He is a figure who at least once represented a party that is essentially the polar opposite of the Green's. (Jill Stein)
He isn't super relevant, I only know of him from my conspiracy theory tourism, but I suspect that is the allure. Propaganda flies well with conspiracy theorists, especially about the Clintons They'd have their own wing in a CT library.
Jill speaks to the anti-vaxxing, 9-11 truthing lefties, and LaRouche to a weird melange of neo-nazis/ultra-right/libertarians who wouldn't listen to Jill. Trump just seems to believe anything that the National Enquirer prints, and is far more generally accepted and visible than the other two.
If you want to seed a negative story about the Clintons, those would be receptive points of contact with distinct audiences. But LaRouche is so far on the fringe, I wouldn't waste my time.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
+2
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.
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"?
I don't read that publication, no. Not ever, probably. Or Leo Strauss. But thanks for trying to diagnose my malady.
by "true democracy" i mean to distinguish from sham democracies that feature nominal parliaments and elected positions where frequently elected officials have no real opposition, enormous state control over selection of candidates, frequent 98.7% reelections of glorious leaders, thoroughly corrupt government institutions and unstable or violent transfers of power.
Your point about the functional oligarchy of the US is cute, but it doesn't undermine the distinction I'm making.
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
Uh, them being in NATO doesn't mean we will be massing troops there.
NATO is an international organization last I checked.
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
Uh, them being in NATO doesn't mean we will be massing troops there.
NATO is an international organization last I checked.
Yeah, we're in NATO (Croatia) and I'm not aware of any US troops stationed there, or any new military bases.
A NATO Ukraine was certainly a reason to feel nervous, but an isolated Ukraine unwilling to revisit USSR dominance had an equal reason (now demonstrated) for concern.
Russia has just as much of a history of invading and conquering eastern Europe (ask the Poles!) as it does of being invaded by western Europe. So of course those countries want a defensive alliance.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Russia has just as much of a history of invading and conquering eastern Europe (ask the Poles!) as it does of being invaded by western Europe. So of course those countries want a defensive alliance.
Yeah... By doing that they did, they ensured that every single one of their neighbors would be extremely wary of them for at least the next 20 years.
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.
Others have answered your question better than I could, but I wanted to clarify that I don't view the current situation as ideal, or the only realistic scenario. A more closely integrated world with strong enough connections to drastically disincentivize international aggression and no singular power as the driving force sounds wonderful to me. I thought the EU was an excellent if hesitant and imperfect step towards that world, and I think Obama initially attempted to move the world in that direction. Recent events have obviously shaken my faith in that institution's future status and present ideology, but I hope very deeply that it recovers and strengthens.
When I think of the foreseeable future, I can't imagine a world without a single hegemonic power that's an improvement. I haven't heard a strong argument to suggest an improvement that seems plausible or attainable, but I might simply lack the right exposure.
And no, there is essentially no single power in the world capable of directly asserting force against the US to diminish our presence. That's a key part of why our departure from that role troubles me. We will create a massive vacuum, and many somebodies will try to fill it. The instability that suggests deeply concerns me, because while the world is full of horrors, many as the result of US actions, the alternatives present greater global risks and conflict. Specifically, combatting global warming requires stability and international cooperation, and I have no faith either of those will exist for some time in the absence of a globally dominant US.
Trump's rise, Brexit, and increasingly acceptable Islamophobic rhetoric have done a number on my faith in people as a whole. Stability is increasingly paramount in my priorities for international affairs. I'm not entirely happy about that!
And I should say, a Trump-helmed US does my argument no favors. So long as such a figure is even capable of attaining our Presidency, our role as a global hegemony is much more difficult for me to argue for.
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
The right wing of the united states is too busy writing slashficks about Putin because they've completely fallen for his naked horse riding bullshit to even think about taking a stand against him while the "left wing" (such as it is) of the government has enough sense of statesmanship to understand that adding the Ukraine to the NATO block while it is being raided by the bear is effectively a declaration of war and as such is smart enough to understand that they can hurt russia worse y isolating them both economically and politically.
Further, neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are seeking NATO membership so much as they are political/economic ties to the EU since it is a more stable and rational hegemony then the russian federation.
Also I asked for evidence, not supposition or conclusions based on hypotheticals.
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 feels like a strange "in-joke" among spooks.
You're trying to draw connections between two very different documents, which also leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the 35 page document. It doesn't cite LaRouche as a source for the information, but it does cite many other sources for the information. Your argument that two are somehow connected is based entirely on two conclusions being similar even though they're both based on entirely different data sets at entirely different times.
The connection is about as strong as the supposed /pol/ connection. The problem stems from us actually having an idea of where the information in the 35 page report comes from, and how it was handled and distributed. So far the steady barrage of questions regarding where the information came from has amounted to nothing more than gaslighting. That is, trying to marry disparate and false information to the report in order to make us question it, despite how easy it's been to see through it.
+3
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Good news everyone!
