Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
China does not have the US history of global leadership, is not a democracy and while not a kleptocracy on the order of Putin's Russia, it still a country with vast inequalities.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
So what's the long term plan? Should the US maintain hegemony forever? Is that realistic?
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
So what's the long term plan? Should the US maintain hegemony forever? Is that realistic?
It should maintain it so long as it's a viable option.
Because until we achieve global unification hegemony are going to be the best option for global stability.
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
So what's the long term plan? Should the US maintain hegemony forever? Is that realistic?
It should maintain it so long as it's a viable option.
Because until we achieve global unification hegemony are going to be the best option for global stability.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the prospect of the US forcefully trying to maintain hegemony when other actors (especially China, but other regional powers too) are rising in power seems more likely to lead to war than would an attempt to facilitate a shift towards a non-hegemonic, multi-polar framework. When I read about the US tensions with China over the "South China Sea" I wince. I'm not convinced that the rest of the world will continue to accept the level of US dominance that we are accustomed to in the post-Cold War era, and I don't know that the US is powerful enough to compel them to without inviting disaster.
edit - I think the GOP's criticism of Obama foreign policy (or even the criticism from hawkish Dems like Clinton), especially as regards Syria and Iran, was an expression of a conflict between these two approaches. The GOP wanted to maintain and expand US hegemony at almost any cost. The Obama administration still valued hegemony, but also seemed to recognize that the costs and risks of trying to maintain such dominance could sometimes outweigh the benefits
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
So what's the long term plan? Should the US maintain hegemony forever? Is that realistic?
It should maintain it so long as it's a viable option.
Because until we achieve global unification hegemony are going to be the best option for global stability.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the prospect of the US forcefully trying to maintain hegemony when other actors (especially China, but other regional powers too) are rising in power seems more likely to lead to war than would an attempt to facilitate a shift towards a non-hegemonic, multi-polar framework. When I read about the US tensions with China over the "South China Sea" I wince. I'm not convinced that the rest of the world will continue to accept the level of US dominance that we are accustomed to in the post-Cold War era, and I don't know that the US is powerful enough to compel them to without inviting disaster.
edit - I think the GOP's criticism of Obama foreign policy (or even the criticism from hawkish Dems like Clinton), especially as regards Syria and Iran, was an expression of a conflict between these two approaches. The GOP wanted to maintain and expand US hegemony at almost any cost. The Obama administration still valued hegemony, but also seemed to recognize that the costs and risks of trying to maintain such dominance could sometimes outweigh the benefits
China has been reffered to as the sleeping giant for centuries for a reason and I have no doubt that this coming century will see them rise to a position of prominence, but this doesn't mean that the US should simply capitulate or move to a war footing with them; the smarter move would be to find a way to bind them economically to other western powers which was more or less the policy up until trump decided to go for a trade war with them.
+8
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
So what's the long term plan? Should the US maintain hegemony forever? Is that realistic?
It should maintain it so long as it's a viable option.
Because until we achieve global unification hegemony are going to be the best option for global stability.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the prospect of the US forcefully trying to maintain hegemony when other actors (especially China, but other regional powers too) are rising in power seems more likely to lead to war than an attempt to shift towards a non-hegemonic, multi-polar framework. When I read about the US tensions with China over the "South China Sea" I wince. I'm not convinced that the rest of the world will continue to accept the level of US dominance that we are accustomed to in the post-war era, and I don't know that the US is powerful enough to compel them to without inviting disaster.
They key word is "forcefully"
There is a pretty strong theory that the economic co-dependencies of (true) democracies maintain peace by incentivizing the adjudication of disputes through means other than military force. This does not mean that democracies do not engage in military action or war, just not with each other. It is partially a reason why the proliferation of democracy abroad is in the US', and arguably the world's, interest, as modernity has reached a point where military action or war has the potential to end human existence altogether (due, in no small part, to the usage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is utterly the fault of the US). The nuclear genie is never going back in the bottle. And while nukes are just one part of it, they do represent the absolute most pressing threat of the collapse of the post-WWII global order.
So while we know present US hegemony is deeply flawed, hypocritical, brutal, and indiscriminate, we do not know how a non-US hegemony or multi-polar world will operate with regards to nuclear power. We do not know how many states coveting land, resources, wealth and power, will act to remain militarily competitive without the central black hole of a dominant superpower providing even at least some measure of predictability and assurance that certain actions will trigger globally-supported retaliation (via sanctions, coalition forces, etc). We do know that in a multi-polar world like the 19th Century where Great powers operated under the consensus that power and power alone determined the correctness of state action, states very happily and very merrily looted and plundered weaker states because they had the military power and the assurance that a chaotic market of regional actors were not consolidated into a unified opposition force that would prevent any one nation from accruing wealth and influence through what we would now consider appalling means of imperialism, colonialism and slavery. And we do not know if the morally discredited methods of our recent barbaric past will find new purchase in a modern multi-polar world where global authority is diffused. With the upper bound of destruction potentially leading to literally the apocalypse, what we do not know concerns me more than what we do.
