Well argued, and well within what I hear and see in SE Asia, where I live. Everyone here is excited about the future and most regard the US as nothing more than a spoiler. Three niggles:
1. "Many older French people, for example, will spontaneously pay compliments to the Allied countries that took part in the Normandy Landings in 1944”. Only those remote from Normandy are so grateful. The US killed more French civilians as we 'stormed ashore' in 1945 than the Nazis killed during the entire war. And we were storming ashore against an enemy already pre-defeated by Russia.
2. "the exaggerated respect given to the late Col Gaddafi of Libya when he spoke" may have stemmed from the fact that he ran the best, most progressive country on the continent.
3. "Europe, as a mostly disarmed and militarily weak continent confronts a large, disgruntled, military power”. What must especially disgruntle that large military power is the fact that Europe has been conspiring to destroy Russia since at least 2012, and is now conducting the most outrageous propaganda campaign in the history of outrageous propaganda campaigns.
The allied bombings of civilian Normans was an atrocity every bit as gratuitous any nazi atrocity, all of which were doubtless carried out under military or civilian necessity.
I didn't whitewash nazis, I simply equated their behavior with America's. If you find that surprising, look around you, see the devastated lives of billions of other-race people the US has created since its Normandy atrocity.
And, btw, we provided vastly more aid to the nazis than to the USSR. Vastly more.
In the case of the Saudis and others, they can clearly see that China’s star is still rising, and that the West’s much ballyhooed "Muh Private Property Rights And Rule Of Law(R)" are so much hot air, to be jettisoned the moment they become inconvenient.
Hmmm...another interesting piece. Someone should slip a copy under Josep Borrell's door.
I think being a right-thinking citizen of a Hegemon (or a satrap) requires a considerable element of cognitive impairment, a limited variety of crimestop if you like - the inability to understand that everybody doesn't, at heart, agree with you, combined with an unlimited faith that your side's solution is sure to work. The force of this is truly amazing - when we look at the EU an UK leadership insisting, as Ursula tells us that "Putins' economy is in taterrrs, tatersss I tell you" - one is reluctantly forced to believe that this silly woman actually believes this, and god help us all, because I can't see the results being anything other than a descent into the abyss.
The shock the US obviously experienced in learning that:
1) Saudi Arabia was not keen on the idea of a buyers' cartel to hold down the price of oil
2) India didn't feel like abandoning the great deal the boost in Russian hydrocarbons trade, etc provided
Is just another example in the same book.
How does this all end? A process that so obviously makes no real sense seems impossible of rational analysis, but I fear the answer is in the attempt to force the world to fit their beliefs, which cannot end well.
Even if India wanted to abandon Russian oil, fertilizers, etc., it can't. Pakistan just underwent a coup to keep that country on the American side, and the post-coup leadership is also finding out that if they don't purchase from Russia, no economically viable substitutes are forthcoming.
"This is a pattern all over the world, and has massively complicated attempts by outsiders to resolve conflicts."
Let's keep the pespective here and not forget that those very conflicts have most often been incited, inflicted, and/or enlarged by the very outsiders later being "sickened" by the behaviors of the "natives."
Well argued, and well within what I hear and see in SE Asia, where I live. Everyone here is excited about the future and most regard the US as nothing more than a spoiler. Three niggles:
1. "Many older French people, for example, will spontaneously pay compliments to the Allied countries that took part in the Normandy Landings in 1944”. Only those remote from Normandy are so grateful. The US killed more French civilians as we 'stormed ashore' in 1945 than the Nazis killed during the entire war. And we were storming ashore against an enemy already pre-defeated by Russia.
2. "the exaggerated respect given to the late Col Gaddafi of Libya when he spoke" may have stemmed from the fact that he ran the best, most progressive country on the continent.
3. "Europe, as a mostly disarmed and militarily weak continent confronts a large, disgruntled, military power”. What must especially disgruntle that large military power is the fact that Europe has been conspiring to destroy Russia since at least 2012, and is now conducting the most outrageous propaganda campaign in the history of outrageous propaganda campaigns.
The allied bombings of civilian Normans was an atrocity every bit as gratuitous any nazi atrocity, all of which were doubtless carried out under military or civilian necessity.
I didn't whitewash nazis, I simply equated their behavior with America's. If you find that surprising, look around you, see the devastated lives of billions of other-race people the US has created since its Normandy atrocity.
And, btw, we provided vastly more aid to the nazis than to the USSR. Vastly more.
The US spent the last 50 years kicking puppies, and now shocked to find some of them have grown up into biting dogs.
In the case of the Saudis and others, they can clearly see that China’s star is still rising, and that the West’s much ballyhooed "Muh Private Property Rights And Rule Of Law(R)" are so much hot air, to be jettisoned the moment they become inconvenient.
Hmmm...another interesting piece. Someone should slip a copy under Josep Borrell's door.
I think being a right-thinking citizen of a Hegemon (or a satrap) requires a considerable element of cognitive impairment, a limited variety of crimestop if you like - the inability to understand that everybody doesn't, at heart, agree with you, combined with an unlimited faith that your side's solution is sure to work. The force of this is truly amazing - when we look at the EU an UK leadership insisting, as Ursula tells us that "Putins' economy is in taterrrs, tatersss I tell you" - one is reluctantly forced to believe that this silly woman actually believes this, and god help us all, because I can't see the results being anything other than a descent into the abyss.
The shock the US obviously experienced in learning that:
1) Saudi Arabia was not keen on the idea of a buyers' cartel to hold down the price of oil
2) India didn't feel like abandoning the great deal the boost in Russian hydrocarbons trade, etc provided
Is just another example in the same book.
How does this all end? A process that so obviously makes no real sense seems impossible of rational analysis, but I fear the answer is in the attempt to force the world to fit their beliefs, which cannot end well.
Even if India wanted to abandon Russian oil, fertilizers, etc., it can't. Pakistan just underwent a coup to keep that country on the American side, and the post-coup leadership is also finding out that if they don't purchase from Russia, no economically viable substitutes are forthcoming.
IMO, US-UK officialdom's interventionist mind-set is a fire they lit under their own home.
"This is a pattern all over the world, and has massively complicated attempts by outsiders to resolve conflicts."
Let's keep the pespective here and not forget that those very conflicts have most often been incited, inflicted, and/or enlarged by the very outsiders later being "sickened" by the behaviors of the "natives."