From the folks who brought you the "no talking about homosexuality" law, comes an all-new bill to advance family values in Russia.
@Anti-Climacus
Yeah I really don't understand why the LaRouche tangent even matters. You're trying to discredit information that multiple spy agencies have looked at and said "You know, this looks at least credible..."
I'm working under the assumption that the CIA, NSA, and FBI have more information and smarter political minds than mine working on the case. You seem to be looking for every excuse to make Russia look like a nation just trying to defend itself against the evil Americans. Even if that were the case, we've pointed out many despicable things that they have done that you just refuse to respond to.
You say we're Russophobic; I'm asking why you seem so willing to explain away all of the bad shit Russia has been doing for the last decade.
The closest answer I've gotten is that if I was playing a strategy board game, how would I feel if I were Russia VS the United States right now? I believe that treating billions of people's lives like you're in a board game is a remarkably cold and unfeeling way of looking at life and death decisions.
Russia is making a whole lot of people's lives worse right now because they want politics to go back to the 19th century way of doing things. Why are you okay with that?
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
The right wing of the united states is too busy writing slashficks about Putin because they've completely fallen for his naked horse riding bullshit to even think about taking a stand against him while the "left wing" (such as it is) of the government has enough sense of statesmanship to understand that adding the Ukraine to the NATO block while it is being raided by the bear is effectively a declaration of war and as such is smart enough to understand that they can hurt russia worse y isolating them both economically and politically.
Further, neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are seeking NATO membership so much as they are political/economic ties to the EU since it is a more stable and rational hegemony then the russian federation.
Also I asked for evidence, not supposition or conclusions based on hypotheticals.
I mean if you look at those states relationships with Russia can you blame them?
Russia always treated Ukraine like absolute garbage the entire Soviet era.
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
The right wing of the united states is too busy writing slashficks about Putin because they've completely fallen for his naked horse riding bullshit to even think about taking a stand against him while the "left wing" (such as it is) of the government has enough sense of statesmanship to understand that adding the Ukraine to the NATO block while it is being raided by the bear is effectively a declaration of war and as such is smart enough to understand that they can hurt russia worse y isolating them both economically and politically.
Further, neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are seeking NATO membership so much as they are political/economic ties to the EU since it is a more stable and rational hegemony then the russian federation.
Also I asked for evidence, not supposition or conclusions based on hypotheticals.
I mean if you look at those states relationships with Russia can you blame them?
Russia always treated Ukraine like absolute garbage the entire Soviet era.
Frankly, I'm amazed that it took more then 20 years for the ukraine to start pulling away from russia.
IMO, the main purpose of the Warsaw Pact was so that the next time some crazed European demagogue took a run at Russia (as was becoming a semi-regular occurrence, and getting in the way of all of the domestic/government-ordered killing, starving, oppressing, etc), it would be European puppets dying instead of decent Russians. A "crumple zone", as it were.
Like a lot of Russian policy, I must admit it makes a sort of ruthless sense. However, it left those drafted to be human shields, and their descendants, with an equally rational and understandable dislike of their former masters.
IMO, the main purpose of the Warsaw Pact was so that the next time some crazed European demagogue took a run at Russia (as was becoming a semi-regular occurrence, and getting in the way of all of the domestic/government-ordered killing, starving, oppressing, etc), it would be European puppets dying instead of decent Russians. A "crumple zone", as it were.
Like a lot of Russian policy, I must admit it makes a sort of ruthless sense. However, it left those drafted to be human shields, and their descendants, with an equally rational and understandable dislike of their former masters.
The other end of it is that Russia was effectively seeking a resurgence to their previous glory days where they were a great power, and nothing says power like having a horde of forigners under your thumb in their own nations.
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
The right wing of the united states is too busy writing slashficks about Putin because they've completely fallen for his naked horse riding bullshit to even think about taking a stand against him while the "left wing" (such as it is) of the government has enough sense of statesmanship to understand that adding the Ukraine to the NATO block while it is being raided by the bear is effectively a declaration of war and as such is smart enough to understand that they can hurt russia worse y isolating them both economically and politically.
Further, neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are seeking NATO membership so much as they are political/economic ties to the EU since it is a more stable and rational hegemony then the russian federation.
Also I asked for evidence, not supposition or conclusions based on hypotheticals.
I mean if you look at those states relationships with Russia can you blame them?
Russia always treated Ukraine like absolute garbage the entire Soviet era.
Frankly, I'm amazed that it took more then 20 years for the ukraine to start pulling away from russia.
Well it is my understanding that the post soviet era was marked by a warming of relations. Ukraine was close because the institutions were still pretty tightly interwoven. As the USSR broke up, letting the territories have their autonomy was seen as kind of a "new beginning". Ukraine was collectively saying "Well they have been bad in the past, but they are letting us go". That is a pretty strong incentive for friendly relations.