Hakkekage on
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+21
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
So what's the long term plan? Should the US maintain hegemony forever? Is that realistic?
It should maintain it so long as it's a viable option.
Because until we achieve global unification hegemony are going to be the best option for global stability.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the prospect of the US forcefully trying to maintain hegemony when other actors (especially China, but other regional powers too) are rising in power seems more likely to lead to war than an attempt to shift towards a non-hegemonic, multi-polar framework. When I read about the US tensions with China over the "South China Sea" I wince. I'm not convinced that the rest of the world will continue to accept the level of US dominance that we are accustomed to in the post-war era, and I don't know that the US is powerful enough to compel them to without inviting disaster.
They key word is "forcefully"
There is a pretty strong theory that the economic co-dependencies of (true) democracies maintain peace by incentivizing the adjudication of disputes through means other than military force. This does not mean that democracies do not engage in military action or war, just not with each other. It is partially a reason why the proliferation of democracy abroad is in the US', and arguably the world's, interest, as modernity has reached a point where military action or war has the potential to end human existence altogether (due, in no small part, to the usage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is utterly the fault of the US). The nuclear genie is never going back in the bottle. And while nukes are just one part of it, they do represent the absolute most pressing threat of the collapse of the post-WWII global order.
So while we know present US hegemony is deeply flawed, hypocritical, brutal, and indiscriminate, we do not know how a non-US hegemony or multi-polar world will operate with regards to nuclear power. We do not know how many states coveting land, resources, wealth and power, will act to remain militarily competitive without the central black hole of a dominant superpower providing even at least some measure of predictability and assurance that certain actions will trigger globally-supported retaliation (via sanctions, coalition forces, etc). We do know that in a multi-polar world like the 19th Century where Great powers operated under the consensus that power and power alone determined the correctness of state action, states very happily and very merrily looted and plundered weaker states because they had the military power and the assurance that a chaotic market of regional actors were not consolidated into a unified opposition force that would prevent any one nation from accruing wealth and influence through what we would now consider appalling means of imperialism, colonialism and slavery. And we do not know if the morally discredited methods of our recent barbaric past will find new purchase in a modern multi-polar world where global authority is diffused. With the upper bound of destruction potentially leading to literally the apocalypse, what we do not know concerns me more than what we do.
Especially since it is becoming increasingly apparent that Trump style politics is not an anomaly.
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Sorry if I'm being Russophobic but Putin just installed a Republican government in my country and he bears some responsibility for the massive cost of money and lives that will result. Obamacare repeal alone is like 10 9/11s every year. Then there's the death toll from the delay in fighting global climate change, that affects everybody. If anything the country and the world is dramatically underreacting to this.
Hmmm a disruptive poster with a new account made this week talking about a singular political issue (the Russia Thread) on a nerd discussion forum, introducing itself as "not having a dog in the fight" and then spending 48 posts over 5 days doing nothing but white knighting Russian interests. Verdict: Not suspicious.
Posters who have been part of the community for years sharing their own worries and issues specifically with the Putin Administration and relating their personal experiences and how it has caused friends of their hardship inside Russia's borders and beyond. Verdict: Clearly Russophobia.
Sure, that seems reasonable.
Who cares if he/she is a Russian spy, it's D&D. Take up the argument or don't.
edit - I mean christ "Debate" is half of the forum's title. The only poster in the thread to argue against the general consensus gets the label "disruptive"?
Wikileaks always took excepts from those emails and tweeted them is the most inflammatory way possible
let's stop pretending they did a simple data dump they ran a propaganda camapign based on the emails
Wikileaks is very clearly compromised
"Compromised" implies they've changed their objectives or having leader positions replaced, when they're simply much more obvious and unabashed these days.
I was actually quite happy about Russia's growth as a nation back before Putin decided that he should be president again and then all of the most predictable things happened.
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
So what's the long term plan? Should the US maintain hegemony forever? Is that realistic?
It should maintain it so long as it's a viable option.
Because until we achieve global unification hegemony are going to be the best option for global stability.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the prospect of the US forcefully trying to maintain hegemony when other actors (especially China, but other regional powers too) are rising in power seems more likely to lead to war than an attempt to shift towards a non-hegemonic, multi-polar framework. When I read about the US tensions with China over the "South China Sea" I wince. I'm not convinced that the rest of the world will continue to accept the level of US dominance that we are accustomed to in the post-war era, and I don't know that the US is powerful enough to compel them to without inviting disaster.
