Posted on 02/07/2022 4:05:41 AM PST by Kaslin
The only bet more speculative than assessing personal motives might be a bet on conventional wisdom — issues like national security policy. Just to game the system for a moment, let's look at possible personal political motives vis-à-vis the current Ukraine kerfuffle. The big dogs in this cage match are Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. in one corner and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in the other.
For Biden, Ukraine is a kind of desperate, or no-lose, gambit. If Moscow does little or nothing with those massed troops, then Biden can strut and claim that he bluffed the bear, and the beast caved. Like Afghanistan, if Russia backs off, White House courtiers will gloat and claim a win. If the Kremlin does strike Ukraine, even with a trespass short of an all-out invasion, Biden can say, "I told you so" and play the prophet. Either way, Biden doesn't risk much. The burdens of risk are borne by Ukraine and maybe Georgia. And surely anything done in the name of "defense" takes place in shade thrown by a pending 2022 American congressional election with game-changing potential.
Consider, too, that Uncle Sam has already savaged the national sovereignty myth in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, just to name a few recent foreign policy fiascos.
In game Ukraine, the Kremlin is surely driven by different stimuli. Clearly, Putin sees Biden as an easy mark, maybe an unpopular Delaware dilettante whose sole achievements in forty years are attendance, tenure, and Amtrak subsidies. Putin reads, too, knows that Biden has a good chance of becoming lame duck in a matter of months. Russia may not be trying to restore empire, but surely Putin knows a buffering opportunity when he sees one. The Biden era is prime time to draw a line in the East European sand.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Is the US too rich to get foreign policy right?
$30 Trillion in debt and Biden in office. I think the answer is a resounding NO.
In reference to the current administration - TOO STUPID is a more accurate answer.
For Biden, Ukraine is a kind of desperate, or no-lose, gambit.
What is a "desperate, or no-lose gambit"? At first I thought the author was saying that Joe really needed to get this one right and could not afford to lose in Ukraine. But then the author lists that Joe is fine if Putin -- 1) Does nothing, 2) Backs down, and 3) Invades. According to the author, Joe seems to win no matter what. So: Joe cannot lose. He's sitting pretty, right?
But then the author says that Putin sees Biden as an easy mark and that Putin knows this is the best time for Russia to make it's move. So ... I guess ... Putin is going to also win. Right?
And I think I completely missed the part where the the US loses because we are too rich.
Neocon media: believe that Kabul “won’t fall” and the withdrawal from Afghanistan wasn’t like Saigon.
Also Neocon media: don’t believe the Ukrainian president who says Biden is hyping war.
Neocon media: Russian troops within Russia’s borders is provocative.
Also Neocon media:: U.S. troops near Russia is peaceful.
Too rich? We are $30 TRILLION in debt, we essentially have no money...
Their job is supposedly to understand all of this, understand the countries and cultures they deal with, and its clear they do not. As the author notes, they pick and chose their morality and none of it is consistent or makes sense. For example, criticizing Hungary, a free country with citizens who enjoy civil rights is rewarded, but criticize, lets say, Saudi Arabia, and you are demoted or shown the door.
If the idiots in the Ukraine would stop pouring money into Hunter and “the Big Guy’s” pockets, they wouldn’t be “too rich.”
Neoconservatives are conservative.
On a per capita basis US standards of living have been declining relatively for years. Many countries are ahead of us.
That is true, but the other part of it is the state department is irrelevant in this modern world of instant global telecommunications. They no longer serve as the principal mechanism by which governments manage their relation ships with other governments. Principal issues are negotiated at the top by the President and his personal staff and advisors.
I suppose that’s one of the author’s points. But that seems to count a lot on window dressing. There are real geopolitical concerns here — but Biden has positioned himself to look good, so nothing else matters.
Short-term, it might even be true. But short term doesn’t matter and long-term, such a superficial approach to foreign policy is a very bad idea. Three years to go.
A very good question. But really-doesn’t apply to domestic issues?
The US is broke and doesn’t know it....like a dead man walking. It’s like a kid with daddy’s credit card...
It isn’t a question of being too rich, it’s a question of being outright too stupid.
“Too rich? We are $30 TRILLION in debt, we essentially have no money...”
Exactly. The entire premise of the article is false, even though the “wealth of the US” wasn’t really central to the article. G. Murphy Donovan really pooped the bed on this one.
Given that the official national debt at the end of the Clinton administration was about one trillion, increased under Bush to ten, increased under Obama another ten, and since under the last two administrations, another ten to reach $30 trillion, this is a debt pile made over little more than twenty years.
Were this the books of a company, the mismanagement would be easy to assert and prove. It seems the arithmetic solution is easy while the political one is a Gordian knot.
In today's world the notion that 335 million Americans are supposed to shoulder the "policeman to the world" role alongside "nation building" alongside "leadership" is a joke.
The world comprises almost 8 billion people, and the US is less than five percent of that total. All the boogeymen in the current game are about keeping the US in its assigned roles to beggar the nation while others feed further.
Case in point: this current Russia tale is about a nation of 165 million challenging a smaller nation -- Ukraine -- with its 45 million. To the west of the Ukraine is the European Union with its 450 million people. Numerically, between the Ukraine and the European Union there should be enough people to deal with threats between them, without the US being first "policeman" in the events.
Case in point: a very wealthy South Korea has the US involved in its northern border at the DMZ for decades. South Korea with its 50 million faces off against North Korea with its 25 million, and needs the expense to the US treasury?
Case in point: the current estimates for the costs to the US from lockdowns and more from the pandemic reaches about 5 trillion dollars. About fifteen thousand per US resident. Seen any of the profits from that recently?
Using just demographics alone, the current thirty trillion will NEVER be repaid by next generations of Americans.
The title of the article and question, "Is the US Too Rich to Get Foreign Policy Right?" is itself just more media stuff. The underlying structural pillars which uphold America were never discussed. In actual fact, they were just assumed not to be there.
Kick the can is no solution. Blowing up more million-dollar munitions is no solution. Depriving Americans of potential early and inexpensive treatments in a pandemic is no solution. Politics is no longer a solution.
The solution will present itself. It's only a matter of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.