What happened that Russia started to reneg on its promises. They stopped respecting political sovereignty and started funding political parties. When Putin didn't step down and go away they saw shades of the old soviet leaders and got nervous.
IMO, the main purpose of the Warsaw Pact was so that the next time some crazed European demagogue took a run at Russia (as was becoming a semi-regular occurrence, and getting in the way of all of the domestic/government-ordered killing, starving, oppressing, etc), it would be European puppets dying instead of decent Russians. A "crumple zone", as it were.
Like a lot of Russian policy, I must admit it makes a sort of ruthless sense. However, it left those drafted to be human shields, and their descendants, with an equally rational and understandable dislike of their former masters.
Not so sure, they're much more of a crumple zone for us in NATO than they are for Russia. Russia does not have significant food production. The southerly Warsaw nations are much more economically valuable to them than they are to us. Though its not better to be leeched off of and used as a crumple zone compared to simply used as a crumple zone.
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
The right wing of the united states is too busy writing slashficks about Putin because they've completely fallen for his naked horse riding bullshit to even think about taking a stand against him while the "left wing" (such as it is) of the government has enough sense of statesmanship to understand that adding the Ukraine to the NATO block while it is being raided by the bear is effectively a declaration of war and as such is smart enough to understand that they can hurt russia worse y isolating them both economically and politically.
Further, neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are seeking NATO membership so much as they are political/economic ties to the EU since it is a more stable and rational hegemony then the russian federation.
Also I asked for evidence, not supposition or conclusions based on hypotheticals.
I mean if you look at those states relationships with Russia can you blame them?
Russia always treated Ukraine like absolute garbage the entire Soviet era.
Frankly, I'm amazed that it took more then 20 years for the ukraine to start pulling away from russia.
Well, more than half of them identify as Ethnic Russians so the feelings on that are a bit divided.
A west side, East side divide as a matter, with the West side still favoring Russian centric politics.
NATO also used to have the paradoxical effect that nation could spend less on defense then they used to. With the most powerful alliance in the world at their back Eastern European nations could cut back defense expenditures. An economic motive that a lot of cash strapped nations eagerly wanted.
That it also increased their chances of joining the EU with its vast free market and economic opportunities.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
The right wing of the united states is too busy writing slashficks about Putin because they've completely fallen for his naked horse riding bullshit to even think about taking a stand against him while the "left wing" (such as it is) of the government has enough sense of statesmanship to understand that adding the Ukraine to the NATO block while it is being raided by the bear is effectively a declaration of war and as such is smart enough to understand that they can hurt russia worse y isolating them both economically and politically.
Further, neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are seeking NATO membership so much as they are political/economic ties to the EU since it is a more stable and rational hegemony then the russian federation.
Also I asked for evidence, not supposition or conclusions based on hypotheticals.
I mean if you look at those states relationships with Russia can you blame them?
Russia always treated Ukraine like absolute garbage the entire Soviet era.
Frankly, I'm amazed that it took more then 20 years for the ukraine to start pulling away from russia.
Well, more than half of them identify as Ethnic Russians so the feelings on that are a bit divided.
A west side, East side divide as a matter, with the West side still favoring Russian centric politics.
I've got good news for them: Theres a country where they can be as russian as they please.
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
The right wing of the united states is too busy writing slashficks about Putin because they've completely fallen for his naked horse riding bullshit to even think about taking a stand against him while the "left wing" (such as it is) of the government has enough sense of statesmanship to understand that adding the Ukraine to the NATO block while it is being raided by the bear is effectively a declaration of war and as such is smart enough to understand that they can hurt russia worse y isolating them both economically and politically.
Further, neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are seeking NATO membership so much as they are political/economic ties to the EU since it is a more stable and rational hegemony then the russian federation.
Also I asked for evidence, not supposition or conclusions based on hypotheticals.
I mean if you look at those states relationships with Russia can you blame them?
Russia always treated Ukraine like absolute garbage the entire Soviet era.
Frankly, I'm amazed that it took more then 20 years for the ukraine to start pulling away from russia.
Well, more than half of them identify as Ethnic Russians so the feelings on that are a bit divided.
A west side, East side divide as a matter, with the West side still favoring Russian centric politics.
I've got good news for them: Theres a country where they can be as russian as they please.
Why bother? Just call Uber Russia and they'll come to you.
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.
Well, I would first offer an important caveat to what has already been discussed: the U.S. alone is not the world hegemon. NATO is. The networked alliance of countries that guarantees any war started on a NATO member will be a multi-front war, and almost certainly unwinnable.
So long as you have a structure like NATO, it will be extraordinarily difficult for another Hitler to come along and attempt to play countries off of each other to annex territory. Everyone knows that they can't win a war against the U.S., and so did Nazi Germany, but that didn't matter so long as (so the thinking went) they could knock out France & Eastern Europe quickly enough that Britain would walk away (which would also presumably cause America to reconsider it's entry into the war).