They key word is "forcefully"
There is a pretty strong theory that the economic co-dependencies of (true) democracies maintain peace by incentivizing the adjudication of disputes through means other than military force. This does not mean that democracies do not engage in military action or war, just not with each other. It is partially a reason why the proliferation of democracy abroad is in the US', and arguably the world's, interest, as modernity has reached a point where military action or war has the potential to end human existence altogether (due, in no small part, to the usage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is utterly the fault of the US). The nuclear genie is never going back in the bottle. And while nukes are just one part of it, they do represent the absolute most pressing threat of the collapse of the post-WWII global order.
So while we know present US hegemony is deeply flawed, hypocritical, brutal, and indiscriminate, we do not know how a non-US hegemony or multi-polar world will operate with regards to nuclear power. We do not know how many states coveting land, resources, wealth and power, will act to remain militarily competitive without the central black hole of a dominant superpower providing even at least some measure of predictability and assurance that certain actions will trigger globally-supported retaliation (via sanctions, coalition forces, etc). We do know that in a multi-polar world like the 19th Century where Great powers operated under the consensus that power and power alone determined the correctness of state action, states very happily and very merrily looted and plundered weaker states because they had the military power and the assurance that a chaotic market of regional actors were not consolidated into a unified opposition force that would prevent any one nation from accruing wealth and influence through what we would now consider appalling means of imperialism, colonialism and slavery. And we do not know if the morally discredited methods of our recent barbaric past will find new purchase in a modern multi-polar world where global authority is diffused. With the upper bound of destruction potentially leading to literally the apocalypse, what we do not know concerns me more than what we do.
Just a question, do you read The Weekly Standard a lot? (Or Leo Strauss?) Your ideology seems to be archetypal Neoconservatism.
Two of the last three US presidents came to office with fewer votes than their opponent. A party hated by most of the US public, the Republicans, is dominant at state and federal levels unparalleled in its history.
Wenn man die USA mit der gleichen analytischen Kühle wie Russland betrachten würde, sagt James Galbraith, Sohn des legendären Kennedy-Beraters John Kenneth Galbraith, würde man nicht umhinkommen, von der Herrschaft eines Oligopols aus Politikern und Bankern zu sprechen. Die Mächtigen an der Wall Street und in Washington seien nicht weniger eng verflochten als Premier Wladimir Putin und die Magnaten des russischen Rohstoffimperiums.
"If one were to look at the US with the same analytical coolness as Russia," said James Galbraith, the son of legendary Kennedy adviser John Kenneth Galbraith, "one would not be able to avoid speaking of the rule of an oligopoly of politicians and bankers. The powerful on Wall Street and Washington are no less closely interlinked than Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and the magnates of the Russian commodity council."
I don't think you'll get much argument that the relationship between businessmen and politicans in the US is much cozier than it should be.
The difference is that (until Trump) the relationship was between various businessmen and various politicians, whereas in Russia it was everyone being cozy with Putin (or else).
What we see are two different oligarchic models, one with a dictatorial person at top of a pyramidal structure, and another with a dictatorial clique or class. The latter meaning US before Trump, as it is unclear whether the US system will more closely resemble Putin's. Dengist China interestingly, without any hypocritical facade of democracy, would resemble the US system in that, generally speaking, one guy is not absolute dictator and there is a sort of governing by elite council.
What I find interesting is that the argument for unipolar hyperpower hegemony, which generally only the most far-right Americans actually speak out loud, so I credit your honesty on display, in terms of international relations seems identical to an argument in support of absolute dictatorship over a political society.
US total power relative to the rest of the world peaked by the late 1960s and has declined ever since that point, although this decline was masked by the collapse of the Soviet Union. For clarity: That is, if we could quantify US comprehensive national power (the Chinese have tried to determine a mathematical formula to do so), US power as a percentage of world power has been in decline since the loss of the Vietnam War, but the difference between US power and that of its nearest rival peaked after the fall of the Soviet Union. At a certain point, the US can only maintain #1 position by tripping up its rivals or preventing them from advancing. Conditions change over time, geopolitics has a fluidity, no power can maintain hegemony indefinitely, but a hegemonic power may seek to maintain itself through aggression, as we have seen from the US in recent administrations. Seen another way, why is US trying to build bases in Ukraine and Georgia? Think of playing as Russia in a long grand strategy game and experiencing assaults by Napoleonic France and by Germany twice, each seeking hegemony of their own. Should Russia not feel nervous, especially looking at a map and seeing Russia controls less territory and is more geographically vulnerable than it has been in centuries?
Are you saying that the US is playing aggressor on the world stage and not Russia?
Off the top of my head in the last 8 years, Russia has:
Invaded and annexed Georgia
Invaded and annexed parts of the Ukraine
Shot down civilian aircraft
Escalated the conflict in Syria
Influenced the outcome of U.S. elections
Yes, the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s and the world is still paying for those mistakes. But you are severely downplaying how aggressive Russia has been in the past ten years. Like others have said before me, nobody here is holding water for the United States; we all agree that our government has done some shitty things, even recently. But that doesn't mean Russia gets to do them too, you can hold all parties accountable for their bad decisions.
