Tomasz + 1,608 April 19, 2021 (edited) Biden has to play tough in front of the stupid people so that no one would call him an old man stepping down to Putin. On the other hand, the facts are that the advancing Russian-Chinese alliance is a geopolitical catastrophe for America. America is losing right now - a new global hegemony is emerging in Eurasia, and this is the end of American hegemony in the world. This is not only my opinion - I will just quote open letter from Politico. It is worth getting acquainted with it, since it was signed by 103 top-level American experts at least for the time of publication. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/05/open-letter-russia-policy-391434 Quote It’s Time to Rethink Our Russia Policy America’s current mix of sanctions and diplomacy isn’t working. An open letter on how to reconsider our approach to Putin—and whoever comes next. 08/05/2020 11:00 AM ED The following open letter was signed by 103 foreign-policy experts, whose names and affiliations appear below. U.S.-Russia relations are at a dangerous dead end that threatens the U.S. national interest. The risk of a military confrontation that could go nuclear is again real. We are drifting toward a fraught nuclear arms race, with our foreign-policy arsenal reduced mainly to reactions, sanctions, public shaming and congressional resolutions. The global Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting serious worldwide economic decline, rather than fostering cooperation, have only reinforced the current downward trajectory. Meanwhile, the great challenges to peace and our well-being that demand U.S.-Russia cooperation, including the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change, go unattended. Because the stakes are so high, both in the dangers they entail and the costs they contain, we believe that a careful, dispassionate analysis and change of our current course are imperative. We go into this open-eyed. Russia complicates, even thwarts, our actions, especially along its extended periphery in Europe and Asia. It has seized territory in Ukraine and Georgia. It challenges our role as a global leader and the world order we helped build. It interferes in our domestic politics to exacerbate divisions and tarnish our democratic reputation. At best, our relations will remain a mix of competition and cooperation. The policy challenge will be to strike the most beneficial and safest balance between the two. To this end, we offer six broad prescriptions for U.S. policy. • We must first find a way to deal effectively with Russian interference in U.S. elections and, most important, block any effort to corrupt the voting process. Hardening our electoral infrastructure, sanctioning Russians who weaponize stolen information and countering Russia’s capacity to hack our systems are all necessary measures. So is exposing Russian disinformation. We must, however, also engage Russia through negotiations out of the public glare, focused on each side’s capabilities to do great damage to the other side’s critical infrastructure. • It makes no sense for two countries with the power to destroy each other and, in 30 minutes, to end civilization as we know it to lack fully functioning diplomatic relations. In the wake of the Ukrainian crisis, key governmental contacts were severed, consulates shuttered and embassy staff drastically reduced. Too often we wrongly consider diplomatic contacts as a reward for good behavior, but they are about promoting our interests and delivering tough messages. We need them as a matter of essential security to minimize the misperceptions and miscalculations that can lead to unwanted war. Restoring normal diplomatic contacts should be a top priority for the White House and supported by the Congress. • Our strategic posture should be that which served us well during the Cold War: a balanced commitment to deterrence and détente. Thus, while maintaining our defense, we should also engage Russia in a serious and sustained strategic dialogue that addresses the deeper sources of mistrust and hostility and at the same time focuses on the large and urgent security challenges facing both countries: ◦ The imperative to restore U.S.-Russian leadership in managing a nuclear world made more dangerous by destabilizing technologies, shifting attitudes toward the use of nuclear weapons, discarded nuclear agreements and new tension-filled nuclear relationships. That means extending the New START Treaty and swiftly moving to a next phase of arms control to strengthen nuclear stability, carefully adjusted to a world of multiple nuclear actors. ◦ The imperative to make safer and more stable the military standoff that cuts across Europe’s most unstable regions, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, working vigorously to preserve existing constraints, such as the Open Skies Treaty—now under challenge—and the Vienna Document 2011, and creating new confidence-building measures. • The success of U.S.-China policy will in no small measure depend on whether the state of U.S.