I would say that this kind of structure is always likely to emerge in the world because someone, intentionally or not, is always going to have more de facto power in the world than everyone else as a single actor. So, anyone who wants leverage over that single actor will have to go find friends... which may prompt the powerful state to also go find friends, and oh look I think we can see where this is going.
Personally I would prefer for a more intentional global government structure (one that could more reasonably distribute the world's wealth, for starters), but there are a lot of complicating factors when trying to govern on such a massive scale & I don't think we're quite at the point yet in terms of transportation / automation / communication where such an apparatus is even feasible (and then you'd have to actually try and convince states to relinquish their autonomy and join up, which would be quite the challenge).
The treaties were materially different because they were individual, because they were often contradictory, and because they were not perfectly known.
You can see this effect playing total war of all things. If you make defensive treaties with everyone friendly you come across eventually friend A and friend B will be enemies. Some conflict there means that you're now involved... But which side? You get involved and suddenly another ally is involved and that triggers another defensive treaty.
NATO then isn't so much a web as a grid. The treaty is between everyone at the same time. You always know when additional nations are involved because you're involved explicitly in them entering. You know that splits can't happen because everyone has the same defensive treaty.
Wasn't the spiderweb of alliances and defense treaties the reason why WW1 got so big in the first place?
This is a fair point, however:
- As was already said, the nature of all of the existing alliances was poorly understood by most parties.
- It was something of a slow burn initially, which encouraged escalation & doubling down. Rather than two uniform sides declaring hostilities, a spiral of aggression developed as one nation felt threatened and essentially ran off to go grab their friends.
- There was something of a perception of a power vacuum, and each of the old aristocratic powers felt they might be able to fill it. The scale of world politics was poorly understood, which meant each of the Great War's participants felt they had equal chances (or better) at winning more territory.
This is the reason that Woodrow Wilson felt that his League of Nations concept could have prevented the outbreak of hostilities in hindsight; isolated partnerships could encourage aggression rather than cooperation, but the specter of an overwhelming alliance of industrialized countries would (in theory) deter traditional upstart land grabs.
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 feels like a strange "in-joke" among spooks.
You're trying to draw connections between two very different documents, which also leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the 35 page document. It doesn't cite LaRouche as a source for the information, but it does cite many other sources for the information. Your argument that two are somehow connected is based entirely on two conclusions being similar even though they're both based on entirely different data sets at entirely different times.
The connection is about as strong as the supposed /pol/ connection. The problem stems from us actually having an idea of where the information in the 35 page report comes from, and how it was handled and distributed. So far the steady barrage of questions regarding where the information came from has amounted to nothing more than gaslighting. That is, trying to marry disparate and false information to the report in order to make us question it, despite how easy it's been to see through it.
When did I say it cited LaRouche as a source? My English is not perfect but I feel I have been accused constantly here of making arguments I never made, and when I look over my text I am perplexed at the interpretations. The plain text I linked to described Russia seeing LaRouche as a propaganda asset.
I am saying, it just looks weird for this "fringe" character to show up in similar circumstances, albeit having "switched sides" if that is the right term? The "Trump is a Russian asset" theory originated in a LaRouche publication -- 30 years ago. The latest manifestation of that theory now also claims LaRouche is a Russian asset. That just looks very....strange.
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 feels like a strange "in-joke" among spooks.
You're trying to draw connections between two very different documents, which also leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the 35 page document. It doesn't cite LaRouche as a source for the information, but it does cite many other sources for the information. Your argument that two are somehow connected is based entirely on two conclusions being similar even though they're both based on entirely different data sets at entirely different times.
The connection is about as strong as the supposed /pol/ connection. The problem stems from us actually having an idea of where the information in the 35 page report comes from, and how it was handled and distributed. So far the steady barrage of questions regarding where the information came from has amounted to nothing more than gaslighting. That is, trying to marry disparate and false information to the report in order to make us question it, despite how easy it's been to see through it.
When did I say it cited LaRouche as a source? My English is not perfect but I feel I have been accused constantly here of making arguments I never made, and when I look over my text I am perplexed at the interpretations. The plain text I linked to described Russia seeing LaRouche as a propaganda asset.
I am saying, it just looks weird for this "fringe" character to show up in similar circumstances, albeit having "switched sides" if that is the right term? The "Trump is a Russian asset" theory originated in a LaRouche publication -- 30 years ago. The latest manifestation of that theory now also claims LaRouche is a Russian asset. That just looks very....strange.
I have no prior knowledge of LaRouche but this doesn't sound overly strange to me? There are two obvious possible explanations;
LaRouche flipped at some point. Thirty years is a long time, and it's entirely plausible that an entity which several decades wasn't Russian affiliated may be so today.
LaRouche was always Russian affiliated, and part of their objective was to help sow mis- and/or disinformation.
LaRouche was always known for his out there conspiracy theories. Him making the claim that the Russians wanted Trump to run for President would be completely consistent with that. Even back then Trump was known as a complete joke, a egomaniac caricature of a western capitalist that nobody took seriously.
