Hope you don't mind if I answer this in a retweet, because this is a great question and a perfect start to a thread.
Why would Tucker Carlson, or others, argue the U.S. should side with Russia over Ukraine? Must be because he's a traitor, an asset, right?
Wrong. It's INR 101.
Why would Tucker Carlson, or others, argue the U.S. should side with Russia over Ukraine? Must be because he's a traitor, an asset, right?
Wrong. It's INR 101.
There is no issue in which the conventional wisdom of policy-makers in D.C. displays such as wide disconnect from academia than foreign policy/security/international relations.
China, not Russia, is the greatest threat to the security of the United States.
Continued...
China, not Russia, is the greatest threat to the security of the United States.
Continued...
China, not Russia, is the only other great power nation-state that has the military, economic and latent power to challenge the balance of power, which as of now, is defined by U.S. hegemony.
There are strategies states used to change or maintain it. peoplespunditdaily.com/policy/2017/04…
There are strategies states used to change or maintain it. peoplespunditdaily.com/policy/2017/04…
The two main strategies are balancing and buck-passing.
Balancing is when states make a serious commitment to deter and contain a rival, by force if necessary. With buck-passing, states will attempt to get another great power to shoulder the costly burden.
Balancing is when states make a serious commitment to deter and contain a rival, by force if necessary. With buck-passing, states will attempt to get another great power to shoulder the costly burden.
Tucker is arguing Ukraine and others are buck-passing at our expense, and they are, and the risk is too high.
That risk is pushing Russia into balancing with the Chinese against us, a balancing coalition we cannot offset.
Also, very true.
A smart realist would...
That risk is pushing Russia into balancing with the Chinese against us, a balancing coalition we cannot offset.
Also, very true.
A smart realist would...
A smart realist, and a smart foreign policy-maker in the U.S. would NOT side with Ukraine against Russia. They would stay neutral and join Russia to balance against the Chinese, which again, are the real threat.
Here's INR101, or the prequel to the INR201 I posted before. Sure some read it already and it's redundant. But if you read them back-to-back, it'll give you a much better understanding than what I can explain on Twitter. peoplespunditdaily.com/policy/2017/04…
But the bottom line: By all acceptable measures of power, Russia is a rather weak great power.
China, not Russia, has the ability to project power outside of their regional hegemony. Their latent power potential is unlike anything either Russia or the U.S. can muster or imagine.
China, not Russia, has the ability to project power outside of their regional hegemony. Their latent power potential is unlike anything either Russia or the U.S. can muster or imagine.
The D.C. Foreign Policy Establishment is made up of two main schools, both being internationalists, and one minor school.
The first (neocons) believes in the primacy of U.S. power and "Myths of Empire" and the other in a Kumbaya fairy tale that is the democratic peace theory.
The first (neocons) believes in the primacy of U.S. power and "Myths of Empire" and the other in a Kumbaya fairy tale that is the democratic peace theory.
One last comment on that segment with Tucker Carlson. Richard Goodstein said Russia was a greater threat because China wasn't as "offended" by democracy like Russia.
That is one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard on cable news. Spoken like someone who doesn't know China.
That is one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard on cable news. Spoken like someone who doesn't know China.
China "is" offended by the U.S. and it's ideals, including self-governance.
Zhōngguó, which means "China" in English, translates into the "Middle Kingdom," or more loosely, they view themselves as center of the world. Communism thrived B/C it is more consistent with Taoism.
Zhōngguó, which means "China" in English, translates into the "Middle Kingdom," or more loosely, they view themselves as center of the world. Communism thrived B/C it is more consistent with Taoism.
There is no such multi-millennia-old belief system in the history of Russia, which would magically engrain an "offense" to democracy in their DNA.
That remark was total nonsense.
They speak the pragmatic language of power, that's it.
That remark was total nonsense.
They speak the pragmatic language of power, that's it.
Thanks for the inspiration --> China, Not Russia, Is the Real Threat to the United States