-Russia relations permits three-way cooperation on critical issues. Our current policies reinforce Russia’s readiness to align with the least constructive aspects of China’s U.S. policy. Moving the needle in the opposite direction will not be easy, but should be our objective. • On salient issues where U.S. and Russian interests are in genuine conflict, such as Ukraine and Syria, the U.S. should remain firm on principles shared with our allies and critical to a fair outcome. More attention, however, should be paid to the cumulative effect that measured and phased steps forward can have on the overall relationship, and in turn the opportunity an improving relationship creates for further steps forward. • While sanctions should be a part of our Russia policy, they should be judiciously targeted and used in conjunction with other elements of national power, especially diplomacy. The steady accumulation of congressionally mandated sanctions as punishment for Russian actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the poisoning in Salisbury, violations of the INF treaty and election meddling reduces any incentive Moscow might have to change course since it considers those sanctions permanent. We need to restore flexibility to our sanctions regime, focusing on targeted sanctions that can be eased quickly in exchange for Russian steps that advance negotiations toward acceptable resolutions of outstanding conflicts, including a demonstrable Russian effort to cease interference in our electoral process. Doing so will require political will on the part of both the White House and the Congress. Ultimately, the reality is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, operates within a strategic framework deeply rooted in nationalist traditions that resonate with elites and the public alike. An eventual successor, even one more democratically inclined, will likely operate within this same framework. Premising U.S. policy on the assumption that we can and must change that framework is misguided. Likewise, we would be unwise to think that we have no choice but to stick with current policy. We must deal with Russia as it is, not as we wish it to be, fully utilizing our strengths but open to diplomacy. So focused, we can both cope with the challenge that Russia poses and strive to put the relationship on a more constructive path. Failure to do so carries too high a price. Rose Gottemoeller Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, 2014-2016 Thomas Graham Senior Director for Russia, National Security Council staff, 2004-07 Fiona Hill Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs, National Security Council staff, 2017-19 Jon Huntsman Jr. Ambassador to Russia, 2017-19 Robert Legvold Columbia University Thomas R. Pickering Ambassador to Russia, 1993-96 *** George P. Shultz Secretary of State, 1982-89 William Perry Secretary of Defense, 1994-97 Ernest J. Moniz Secretary of Energy, 2013-17 Nuclear Threat Initiative Sam Nunn United States Senator, 1972-97 Nuclear Threat Initiative Gary Hart United States Senator, 1975-87 John Hamre Deputy Secretary of Defense, 1997-2000 John McLaughlin Deputy Director and Acting Director, CIA, 2000-04 The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies James F. Collins Ambassador to Russia, 1998-2001 John Beyrle Ambassador to Russia, 2008-12 Meghan O’Sullivan Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, National Security Council staff, 2005-07 Harvard Kennedy School Richard Burt Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada, 1983-85 Global Zero Thomas Countryman Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, 2011-17 J. Stapleton Roy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, 1999-2000 Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, Wilson Center Joseph S. Nye Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, 1994-95 Harvard University Graham Allison Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plans, 1993-94 Harvard Kennedy School Gen. (ret.) Charles Boyd Deputy Commander-in-Chief, U.S. European Command, 1992-95 Center for the National Interest George Beebe Former Director of Russia Analysis, CIA Mark R. Beissinger Princeton University Richard K. Betts Columbia University Coit D. Blacker Senior Director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs, National Security Council, 1995-96 Stanford University Barry Blechman Stimson Center Ian Bremmer Eurasia Group George Breslauer University of California at Berkeley Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Governor of California, 1975-1983, 2011-2019 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Larry Caldwell Occidental College Samuel Charap Senior Advisor to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, 2011-12 Peter Clement Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs Timothy Colton Harvard University Keith Darden American University Jill Dougherty Georgetown University Daniel Drezner The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Gloria Duffy Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, 1993-95 Susan Elliott National Committee on American Foreign Policy Robert David English University of Southern California Brian Finlay Stimson Center Rosemarie C. Forsythe Director for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs, National Security Council staff, 1993-95 Nancy W. Gallagher University of Maryland James Goldgeier American University Thane Gustafson Georgetown University Sheila Gwaltney U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Siegfried S. Hecker Stanford University Martin E. Hellman Stanford University Richard E. Hoagland Caspian