Is it America's job to "run the world"?

[Brendan_64]

Europe in a menacing way that demands American dollars and personnel. Germany is just as capable as we are of bathing Moscow in nuclear fire.

No Germany could not. There are only two nations on Europe with nuclear capabilities, the UK and France. And between the UK and France we have about 515 nuclear warheads, Russia has about 7,000. Without the USA as an ally, Europe would be in considerable difficulty.

Would it be in the USA’s strategic intetests to have Russia in control of all of Europe?

 

[straykat]

We don’t need it, but we did once (Cold War). And now the world’s been confused as to what to do since the Cold War is over.

There was a conservative scholar who wrote a premature, but short lived book titled “The End of History and the Last Man” (Francis Fukuyama), that set forth the role the US played in a post Cold War environment…and how this was the “end of history” and other competing ideologies had died (chiefly communism).

Then 9/11 happened.

We could say that Islam was the “other” defeater of Communism in it’s own way. So now the two big competing victors over communism are going to duke it out.

 

[Vonsalza]

No Germany could not.

You’re late.

And between the UK and France we have about 515 nuclear warheads, Russia has about 7,000.

To level downtown Moscow, you need 1.

Would it be in the USA’s strategic intetests to have Russia in control of all of Europe?

I guess Russia successfully invaded France without a nuclear exchange?

What makes you think Russia wants to annex all of Europe? 70 year old history written by dead men?

 

[Vonsalza]

We don’t need it, but we did once (Cold War). And now the world’s been confused as to what to do since the Cold War is over.

Sure. It’s a well-established quip in history classes - nothing froze political borders more than nuclear weapons.

Then 9/11 happened.

And there’s your foe.

You can’t kill individual fanaticism with large set-piece armies.

We could say that Islam was the “other” defeater of Communism in it’s own way.

Eh. “Communism” (if that’s what you really want to call 1980s Russian Government) was killed by Reagan and the Shah of Iran crashing oil prices when Russia needed them the most in a heavy recession.

I don’t care what kind of government you run. If you can’t pay your bills, it’ll crash.

 

[straykat]

That goes way beyond the 1980s. It was a battle of the two big ideologies that came out of modernism and 17/18th century thought. I would say there was a third… Nationalism… but that died in WW2 (while feudalism finally kicked the bucket in WW1).

edit: Bah. I mean 18/19th century.

 

[Vonsalza]

That goes way beyond the 1980s.

In its terminus, it doesn’t. Russia was broke - suffering from a recession. They leaned on fuel exports as a stop-gap and Reagan and the Shah took that crutch. That was the proverbial straw.

We want to make it out to some large, biblical struggle finally coming to an end because Righteousness Prevails. But the truth is a lot more mundane.

Besides, “communism” in 1980s Russia was nothing like the communism Lenin and Marx were trying to establish. Their post-modern thought replaced the dead god with the state. Western capitalism does it with money and calls it “superior”.

*shakes head

1980s Russia simply wasn’t that much different from the increasingly oligarchial corporate America.

 

[straykat]

I don’t want to make it out that way. I’m saying this was the flaw of Fukuyama’s book… and all Neoconservatives.

911 blindsided them. The world isn’t as predictable as they thought.

There’s something to be said about those ideologies coming to the forefront, but that isn’t the end of the story.

 

[ltwin]

What makes you think Russia wants to annex all of Europe? 70 year old history written by dead men?

Not necessarily annex, but it definitely wants to restore Eastern Europe as its sphere of influence and return Russia to a Soviet level of power. Look what is happening to the Ukraine. The Baltic states are particularly in danger, and all three are NATO nations. They chose to side with the West, and we’ve committed to protect and defend them.

We’ve seen this show before. Only, the main actor wasn’t Putin but Hitler, and many in Europe made the mistake of appeasing him when they should have shown strength early on. A lot of death and misery might have been prevented.

 

[JimG]

Obviously it’s Putin’s job to run the world.

