committed in Central America? South America? Asia? Africa? Tell me about them.

How can you say the world has been made relatively peaceful? I guess if you consider "relative peace" that another world war has not broken out, but just considering the armed conflicts in which the U.S. have been involved since WWII...

The M.E. is hardly peaceful, Central America is hardly peaceful, Africa is hardly peaceful, Asia is hardly peaceful.

You think the neocons tried to install a democracy in Iraq, but that wasn't their goal.

Great that you showed me an article, though. Thank you.