LaRouche as a Russian asset is also completely consistent if you take into account Lenin's talk about Useful Idiots. He is so out there that you could feed him the wildest theories and he will run with it. Spreading them far and wide to an eager audience that will lap it up.
However this also makes him an asset when it comes to discrediting the real accusation that Trump is in bed with Russia. After all the idea that the president has been compromised by Russian Intelligence sounds like something Lyndon LaRouche would come up with and Hey, he did mention it 30 years ago so that means it can't be true.
It kind of falls apart when you consider that Trump is actually POETUS and that the CIA says his election was helped by Russian Hacking. It only means that we have to re-examine theories that used to be fringe in light of new events and evidence.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Russia is making a whole lot of people's lives worse right now because they want politics to go back to the 19th century way of doing things. Why are you okay with that?
People keep bringing up the 19th century, which regarding war in Europe was vastly less catastrophic than the 20th century. After Waterloo, there was stability for decades through the Congress of Europe. The rest of the century only saw one general war in Europe, that being the Crimean War (interesting how the same places re-emerge as geopolitical flashpoints). That was a major war, but nothing close to the general wars of the 20th century. There were plenty of smaller wars, but plenty of small and medium sized wars happened globally through the 20th century as well. Warfare within Europe in the 19th century was not as likely to involve deliberate slaughter of civilians as all great powers committed during the 20th century. Important violence occurred such as the US genocide across North America ("Manifest Destiny"), sometimes similarly genocidal European colonialism against Africa, Russian expansion across Siberia, British colonial wars against India and China, but these were considered outside the ordinary geopolitical system of the time. (And defenders of US hegemony would anyway seem to be inheritors of the British hegemony, so it would seem they would support the Opium Wars and British colonialization of Africa and India as having been necessary to build hegemony.) So I am confused what people mean by this "return to the 19th century" -- unless you mean to imply Europe will directly recolonize Africa (do people imagine that is what Putin is seeking?), the 19th century as a model seems a less violent one than the 20th and 21st centuries by far.
Russia is making a whole lot of people's lives worse right now because they want politics to go back to the 19th century way of doing things. Why are you okay with that?
People keep bringing up the 19th century, which regarding war in Europe was vastly less catastrophic than the 20th century. After Waterloo, there was stability for decades through the Congress of Europe. The rest of the century only saw one general war in Europe, that being the Crimean War (interesting how the same places re-emerge as geopolitical flashpoints). That was a major war, but nothing close to the general wars of the 20th century. There were plenty of smaller wars, but plenty of small and medium sized wars happened globally through the 20th century as well. Warfare within Europe in the 19th century was not as likely to involve deliberate slaughter of civilians as all great powers committed during the 20th century. Important violence occurred such as the US genocide across North America ("Manifest Destiny"), sometimes similarly genocidal European colonialism against Africa, Russian expansion across Siberia, British colonial wars against India and china, but these were considered outside the ordinary geopolitical system of the time. (And defenders of US hegemony would anyway seem to be inheritors of the British hegemony, so it would seem they would like the Opium Wars and British colonialization of Africa as necessary to build hegemony.) So I am confused what people mean by this "return to the 19th century" -- unless you mean to imply Europe will directly recolonize Africa (do people imagine that is what Putin is seeking?), the 19th century as a model seems a less violent one than the 20th and 21st centuries by far, if we are hoping for a generally more peaceful world going forward.
Because wars are the only thing that exist?
White people enslaving black people, women with no rights, prejudice against Jews basically standardized, rampant colonialism...
Wait, what the fuck is "considered outside the ordinary geopolitical system at the time?" I'm sure that the Congo would not appreciate a return to the 19th century way of doing things, and the fact that they were "outside the ordinary geopolitical system" doesn't help all the people killed, raped, and exploited.
You don't get to define the argument like that. "Oh what would be so bad, going back to the 1800s, fewer people died in wars than in the century with two world-spanning conflicts!" Well, then, is that the only measure of progress how many people die in wars? Is equity, access to health care, social justice, and the inception of Australian pop-rock sensation INXS worth nothing?
Of course they were less violent. People were still fighting with horses and muskets, we hadn't yet invented the automatic rifle or, you know, flying death drones. Or intercontinental ballistic missiles. Or nuclear weapons. Or submarines which can take out an entire navy by themselves. Or hellfire rockets.
I mean, I could go on. War is more violent now because we have weapons capable of killing massively more amounts of people in a shorter amount of time.
I should also note that World War I was basically 100% a result of "The 19th century way of doing things." All of the convoluted treaties, relationships, and alliances held by leaders in the 19th century collapsed under their own weight, bringing the continent to possibly the most gruesome conflict in human history. WWI is what happens when the 19th century is allowed to its natural conclusion.
If Russia wants to go back to that, we're all fucked, because nobody survives a World War I collapse when both sides have nukes.