 

[Pup7]

We don’t have a “massive military presence” in England. Good heavens - we haven’t had that since the early 1990s. We don’t have a permanent (as permanent as, say, it has been in Germany) US combatant presence in France (we have some troops under the NATO umbrella, but not an air base). We have troops under NATO in Belgium, the Netherlands, Hungary, and Poland (Poland’s no fool - they are elated we’re there - my troops who have been there say the Poles are amazing and treated them like royalty; they didn’t quite know how to take it!).

Do you not understand how stabilizing the continued presence of the US in Germany - in Europe - is, and how Russia views us as a silent sentinel - or better yet, as a lion ready to pounce at the slightest provocation? Pull out of Ramstein, deconstruct what’s left of my USAFE and our EUCOM and the whole construct falls apart.

Putin is not our friend. He isn’t really anyone’s and he doesn’t care to be.

We have bare bones present in Europe. Go look at 30 years ago and compare it to now.

 

[Brendan_64]

What makes you think Russia wants to annex all of Europe? 70 year old history written by dead men?

That’s not 70 year old “dead man’s” history, the fall of the Berlin wall, followed by the freedom of Eastern European nations is less than 30 years ago.

 

[straykat]

Russia wants/needs control over the Black Sea. They couldn’t care less about the rest of Europe. They’re not the Soviets.

 

[PickyPicky]

Russia has “cared” about Poland for more than 500 years — Russia’s national interest in extending its influence and control in Eastern Europe long precedes the Soviet Union.

Russia’s interests in the Baltic republics and in Ukraine are evident. In the Ukraine these ambitions have been played out in front of us.

 

[straykat]

That’s still imperialistic Czarist Russia too. I still think that’s different than now.

Look where they’re really active though. The Middle East/Turkey/Syria area. Ukraine is more an extension of this than it is looking towards the West. If anything, they sound pretty sick of the West and just want to ward it off… especially with the Orthodox resurgence. In all of their rhetoric they just talk about how decadent the West is and they don’t want to be influenced by it. They also talk about this being a mistake after the fall of the USSR and being too influenced by the West.

edit: I also think Poland might agree with them on some of this. They’re also experiencing Christian resurgence and pushing away the EU. I suppose it’s more Catholic than Orthodox though.

 

[PickyPicky]

Part of Russia’s historic wish to exert influence and control over its western neighbours has always been a defensive reaction to the powers of Western and Central Europe, especially Germany, of course, and the wish for a buffer zone. It is the natural result of being invaded from both east and west throughout history.

That certainly means we should try to assuage those fears by trying to bring Russia into the comity of nations. It does not mean we should ignore the threat to the sovereignty of Russia’s neighbours.

 

[straykat]

Well, honestly, if it’s just defensive reaction, then I can’t blame them. The West is horrible. If they don’t repent, then I don’t really see Muslims taking it all over as a bad thing. We can either learn the easy way… or the hard way. But think we’re going to run free without learning at all is a delusion.

 

[PickyPicky]

The fact that it is prompted in part by the awareness of a history of assault does not make it right or stop it being profoundly dangerous. It just means we need to find ways of assuaging any insecurity Russia may have without letting her corrupt and attack and overwhelm economically, militarily or by propaganda and destabilisation, the countries around her. They have rights, too.

 

[PickyPicky]

Unfortunately history does not support the notion that Christianity inoculates a nation from belligerence.

 

[straykat]

I’m not sure who is more belligerent though? The EU is bad too, especially relating to East Europe. Russia was merely ahead of the game, in pointing out how bad their influence was.

And notice how it’s strongly Christian countries… who’ve already experience the folly of the Left… that are getting attacked.

 

[PickyPicky]

I disagree. The EU and NATO have both perhaps been a little clumsy in welcoming the nations of Eastern Europe into the democratic world — more should have been done to try to keep Russia onside. But the EU has an excellent record — at considerable economic cost to its Western members — at bringing dictatorships, both Fascist and Communist, and the enforced neutrals like Finland and Austria, into freedom.