By the way, here is an article in Executive Intelligence Review, a publication of the LaRouche movement (?), from July 1987 claiming amidst other things that Russia, then the Soviet Union, was already grooming Donald Trump to be a presidential candidate 30 years ago ("Do the Russians have a Trump card?"):
Well for one, the party that ended up winning in the Ukrainian Revolution was the party that wanted greater ties with NATO and the EU specifically because they were worried about Russian encroachment. In fact the largest part of why the revolution happened was because the Russian backed leadership decided to seize control of the government.
Secondly, if the US was interested in invading or attacking Russia, we wouldn't need a Ukrainian base. US overseas bases are largely for mutual defense. Such as the two bases in South Korea, which have a stated lifespan of hours if North Korea attacks. Their purpose isn't to act as staging grounds, their purpose is to draw in the US to the conflict if their ally is attacked. There's only a few overseas bases that serve as staging areas (Guam, Germany, UK, Italy, ect). The range of US military assets means that there doesn't need to be a base placed directly near the conflict before it starts, and that once it does start we can establish a FOB within a short time frame. So the argument that a base in Georgia or Ukraine is intentionally aggressive against Russia, as opposed to defensive for the host country, is based on really old pre-cold war thinking.
The LaRouche movement is a bunch of nutball conspiracy theorists and that you're citing them with regards to American politics indicates you do not have a clue about it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
By the way, here is an article in Executive Intelligence Review, a publication of the LaRouche movement (?), from July 1987 claiming amidst other things that Russia, then the Soviet Union, was already grooming Donald Trump to be a presidential candidate 30 years ago ("Do the Russians have a Trump card?"):
The LaRouche movement is a bunch of nutball conspiracy theorists and that you're citing them with regards to American politics indicates you do not have a clue about it.
As an indication, they run a (very small) campaign for US president targeting the general public. In Canada.
A number of House Democrats left Friday's confidential briefing on Russian hacking fuming over the actions of FBI Director James Comey and convinced he's unfit to lead the agency.
"I was non-judgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him," Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.
"Some of the things that were revealed in this classified briefing — my confidence has been shook."
Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, delivered a similar condemnation.
"I'm extremely concerned — extremely," he said.
"I'll just — I'm very angry," echoed Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).
Republicans have largely defended Comey, and many left Friday's briefing with minds unchanged.
"The FBI director is a good man who was placed in a very difficult position," said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.). "His boss [U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch] made life very difficult for him in the last year when she met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac."
Democrats have a markedly different take.
What the hell did Comey say in the last 15 minutes?
The LaRouche movement is a bunch of nutball conspiracy theorists and that you're citing them with regards to American politics indicates you do not have a clue about it.
A number of House Democrats left Friday's confidential briefing on Russian hacking fuming over the actions of FBI Director James Comey and convinced he's unfit to lead the agency.
"I was non-judgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him," Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.
"Some of the things that were revealed in this classified briefing — my confidence has been shook."
Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, delivered a similar condemnation.
"I'm extremely concerned — extremely," he said.
"I'll just — I'm very angry," echoed Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).
Republicans have largely defended Comey, and many left Friday's briefing with minds unchanged.
"The FBI director is a good man who was placed in a very difficult position," said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.). "His boss [U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch] made life very difficult for him in the last year when she met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac."
Democrats have a markedly different take.
What the hell did Comey say in the last 15 minutes?
Started responding to every question from them with "you're fake news, next!"
The LaRouche movement is a bunch of nutball conspiracy theorists and that you're citing them with regards to American politics indicates you do not have a clue about it.
As an indication, they run a (very small) campaign for US president targeting the general public. In Canada.
Didn't he used to be the go-to nominee for the Libertarians?
That seems like the context in which one would group Trump, Stein, and LaRouche as anti-Clinton assets. Gary probably didn't seem aggressive /intense enough. (Not wrong)
The LaRouche movement is a bunch of nutball conspiracy theorists and that you're citing them with regards to American politics indicates you do not have a clue about it.
As an indication, they run a (very small) campaign for US president targeting the general public. In Canada.
Didn't he used to be the go-to nominee for the Libertarians?
That seems like the context in which one would group Trump, Stein, and LaRouche as anti-Clinton assets. Gary probably didn't seem aggressive /intense enough. (Not wrong)
No idea. Their stand is usually covered with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and I can't vote in US elections like most people in Canada, so I avoid them.
A number of House Democrats left Friday's confidential briefing on Russian hacking fuming over the actions of FBI Director James Comey and convinced he's unfit to lead the agency.
"I was non-judgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him," Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.
"Some of the things that were revealed in this classified briefing — my confidence has been shook."
Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, delivered a similar condemnation.
"I'm extremely concerned — extremely," he said.