Posts
LaRouche is a racist idiot, so it is natural for a country encouraging racist idiots throughout the West to like him.
@Anti-Climacus
I'd appreciate an answer to this.
What does which mean?
Re: LaRouche and appeal as an asset
He is a figure who at least once represented a party that is essentially the polar opposite of the Green's. (Jill Stein)
He isn't super relevant, I only know of him from my conspiracy theory tourism, but I suspect that is the allure. Propaganda flies well with conspiracy theorists, especially about the Clintons They'd have their own wing in a CT library.
Jill speaks to the anti-vaxxing, 9-11 truthing lefties, and LaRouche to a weird melange of neo-nazis/ultra-right/libertarians who wouldn't listen to Jill. Trump just seems to believe anything that the National Enquirer prints, and is far more generally accepted and visible than the other two.
If you want to seed a negative story about the Clintons, those would be receptive points of contact with distinct audiences. But LaRouche is so far on the fringe, I wouldn't waste my time.
I don't read that publication, no. Not ever, probably. Or Leo Strauss. But thanks for trying to diagnose my malady.
by "true democracy" i mean to distinguish from sham democracies that feature nominal parliaments and elected positions where frequently elected officials have no real opposition, enormous state control over selection of candidates, frequent 98.7% reelections of glorious leaders, thoroughly corrupt government institutions and unstable or violent transfers of power.
Your point about the functional oligarchy of the US is cute, but it doesn't undermine the distinction I'm making.
NNID: Hakkekage
The right-wing in the US openly wants Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US is not presently building bases (unsure if my English was imprecise enough that it seemed I implied that), but if Ukraine and Georgia joined NATO it would mean US military deployment in those countries, certainly. That was my point: if hawks in the US openly propose a policy of expanding US hegemony to the point US forces will be massed along several Russia's borders essentially surrounding the main area of its territory, is it unusual for Russia to feel nervous about that or to take steps to counter that, especially given Russia's history in which it has been repeatedly invaded?
Uh, them being in NATO doesn't mean we will be massing troops there.
NATO is an international organization last I checked.
Yeah, we're in NATO (Croatia) and I'm not aware of any US troops stationed there, or any new military bases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/09/04/that-time-ukraine-tried-to-join-nato-and-nato-said-no/
A NATO Ukraine was certainly a reason to feel nervous, but an isolated Ukraine unwilling to revisit USSR dominance had an equal reason (now demonstrated) for concern.
Yeah... By doing that they did, they ensured that every single one of their neighbors would be extremely wary of them for at least the next 20 years.
Others have answered your question better than I could, but I wanted to clarify that I don't view the current situation as ideal, or the only realistic scenario. A more closely integrated world with strong enough connections to drastically disincentivize international aggression and no singular power as the driving force sounds wonderful to me. I thought the EU was an excellent if hesitant and imperfect step towards that world, and I think Obama initially attempted to move the world in that direction. Recent events have obviously shaken my faith in that institution's future status and present ideology, but I hope very deeply that it recovers and strengthens.
When I think of the foreseeable future, I can't imagine a world without a single hegemonic power that's an improvement. I haven't heard a strong argument to suggest an improvement that seems plausible or attainable, but I might simply lack the right exposure.
And no, there is essentially no single power in the world capable of directly asserting force against the US to diminish our presence. That's a key part of why our departure from that role troubles me. We will create a massive vacuum, and many somebodies will try to fill it. The instability that suggests deeply concerns me, because while the world is full of horrors, many as the result of US actions, the alternatives present greater global risks and conflict. Specifically, combatting global warming requires stability and international cooperation, and I have no faith either of those will exist for some time in the absence of a globally dominant US.
Trump's rise, Brexit, and increasingly acceptable Islamophobic rhetoric have done a number on my faith in people as a whole. Stability is increasingly paramount in my priorities for international affairs. I'm not entirely happy about that!
And I should say, a Trump-helmed US does my argument no favors. So long as such a figure is even capable of attaining our Presidency, our role as a global hegemony is much more difficult for me to argue for.
The right wing of the united states is too busy writing slashficks about Putin because they've completely fallen for his naked horse riding bullshit to even think about taking a stand against him while the "left wing" (such as it is) of the government has enough sense of statesmanship to understand that adding the Ukraine to the NATO block while it is being raided by the bear is effectively a declaration of war and as such is smart enough to understand that they can hurt russia worse y isolating them both economically and politically.
Further, neither Georgia nor the Ukraine are seeking NATO membership so much as they are political/economic ties to the EU since it is a more stable and rational hegemony then the russian federation.
Also I asked for evidence, not supposition or conclusions based on hypotheticals.
You're trying to draw connections between two very different documents, which also leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the 35 page document. It doesn't cite LaRouche as a source for the information, but it does cite many other sources for the information. Your argument that two are somehow connected is based entirely on two conclusions being similar even though they're both based on entirely different data sets at entirely different times.