Policy Center David J. Holloway Stanford University Arnold Horelick The RAND Corporation Edward Ifft Deputy Director of the On-Site Inspection Agency, 1991-98 Stanford University Robert Jervis Columbia University Jan H. Kalicki Woodrow Wilson Center Michael Kimmage Catholic University of America Michael Krepon Stimson Center George Krol U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Charles Kupchan Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, 2014-17 Georgetown University Cliff Kupchan Eurasia Group Melvyn P. Leffler University of Virginia William Luers U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Allen C. Lynch University of Virginia Eileen Malloy U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Steven Mann U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Jessica Mathews Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Richard H. Matzke Former Board Member (Chevron, PetroChina, and Lukoil) John J. Mearsheimer University of Chicago Mark Medish Senior Director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs, National Security Council staff, 2000-01 Rajan Menon City College of New York/City University of New York Richard Miles U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Chris Miller The Fletcher School Matthew H. Murray Columbia University Allan Mustard U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Larry C. Napper Texas A&M University Michael Oppenheimer New York University Bruce Parrott The John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Peter Pettibone Pettibone International ADR LLC Steven Pifer Senior Director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, National Security Council staff, 1996-97 Stanford University Paul R. Pillar Georgetown University Barry R. Posen MIT William Potter Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey Jon Purnell U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Brad Roberts Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Defense Policy, 2009-13 Cynthia Roberts Hunter College, City University of New York Matthew Rojansky The Kennan Institute Joan Rohlfing Nuclear Threat Initiative Lynn Rusten Senior Director for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, National Security Council staff, 2012-14 Nuclear Threat Initiative Scott Sagan Stanford University Jeffrey Shafer National Committee on American Foreign Policy Dimitri Simes Center for the National Interest Christopher Smart Senior Director for International Economics, Trade & Investment, National Security Council staff, 2013-15 Jack Snyder Columbia University J. Andrew Spindler Financial Services Volunteer Corps Adam N. Stulberg Georgia Institute of Technology Ronald Suny University of Michigan Daniel Treisman UCLA Anna Vassilieva Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey Stephen M. Walt Harvard University Jon Wolfsthal Senior Director for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, National Security Council staff, 2014-17 Global Zero Kenneth Yalowitz U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Stephen M. Young U.S. Ambassador (ret.) Donald Zagoria National Committee on American Foreign Policy Edited April 19, 2021 by Tomasz 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tomasz + 1,608 April 19, 2021 (edited) Continuation Quote Why We Still Need to Rethink Russia Policy: A Rebuttal Our critics accuse us of advocating a ‘reset.’ That’s not the case. By ROSE GOTTEMOELLER, THOMAS GRAHAM, FIONA HILL, JON HUNTSMAN JR., ROBERT LEGVOLD and THOMAS PICKERING 09/25/2020 12:00 PM Our purpose in releasing our Open Letter last month (“It’s Time to Rethink Our Russia Policy”) was to spark a constructive debate over U.S. policy toward Russia, a foreign-policy priority that has not received the sustained, serious attention it merits. We are therefore gratified that our American, European and Ukrainian colleagues have separately provided critiques and suggestions for action. In reply, we want to clarify our position, correct misrepresentations and rebut some specific objections. We also challenge our colleagues to join with us in expanding this debate to the broader U.S. foreign policy community and American public, whose engagement is critical to develop and sustain an effective Russia policy, one that benefits from vital allied supportOne hundred and three ex-officials, academics, businesspeople and experts signed our original letter, and others have added their names since then. The comment that follows, however, reflects only the views of its authors. We hope that our co-signers can agree with the broad thrust of our argument, but we have not involved them in drafting this response.] Our critics have mischaracterized the Open Letter as an appeal for a “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations. As we wrote earlier, we are clear-eyed about the nature of the current Russian regime and the challenge Russia poses to the U.S. national interest. Developments in Belarus and the poisoning of Alexey Navalny are only the most recent reminders. We are not seeking a broadly cooperative relationship, as four post-Cold War American presidents from George H.W. Bush through Barack Obama did. Rather, we proceed from the assumption that the two countries are at this point deeply divided by worldview, geopolitical interests and values. But we also believe that we