"I'll just — I'm very angry," echoed Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.).
Republicans have largely defended Comey, and many left Friday's briefing with minds unchanged.
"The FBI director is a good man who was placed in a very difficult position," said Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.). "His boss [U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch] made life very difficult for him in the last year when she met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac."
Democrats have a markedly different take.
What the hell did Comey say in the last 15 minutes?
Possibly corroborated Steele's account that the FBI put a hold on investigating his stuff close to the election so as not to interfere with it.
E: That would be the only new rage-vector I can guess at that wasn't already publicly affirmed. Unless it's a new thing.
I'm willing to bet there was damning information about Trump that's credible but Comey decided he didn't want to influence people's opinions about candidates when there's an R next to their name.
The LaRouche Movement and the Executive Intelligence Review are unreliable sources at best and complete disinformation at worst, but that's probably the reason it was brought up in the first place.
Regardless of whether they got anything right, they're unlikely to be used by media because of their penchant to make up "facts" and the idea that anyone in the intel community would base their findings solely on the EIR is ridiculous.
I'm willing to bet there was damning information about Trump that's credible but Comey decided he didn't want to influence people's opinions about candidates when there's an R next to their name.
And if that's the case hopefully someone at the FBI is willing to be an informant.
Something like that would shake the new administration like Watergate.
I'm willing to bet there was damning information about Trump that's credible but Comey decided he didn't want to influence people's opinions about candidates when there's an R next to their name.
And if that's the case hopefully someone at the FBI is willing to be an informant.
Something like that would shake the new administration like Watergate.
Would it?
Would we as a nation care? Or could the party spin it, cover it, and drive on? Because nothing matters unless it's sufficient to get Congress to impeach, and that pressure has to come from their voters (or possibly donors).
I'm not confident that even if this is all shown by preponderance of evidence to be true that we'd get there.
I'm willing to bet there was damning information about Trump that's credible but Comey decided he didn't want to influence people's opinions about candidates when there's an R next to their name.
And if that's the case hopefully someone at the FBI is willing to be an informant.
Something like that would shake the new administration like Watergate.
Would it?
Would we as a nation care? Or could the party spin it, cover it, and drive on? Because nothing matters unless it's sufficient to get Congress to impeach, and that pressure has to come from their voters (or possibly donors).
I'm not confident that even if this is all shown by preponderance of evidence to be true that we'd get there.
Yeah, remember that trump isn't doing anything that they don't already want.
I would probably applaud Sweden or whatever trying to fix our prison system.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Check your image sizes and the sizes of images you quote, please.
Man, this feels like college all over again. Every time Russia's atrocities and misdeeds are a subject this and that American policy are brought up. I should to defend the US, I suppose, before I can criticize Russia? Well, fuck the US. But since the talk about Russia, a very special fuck you to Russia. I don't see why I need to play within the implied premise that to criticize Russia I need to carry American water. There are plenty eager to do the job, and they don't need one more.
Russia and Putin's war crimes in Chechnya and Syria and elsewhere are their own. The dead civilians are no less dead because Americans happened to kill and starve some others elsewhere, and the crime is no less criminal.
That's fine, but different than what others are arguing, and actions do not happen in a vacuum. Russia is not just killing people in Syria "for fun", they are trying to the prevent a regime change attempt sponsored by US and its allies which includes some very nasty types of people with identical ideologies and abuses the US will cite to justify longterm warfare against when they operate elsewhere, such as Afghanistan. The US is constantly trying to expand its own sphere of influence by pushing against others in a way that destabilises areas in the world, and many of the actions by Putin we can criticise for their tactical brutality occurred in response to US aggression.
Fundamentally there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in geopolitics because every power tends to seek maximisation of its own influence against others. The concept of a stable balance of power is crucial but for starters relies on a type of humility and empathy that jingoism or national-exceptionalism is antithetical toward.
Am I supposed to take the good guys bad guys shiny bait and run with it? That's basically the BS I was talking about. America. Afghanistan. US aggression! But the victims of American power are not mere props to excuse Russian violence. I don't give one fuck why the Russians are committing war crimes, I don't care about the balance of power, and their geopolitical justification for indiscriminate slaughter. I care that they have committed the crimes, and continue to do so. I recognize the lack of options for stopping their bloodletting, but I don't need to accept such apologia either.
But we don't have a thread here called "America: the Musical" in which 99% of posts are dedicated to how evil the US government is, presented without any context, each post getting 20,000 agrees. As it is, this is not really really a thread for discussing Russia but for attacking Russia -- and even discussing context, that there is history behind events, things don't occur in in a vacuum, world history is not "good vs evil", causes people to go all Joe McCarthy accusing you of being a Soviet agent. And every comment denouncing Putin gets 20,000 agrees. This is like "March of the Murka Mooks."
This is because.