The connection is about as strong as the supposed /pol/ connection. The problem stems from us actually having an idea of where the information in the 35 page report comes from, and how it was handled and distributed. So far the steady barrage of questions regarding where the information came from has amounted to nothing more than gaslighting. That is, trying to marry disparate and false information to the report in order to make us question it, despite how easy it's been to see through it.
From the folks who brought you the "no talking about homosexuality" law, comes an all-new bill to advance family values in Russia.
http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-decriminalizing-domestic-violence/28226375.html
Specifically it would decriminalize domestic violence, making it a misdemeanor rather than a "criminal offense".
But of course they're just looking to protect the children from those awful predatory homosexuals.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yeah I really don't understand why the LaRouche tangent even matters. You're trying to discredit information that multiple spy agencies have looked at and said "You know, this looks at least credible..."
I'm working under the assumption that the CIA, NSA, and FBI have more information and smarter political minds than mine working on the case. You seem to be looking for every excuse to make Russia look like a nation just trying to defend itself against the evil Americans. Even if that were the case, we've pointed out many despicable things that they have done that you just refuse to respond to.
You say we're Russophobic; I'm asking why you seem so willing to explain away all of the bad shit Russia has been doing for the last decade.
The closest answer I've gotten is that if I was playing a strategy board game, how would I feel if I were Russia VS the United States right now? I believe that treating billions of people's lives like you're in a board game is a remarkably cold and unfeeling way of looking at life and death decisions.
Russia is making a whole lot of people's lives worse right now because they want politics to go back to the 19th century way of doing things. Why are you okay with that?
I suppose you think it preferable for these poor family members to be dragged out in the snow before being beaten?
Real nice, knitdan.
Seriously though, this is terrible, but I'd kind of like to know more about why normal battery was decriminalized? Why is there a pro-battery lobby?
I mean if you look at those states relationships with Russia can you blame them?
Russia always treated Ukraine like absolute garbage the entire Soviet era.
Frankly, I'm amazed that it took more then 20 years for the ukraine to start pulling away from russia.
Like a lot of Russian policy, I must admit it makes a sort of ruthless sense. However, it left those drafted to be human shields, and their descendants, with an equally rational and understandable dislike of their former masters.
The other end of it is that Russia was effectively seeking a resurgence to their previous glory days where they were a great power, and nothing says power like having a horde of forigners under your thumb in their own nations.
Well it is my understanding that the post soviet era was marked by a warming of relations. Ukraine was close because the institutions were still pretty tightly interwoven. As the USSR broke up, letting the territories have their autonomy was seen as kind of a "new beginning". Ukraine was collectively saying "Well they have been bad in the past, but they are letting us go". That is a pretty strong incentive for friendly relations.
What happened that Russia started to reneg on its promises. They stopped respecting political sovereignty and started funding political parties. When Putin didn't step down and go away they saw shades of the old soviet leaders and got nervous.
Turns out they were right to be.
Not so sure, they're much more of a crumple zone for us in NATO than they are for Russia. Russia does not have significant food production. The southerly Warsaw nations are much more economically valuable to them than they are to us. Though its not better to be leeched off of and used as a crumple zone compared to simply used as a crumple zone.
Well, more than half of them identify as Ethnic Russians so the feelings on that are a bit divided.
A west side, East side divide as a matter, with the West side still favoring Russian centric politics.
That it also increased their chances of joining the EU with its vast free market and economic opportunities.
I've got good news for them: Theres a country where they can be as russian as they please.
Why bother? Just call Uber Russia and they'll come to you.
Because a lot of people like battery. It's a fairly popular hobby.
Well, I would first offer an important caveat to what has already been discussed: the U.S. alone is not the world hegemon. NATO is. The networked alliance of countries that guarantees any war started on a NATO member will be a multi-front war, and almost certainly unwinnable.
So long as you have a structure like NATO, it will be extraordinarily difficult for another Hitler to come along and attempt to play countries off of each other to annex territory. Everyone knows that they can't win a war against the U.S., and so did Nazi Germany, but that didn't matter so long as (so the thinking went) they could knock out France & Eastern Europe quickly enough that Britain would walk away (which would also presumably cause America to reconsider it's entry into the war).
I would say that this kind of structure is always likely to emerge in the world because someone, intentionally or not, is always going to have more de facto power in the world than everyone else as a single actor. So, anyone who wants leverage over that single actor will have to go find friends... which may prompt the powerful state to also go find friends, and oh look I think we can see where this is going.
Personally I would prefer for a more intentional global government structure (one that could more reasonably distribute the world's wealth, for starters), but there are a lot of complicating factors when trying to govern on such a massive scale & I don't think we're quite at the point yet in terms of transportation / automation / communication where such an apparatus is even feasible (and then you'd have to actually try and convince states to relinquish their autonomy and join up, which would be quite the challenge).
You can see this effect playing total war of all things. If you make defensive treaties with everyone friendly you come across eventually friend A and friend B will be enemies. Some conflict there means that you're now involved... But which side? You get involved and suddenly another ally is involved and that triggers another defensive treaty.