must use all of our tools to conduct this competition responsibly. In a world in which nuclear weapons still exist, advanced technologies, including cyber and artificial intelligence, promise great benefit while carrying immense peril, and climate change poses an existential threat, it is in the U.S. national interest to manage our rivalry with Russia in ways that diminish the risk of catastrophic conflict. We likewise believe that we should leave open a window for cooperation on transnational threats and other matters of mutual concern. Thus, while we do not minimize the challenge that Russian behavior poses, we consider the stakes the United States has in a more constructive relationship to be of critical importance. We must avoid the risk of inadvertent nuclear war, achieve the responsible use of both space and cyberspace, enhance European security by diminishing the chance of military conflict, manage China’s rise, and take steps to address the destabilizing effects of climate change. If we limit our attention to the Russia challenge, then we will obscure or overlook these other stakes and deny ourselves the chance to improve U.S. national security by making progress on them. It of course takes two to build a constructive relationship. A comprehensive strategic dialogue will be neither feasible nor productive unless the Russian side is prepared to engage with equal earnestness. While we believe that extending New START is essential to further efforts to manage today’s complex, dangerous and many-sided nuclear environment, progress depends on Russian readiness to reconcile our disparate approaches to the new problems in the next phase of nuclear arms control. Rendering military activities safer along the NATO-Russian front in Europe also requires corresponding Russian effort. None of what we urge requires or implies sacrificing our fundamental principles or core national interests, or our commitments to our allies and partners. Nor does it require or imply our engaging in a one-sided, solo effort. Here diplomatic relations are indispensable. The episodic contact we have had with Moscow on discrete issues such as Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria, or Ukraine is not sufficient. We need regular senior-level engagement on the entire agenda of U.S.-Russian relations to help ensure we send a consistent message to Russian leaders about our overarching goals and purpose. In today’s environment, we would use that engagement to send tough messages, including clear articulations of our expectations and red lines. We should expect the same from the Russians. This, then, will be a dialogue not between partners but between rivals. Agreements and settlements that emerge would for the most part be aimed at reducing the dangers of competition, not building comity. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/25/russia-open-letters-rebuttal-421546 Edited April 19, 2021 by Tomasz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tomasz + 1,608 April 19, 2021 The goal of American policy should be that the alliance of the c greatest rival to American hegemony and another player from the top of the world does not deepen further, and over the last 30 years the USA has done almost everything to make it happen. The attempt to draw Ukraine into NATO was the proverbial nail in the coffin. I would like to remind all haters of Russia that sooner or later you will have to talk to Russia. And if, as before, China catches up with you very quickly, sooner rather than later, and then the USA will be forced to pay not only with Ukraine, but the whole of Central Europe, will come back under the foot of Russia, otherwise the USA will inevitably lose the rivalry with China. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0R0 + 6,251 April 19, 2021 On 4/18/2021 at 9:20 AM, Roch said: Press Secretary PSAKI defends Joe's show of weakness when dealing with Putin ARTICLE: White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Friday dodged questions on whether President Joe Biden was projecting ''weakness'' by inviting Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to a summer summit in Europe without setting conditions. Biden on Thursday called for a de-escalation in tensions with Russia after hitting Moscow with fresh sanctions for the alleged SolarWinds hack and Russian meddling in the 2020 presidential election and proposed a meeting with Putin this summer. The report came after Biden blinked on his initial decision to send warships to the Black Sea over Russian aggression in Ukraine. Biden was ''clear that there would be consequences for the actions, whether it was the hacking of SolarWinds or other problematic behavior by Russian leadership,'' Psaki told a reporter who asked specifically why Biden would announce a summit intention without a commitment. ''And the president offered that … to send the message that we will have disagreement, we’re not going to hold back on that. But our objective is to have a predictable and stable relationship,'' she added. The reporter pressed Psaki, saying if Putin had rejected the summit offer, ''wouldn’t that indicated some weakness on the part of the American administration here?'' ''I think the president’s view is that Russia is on the outside of the global community in many respects at this point in time,'' Psaki replied. ''It’s