1) this thread is not context free
2) we have multiple threads dealing with US actions and their relative shittiness, how to combat them when they are, and to deal with them when you can't.
The LaRouche movement is a bunch of nutball conspiracy theorists and that you're citing them with regards to American politics indicates you do not have a clue about it.
I have studied US politics at graduate level.
I feel like you don't understand why I posted that. "Citing" would imply I was stating I agreed with it and held it up as a source -- can you understand the difference between citing a source and asking a question about something that looks strange? I sense you did not understand what question I was asking. Also, is LaRouche so extremely well-known in the US that you expect everyone outside the US to know everything about his movement? He does have have a political party in France led by Jacques Cheminade who received around 0.25% of the vote in the two most recent presidential elections he contested, but they are very obscure and confusing.
The file I posted was large enough that it was removed. (Which caused that "warning." My apologies to those with data plans who downloaded the large image.)
I am asking what is the significance that "nutball conspiracy theorists" were saying 30 years ago Russia was grooming Donald Trump to be a US presidential candidate, something that everyone here now seems to believe is the reality? That seems a rather strangely prescient nutball conspiracy theory, given that half of the Democrats are now saying the exact same thing.
And what does it mean that the "unconfirmed" document that most people here believe to be true says that Russia saw, specifically, LaRouche as an asset (along with Jill Stein and Lt. Gen. Flynn) to wage information war against Hillary Clinton? If LaRouche is deployed as a propaganda agent against Clinton for Russia, as the source most people here accept to be true asserts, it calls into question how insignificant he would be in Russia's eyes. The document everyone believes that says Trump was compromised by Russia, that has dominated US media coverage over the last two days, also says Russia deployed Lyndon LaRouche to run propaganda against Clinton. What does that say about the document's credibility?
And are those two things (1987 LaRouche conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian asset, 2016 document seen on CNN that says Trump is a Russian asset that in its fine print also says LaRouche is a Russian asset) in any way related?
It is almost certain that they view LaRouche as an asset. The memo suggested that they had met with people from the LaRouche camp (but no content of the meeting). LaRouche doesn't have to deploy pro-russian or anti-american propaganda in order to be seen as an asset, and Larouche does not have to be acting on the orders of the FSB to do so either.
Given that being a hegemonic power is always going to result in abhorrent behavior (arguably, and I believe, to prevent more catastrophic behavior), it's worth considering who you would rather hold that position if not the US. Because for the foreseeable future such an actor is going to be an inevitability.
There are very few powers capable of exerting that kind of presence, and I don't think anybody can honestly argue that a dominant Russia or China would improve the state of the world. Considering the state of the EU, that increasingly far-fetched reality doesn't seem supportable as an ideological or organizational improvement either.
Edit: Criticism of the world's dominant power is an outright necessity at all times. But we live in a world of limited options, and it's worth keeping in mind as we choose when and where to give our support.
Why is a global hegemon inevitable and necessary? What is impossible about a multi-polar world without any clear dominating power?
Also, even if the US no longer filled that role, I am entirely unconvinced that Russia could have the capacity to do so. IIRC Putin even stated this in a speech some time ago. Maybe China could fulfill a similar role at some point, I dunno. But given the US's history, your implied argument that the US should maintain near-global hegemony because the Chinese would obviously be worse is not self-evident to me.
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
So what's the long term plan? Should the US maintain hegemony forever? Is that realistic?
It should maintain it so long as it's a viable option.
Because until we achieve global unification hegemony are going to be the best option for global stability.
I'm not sure I agree. I think the prospect of the US forcefully trying to maintain hegemony when other actors (especially China, but other regional powers too) are rising in power seems more likely to lead to war than would an attempt to facilitate a shift towards a non-hegemonic, multi-polar framework. When I read about the US tensions with China over the "South China Sea" I wince. I'm not convinced that the rest of the world will continue to accept the level of US dominance that we are accustomed to in the post-Cold War era, and I don't know that the US is powerful enough to compel them to without inviting disaster.
edit - I think the GOP's criticism of Obama foreign policy (or even the criticism from hawkish Dems like Clinton), especially as regards Syria and Iran, was an expression of a conflict between these two approaches. The GOP wanted to maintain and expand US hegemony at almost any cost. The Obama administration still valued hegemony, but also seemed to recognize that the costs and risks of trying to maintain such dominance could sometimes outweigh the benefits
The maintenance of US hegemony and the competition to erode it has few peers as destabilizing forces go. I suspect it can get even worse as time goes on, as US power and ability to effectively control events wains while American policy makers continue to hold to the same doctrine - or start to rely on increasingly more violent clients.
Posts
Wikileaks is very clearly compromised
If there's no clear dominating power, then every power believes it has the advantage when a dispute arises. They believe they've got the ally situation figured out and that the their opposition is in decline and doesn't have the fight in them to challenge that land dispute, so we'll just send in the troops and they'll capitulate and oh look world war 1.