NATO then isn't so much a web as a grid. The treaty is between everyone at the same time. You always know when additional nations are involved because you're involved explicitly in them entering. You know that splits can't happen because everyone has the same defensive treaty.
The secrecy of the alliances were the main trouble, from what I recall; causing them to function more like booby traps than deterrents.
If NATO and the Warsaw Pact alliances were secret organizations*, we may all be dead now.
*(And our nukes**, I suppose)
**(The spectre of MAD certainly isn't the worst thing to happen to world peace.)
This is a fair point, however:
- As was already said, the nature of all of the existing alliances was poorly understood by most parties.
- It was something of a slow burn initially, which encouraged escalation & doubling down. Rather than two uniform sides declaring hostilities, a spiral of aggression developed as one nation felt threatened and essentially ran off to go grab their friends.
- There was something of a perception of a power vacuum, and each of the old aristocratic powers felt they might be able to fill it. The scale of world politics was poorly understood, which meant each of the Great War's participants felt they had equal chances (or better) at winning more territory.
This is the reason that Woodrow Wilson felt that his League of Nations concept could have prevented the outbreak of hostilities in hindsight; isolated partnerships could encourage aggression rather than cooperation, but the specter of an overwhelming alliance of industrialized countries would (in theory) deter traditional upstart land grabs.
This is conventional wisdom. I think the better scholarship is that Germany wanted the war and took advantage of an opportunity.
When did I say it cited LaRouche as a source? My English is not perfect but I feel I have been accused constantly here of making arguments I never made, and when I look over my text I am perplexed at the interpretations. The plain text I linked to described Russia seeing LaRouche as a propaganda asset.
I am saying, it just looks weird for this "fringe" character to show up in similar circumstances, albeit having "switched sides" if that is the right term? The "Trump is a Russian asset" theory originated in a LaRouche publication -- 30 years ago. The latest manifestation of that theory now also claims LaRouche is a Russian asset. That just looks very....strange.
I have no prior knowledge of LaRouche but this doesn't sound overly strange to me? There are two obvious possible explanations;
LaRouche as a Russian asset is also completely consistent if you take into account Lenin's talk about Useful Idiots. He is so out there that you could feed him the wildest theories and he will run with it. Spreading them far and wide to an eager audience that will lap it up.
However this also makes him an asset when it comes to discrediting the real accusation that Trump is in bed with Russia. After all the idea that the president has been compromised by Russian Intelligence sounds like something Lyndon LaRouche would come up with and Hey, he did mention it 30 years ago so that means it can't be true.
It kind of falls apart when you consider that Trump is actually POETUS and that the CIA says his election was helped by Russian Hacking. It only means that we have to re-examine theories that used to be fringe in light of new events and evidence.
People keep bringing up the 19th century, which regarding war in Europe was vastly less catastrophic than the 20th century. After Waterloo, there was stability for decades through the Congress of Europe. The rest of the century only saw one general war in Europe, that being the Crimean War (interesting how the same places re-emerge as geopolitical flashpoints). That was a major war, but nothing close to the general wars of the 20th century. There were plenty of smaller wars, but plenty of small and medium sized wars happened globally through the 20th century as well. Warfare within Europe in the 19th century was not as likely to involve deliberate slaughter of civilians as all great powers committed during the 20th century. Important violence occurred such as the US genocide across North America ("Manifest Destiny"), sometimes similarly genocidal European colonialism against Africa, Russian expansion across Siberia, British colonial wars against India and China, but these were considered outside the ordinary geopolitical system of the time. (And defenders of US hegemony would anyway seem to be inheritors of the British hegemony, so it would seem they would support the Opium Wars and British colonialization of Africa and India as having been necessary to build hegemony.) So I am confused what people mean by this "return to the 19th century" -- unless you mean to imply Europe will directly recolonize Africa (do people imagine that is what Putin is seeking?), the 19th century as a model seems a less violent one than the 20th and 21st centuries by far.
Because wars are the only thing that exist?
White people enslaving black people, women with no rights, prejudice against Jews basically standardized, rampant colonialism...
Wait, what the fuck is "considered outside the ordinary geopolitical system at the time?" I'm sure that the Congo would not appreciate a return to the 19th century way of doing things, and the fact that they were "outside the ordinary geopolitical system" doesn't help all the people killed, raped, and exploited.
You don't get to define the argument like that. "Oh what would be so bad, going back to the 1800s, fewer people died in wars than in the century with two world-spanning conflicts!" Well, then, is that the only measure of progress how many people die in wars? Is equity, access to health care, social justice, and the inception of Australian pop-rock sensation INXS worth nothing?
I mean, I could go on. War is more violent now because we have weapons capable of killing massively more amounts of people in a shorter amount of time.
If Russia wants to go back to that, we're all fucked, because nobody survives a World War I collapse when both sides have nukes.