the G7, not the G8 … We’ve put sanctions in place in order to send a clear message that there should be consequences for the actions. The Europeans have also done that. What the president is offering is a bridge back. And so certainly he believes it’s in their interest to take him up on that offer.'' Biden told reporters he wanted to meet with Putin in person ''to address a range of issues facing both of our countries. Our teams are discussing that possibility right now. ''And out of that summit — were it to occur and I believe it will — the United States and Russia could launch a strategic stability dialogue to pursue cooperation in arms control and security. We can address critical global challenges that require Russia and the United States to work together, including reining in nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, ending this pandemic globally and meeting the existential crisis of climate change.'' The Kremlin on Wednesday said a summit between Putin and Biden would be contingent on U.S. behavior after reportedly telling Washington to scrap a plan to impose new sanctions on Russia. "Of course, further work on this proposal to meet in a European country will only be possible taking into account an analysis of the actual situation and further steps from our counterparts," Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the RIA news agency, according to Reuters. Former Defense Sec Gates, ". . . he (Biden) has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades." Not clear that Germany is onboard with the "G7" against Russia. IT is their strategic history to cut deals with Russia to divvy up the slavic countries between them and trade energy vs. capital goods with each other. So the bottom line is that there is a G6 vs. China Russia and a loosely associated Germany. Russia is still promoting its year round Ice breaker Northern pass for China to N. Europe trade to work in parallel to the Suez and Cape passages. I think it would be interesting to see Kamala prop up the Biden puppet and holographic projector outside of a studio, while Obama comes in to work Biden's mouth and substitute for Biden's cognitive functions. What comes to mind is the Biden tumble down the AF1 stairs Meme. He would never make it out of the country. I would expect Putin would make a down right cringe moment for the Biden Junta if they set up a "summit" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0R0 + 6,251 April 19, 2021 14 hours ago, Tomasz said: Continuation https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/25/russia-open-letters-rebuttal-421546 The Biden admin is not trying to attack Russia, it is trying to force Russia to stay joined at the hip with China rather than independent. It is imperative to remember that the US establishment in general and Biden in particular are not interested in benefiting the US in any way, but to benefit China, where they make their money. The "Great Reset" tyrants are trying to delete Russian and the US in whatever way possible, and to merge with CCP China, which they have created and developed. I should add that the China of the future is a sinkhole for capital and will disappoint the Great Reset people greatly. In the reduced global population they envision where they and 500 million Chinese slaves are all there is, will not provide them with what they desire if they succeed with their deranged global genocide. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,315 RG April 19, 2021 10 minutes ago, 0R0 said: Not clear that Germany is onboard with the "G7" against Russia. IT is their strategic history to cut deals with Russia to divvy up the slavic countries between them and trade energy vs. capital goods with each other. So the bottom line is that there is a G6 vs. China Russia and a loosely associated Germany. Russia is still promoting its year round Ice breaker Northern pass for China to N. Europe trade to work in parallel to the Suez and Cape passages. I think it would be interesting to see Kamala prop up the Biden puppet and holographic projector outside of a studio, while Obama comes in to work Biden's mouth and substitute for Biden's cognitive functions. What comes to mind is the Biden tumble down the AF1 stairs Meme. He would never make it out of the country. I would expect Putin would make a down right cringe moment for the Biden Junta if they set up a "summit" Germany does have a stained past and they don’t mind expressing self interest. I don’t think they love the Ukrainians. From WWI to WWII they didn’t learn much. The key sign will be a military build. They don’t have much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0R0 + 6,251 April 19, 2021 51 minutes ago, Boat said: Germany does have a stained past and they don’t mind expressing self interest. I don’t think they love the Ukrainians. From WWI to WWII they didn’t learn much. The key sign will be a military build. They don’t have much. Ukraine was part of Hitler's Lebensraum for depopulation and resettlement by new families of the Hitler Youth. The Ukrainians were supposed to be the slave labor for the Germans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roch + 537 DR April 19, 2021 19 hours ago, Tomasz said: This is not only my opinion - I will just quote open letter from Politico. It is worth getting acquainted with it, since it was signed by 103 top-level American experts at least for the time of publication. I could find 103 "experts" to attest to the opposite. Most in the U.S. are tired of the "experts". Many in the U.S. are skeptical of the so called "experts". The U.S. was founded by independent thinkers that acted on principle. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roch + 537 DR April 19, 2021 (edited) On 4/15/2021 at 5:04 PM, Boat said: If this isn’t a Russian sponsored site it sure has many Putin loving fans. So slow Joe just cut off a chunk of Russia’s ability to borrow. That shouldn’t hurt much as GDP per person is barely poverty level anyways. It’s not like the population can be hurt much. As the world slowly goes electric it seems Putin is relying on oil sales in 20 years? Seems in politics and economics your Putin can’t see the big picture. Putin’s best buds got their nuke plant attacked and no mention. Just like with Trump y’all know how to self censor. Will gas make it to Germany while massing troops on the edge of Europe? Is this another brilliant move by Putin? So much more but we’re young and have time. Russian loving. Where do you see that ? You stand correct. If you read the posts most on this sight have no confidence Joe. He is an international embarrassment. Joe is weak. That doesn't translate into loving Russia. China loves Joe. Russia loves Joe. The delinquent NATO moochers that want U.S. to pay for their defense love Joe. The German auto manufacturers love Joe. Everyone that hates America , love Joe. Edited April 19, 2021 by Roch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,540 April 19, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Roch said: I could find 103 "experts" to attest to the opposite. Most in the U.S. are tired of the "experts". Many in the U.S. are skeptical of the so called "experts". The U.S. was founded by independent thinkers that acted on principle. What you are speaking to is the very foundation of MAGA, Trump the man and his past life were of his own making, Trump the man who stepped up to break the world order and the state of American politics is another matter. If indeed he does run i will be there this time with money and more..."NotSoNice" does ring a bell. It is a very ill thing to vilify the younger generation's frankly it anger's me..Taking the keys away from the children needs to be happen before they truly hurt themselves. Edited April 19, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surrept33 + 609 st April 19, 2021 42 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said: What you are speaking to is the very foundation of MAGA, Trump the man and his past life were of his own making, Trump the man who stepped up to break the world order and the state of American politics is another matter. If indeed he does run i will be there this time with money and more..."NotSoNice" does ring a bell. It is a very ill thing to vilify the younger generation's frankly it anger's me..Taking the keys away from the children needs to be happen before they truly hurt themselves. Trump's war on experts was just plain old populism. The thing is, many things that a broad executive needs to do don't exactly work like NY/NJ real estate. There, transactionalism and cryonism is much more explicit. A better plan for the Republicans: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-modest-proposal-for-republicans Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roch + 537 DR April 19, 2021 42 minutes ago, surrept33 said: Trump's war on experts was just plain old populism. The thing is, many things that a broad executive needs to do don't exactly work like NY/NJ real estate. There, transactionalism and cryonism is much more explicit. A better plan for the Republicans: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-modest-proposal-for-republicans Do you wake up in the middle of the night from nightmares of Trump running again ? Who practices cronyism more than the Democrat elites that want to tell you what to think . . . Nobody. Give the hate a rest. Get a vaccine and take a vacation. You need to clear your head. Bring back the Constitution. Preserve U.S. Freedoms. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dukeNukem + 80 YT April 20, 2021 On 4/19/2021 at 4:13 AM, Tomasz said: Biden has to play tough in front of the stupid people so that no one would call him an old man stepping down to Putin. On the other hand, the facts are that the advancing Russian-Chinese alliance is a geopolitical catastrophe for America. America is losing right now - a new global hegemony is emerging in Eurasia, and this is the end of American hegemony in the world. This is not only my opinion - I will just quote open letter from Politico. It is worth getting acquainted with it, since it was signed by 103 top-level American experts at least for the time of publication. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/05/open-letter-russia-policy-391434 I was never understanding American concept of confrontation with Russia and China simultaneously...Moreover, I don't see any significant conflict of interest between Russia and US... According to Realpolitik principles, it should be more logical for US to make good relation with Russia against China (as US did with China against USSR in 1960's-1980's) 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members