China does not have the US history of global leadership, is not a democracy and while not a kleptocracy on the order of Putin's Russia, it still a country with vast inequalities.
It should maintain it so long as it's a viable option.
Because until we achieve global unification hegemony are going to be the best option for global stability.
edit - I think the GOP's criticism of Obama foreign policy (or even the criticism from hawkish Dems like Clinton), especially as regards Syria and Iran, was an expression of a conflict between these two approaches. The GOP wanted to maintain and expand US hegemony at almost any cost. The Obama administration still valued hegemony, but also seemed to recognize that the costs and risks of trying to maintain such dominance could sometimes outweigh the benefits
China has been reffered to as the sleeping giant for centuries for a reason and I have no doubt that this coming century will see them rise to a position of prominence, but this doesn't mean that the US should simply capitulate or move to a war footing with them; the smarter move would be to find a way to bind them economically to other western powers which was more or less the policy up until trump decided to go for a trade war with them.
They key word is "forcefully"
There is a pretty strong theory that the economic co-dependencies of (true) democracies maintain peace by incentivizing the adjudication of disputes through means other than military force. This does not mean that democracies do not engage in military action or war, just not with each other. It is partially a reason why the proliferation of democracy abroad is in the US', and arguably the world's, interest, as modernity has reached a point where military action or war has the potential to end human existence altogether (due, in no small part, to the usage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is utterly the fault of the US). The nuclear genie is never going back in the bottle. And while nukes are just one part of it, they do represent the absolute most pressing threat of the collapse of the post-WWII global order.
So while we know present US hegemony is deeply flawed, hypocritical, brutal, and indiscriminate, we do not know how a non-US hegemony or multi-polar world will operate with regards to nuclear power. We do not know how many states coveting land, resources, wealth and power, will act to remain militarily competitive without the central black hole of a dominant superpower providing even at least some measure of predictability and assurance that certain actions will trigger globally-supported retaliation (via sanctions, coalition forces, etc). We do know that in a multi-polar world like the 19th Century where Great powers operated under the consensus that power and power alone determined the correctness of state action, states very happily and very merrily looted and plundered weaker states because they had the military power and the assurance that a chaotic market of regional actors were not consolidated into a unified opposition force that would prevent any one nation from accruing wealth and influence through what we would now consider appalling means of imperialism, colonialism and slavery. And we do not know if the morally discredited methods of our recent barbaric past will find new purchase in a modern multi-polar world where global authority is diffused. With the upper bound of destruction potentially leading to literally the apocalypse, what we do not know concerns me more than what we do.
NNID: Hakkekage
Especially since it is becoming increasingly apparent that Trump style politics is not an anomaly.
"Compromised" implies they've changed their objectives or having leader positions replaced, when they're simply much more obvious and unabashed these days.
Just a question, do you read The Weekly Standard a lot? (Or Leo Strauss?) Your ideology seems to be archetypal Neoconservatism.
That said, what the heck is a "true democracy"?
Quoting myself:
I actually agree with:
What we see are two different oligarchic models, one with a dictatorial person at top of a pyramidal structure, and another with a dictatorial clique or class. The latter meaning US before Trump, as it is unclear whether the US system will more closely resemble Putin's. Dengist China interestingly, without any hypocritical facade of democracy, would resemble the US system in that, generally speaking, one guy is not absolute dictator and there is a sort of governing by elite council.
What I find interesting is that the argument for unipolar hyperpower hegemony, which generally only the most far-right Americans actually speak out loud, so I credit your honesty on display, in terms of international relations seems identical to an argument in support of absolute dictatorship over a political society.
US total power relative to the rest of the world peaked by the late 1960s and has declined ever since that point, although this decline was masked by the collapse of the Soviet Union. For clarity: That is, if we could quantify US comprehensive national power (the Chinese have tried to determine a mathematical formula to do so), US power as a percentage of world power has been in decline since the loss of the Vietnam War, but the difference between US power and that of its nearest rival peaked after the fall of the Soviet Union. At a certain point, the US can only maintain #1 position by tripping up its rivals or preventing them from advancing. Conditions change over time, geopolitics has a fluidity, no power can maintain hegemony indefinitely, but a hegemonic power may seek to maintain itself through aggression, as we have seen from the US in recent administrations. Seen another way, why is US trying to build bases in Ukraine and Georgia? Think of playing as Russia in a long grand strategy game and experiencing assaults by Napoleonic France and by Germany twice, each seeking hegemony of their own. Should Russia not feel nervous, especially looking at a map and seeing Russia controls less territory and is more geographically vulnerable than it has been in centuries?
Off the top of my head in the last 8 years, Russia has:
Yes, the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s and the world is still paying for those mistakes. But you are severely downplaying how aggressive Russia has been in the past ten years. Like others have said before me, nobody here is holding water for the United States; we all agree that our government has done some shitty things, even recently. But that doesn't mean Russia gets to do them too, you can hold all parties accountable for their bad decisions.
This LaRouche movement interestingly is also dragged into the raw intel file of the recently much-discussed unconfirmed report about Trump being compromised by Putin:
https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/818979007035244546
Can anyone explain what that means?
Secondly, if the US was interested in invading or attacking Russia, we wouldn't need a Ukrainian base. US overseas bases are largely for mutual defense. Such as the two bases in South Korea, which have a stated lifespan of hours if North Korea attacks. Their purpose isn't to act as staging grounds, their purpose is to draw in the US to the conflict if their ally is attacked. There's only a few overseas bases that serve as staging areas (Guam, Germany, UK, Italy, ect). The range of US military assets means that there doesn't need to be a base placed directly near the conflict before it starts, and that once it does start we can establish a FOB within a short time frame. So the argument that a base in Georgia or Ukraine is intentionally aggressive against Russia, as opposed to defensive for the host country, is based on really old pre-cold war thinking.
That russian influence on trump goes back farther then anyone has thought?
As an indication, they run a (very small) campaign for US president targeting the general public. In Canada.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/314161-dems-outraged-with-comey-after-house-briefing What the hell did Comey say in the last 15 minutes?
nvm, just flagging it
Started responding to every question from them with "you're fake news, next!"
that is...weird....
Didn't he used to be the go-to nominee for the Libertarians?
That seems like the context in which one would group Trump, Stein, and LaRouche as anti-Clinton assets. Gary probably didn't seem aggressive /intense enough. (Not wrong)
No idea. Their stand is usually covered with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and I can't vote in US elections like most people in Canada, so I avoid them.
Possibly corroborated Steele's account that the FBI put a hold on investigating his stuff close to the election so as not to interfere with it.
E: That would be the only new rage-vector I can guess at that wasn't already publicly affirmed. Unless it's a new thing.
that's pretty credible
I was always wondering who to thank for that.
Regardless of whether they got anything right, they're unlikely to be used by media because of their penchant to make up "facts" and the idea that anyone in the intel community would base their findings solely on the EIR is ridiculous.
And if that's the case hopefully someone at the FBI is willing to be an informant.
Something like that would shake the new administration like Watergate.
Would it?
Would we as a nation care? Or could the party spin it, cover it, and drive on? Because nothing matters unless it's sufficient to get Congress to impeach, and that pressure has to come from their voters (or possibly donors).
I'm not confident that even if this is all shown by preponderance of evidence to be true that we'd get there.
Yeah, remember that trump isn't doing anything that they don't already want.
I would probably applaud Sweden or whatever trying to fix our prison system.
Actual size, right? I'll throw it in spoilers.
This is because.
1) this thread is not context free
2) we have multiple threads dealing with US actions and their relative shittiness, how to combat them when they are, and to deal with them when you can't.
I have studied US politics at graduate level.
I feel like you don't understand why I posted that. "Citing" would imply I was stating I agreed with it and held it up as a source -- can you understand the difference between citing a source and asking a question about something that looks strange? I sense you did not understand what question I was asking. Also, is LaRouche so extremely well-known in the US that you expect everyone outside the US to know everything about his movement? He does have have a political party in France led by Jacques Cheminade who received around 0.25% of the vote in the two most recent presidential elections he contested, but they are very obscure and confusing.
The file I posted was large enough that it was removed. (Which caused that "warning." My apologies to those with data plans who downloaded the large image.)
I am asking what is the significance that "nutball conspiracy theorists" were saying 30 years ago Russia was grooming Donald Trump to be a US presidential candidate, something that everyone here now seems to believe is the reality? That seems a rather strangely prescient nutball conspiracy theory, given that half of the Democrats are now saying the exact same thing.
And what does it mean that the "unconfirmed" document that most people here believe to be true says that Russia saw, specifically, LaRouche as an asset (along with Jill Stein and Lt. Gen. Flynn) to wage information war against Hillary Clinton? If LaRouche is deployed as a propaganda agent against Clinton for Russia, as the source most people here accept to be true asserts, it calls into question how insignificant he would be in Russia's eyes. The document everyone believes that says Trump was compromised by Russia, that has dominated US media coverage over the last two days, also says Russia deployed Lyndon LaRouche to run propaganda against Clinton. What does that say about the document's credibility?
And are those two things (1987 LaRouche conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian asset, 2016 document seen on CNN that says Trump is a Russian asset that in its fine print also says LaRouche is a Russian asset) in any way related?
It feels like a strange "in-joke" among spooks.
The maintenance of US hegemony and the competition to erode it has few peers as destabilizing forces go. I suspect it can get even worse as time goes on, as US power and ability to effectively control events wains while American policy makers continue to hold to the same doctrine - or start to rely on increasingly more violent clients.