US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

[Crafty_Dog]

High quality piece there BBG.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20384/global-order-nuclear-iran

[Crafty_Dog]

February 13, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Putin’s Perspective on the Russia-Ukraine War
By: George Friedman
Russian President Vladimir Putin did something unprecedented last week: He held a two-hour press conference directed at the American public. It was not exactly a press conference, in the sense that Tucker Carlson, a talk show host perceived as sympathetic toward Russia, was the only reporter present. But neither was it, strictly speaking, an interview, as for most of the program, Putin held forth without the benefit of questions. In a sense, this made it more valuable because it allowed Putin to set out his views in an interesting and important way that might not have been possible had Carlson asked questions that were focused on an American perspective.

Instead, we got a genuine Russian perspective on the war in Ukraine, and Putin appeared to be a reasonable and thoughtful man. He made some very dubious claims, but every leader makes dubious claims while appearing statesmanlike, and Putin’s behavior drove home to an American audience that his position is not without some merit. He also made clear that he is a Russian patriot working for Russian interests, and it is in this spirit that we should take his claims. He did not want to appear like Stalin. He also seemed enormously knowledgeable, far beyond most politicians, though he did have the advantage of knowing what was to be said as well as a translator who always stood between him and his audience. But I believe this was Putin, helped by prepackaged questions, providing a sense of his broad knowledge. If this worked, then he showed that Russia was ruled by a sophisticated thinker. However, given the interview’s length and complexity, the American public may have given up early and not listened to the complete interview.

Still, the historical context, the targeting of an American audience, and the extraordinarily detailed description of Russia and Russian history seem to be setting the stage for negotiations. In defense of Russia’s attack, Putin charged the U.S. and NATO with dishonesty and duplicity in facing Russia, which was simply pursuing its historical imperative. This was no ordinary program, nor was it self-indulgent rambling; Putin’s emphasis on the failure of negotiations in Turkey early in the war makes this clear.

Putin’s central presentation concerned Russian history. He explained how Russia was formed many centuries ago and contrasted this with Eastern Europe’s formation. In this way he argued that Ukraine had always been part of Russia, physically and linguistically. Unstated but implicit in his argument, Ukraine is Russia, and the invasion of Ukraine simply represents the Russian world’s return to an older reality. This is why, according to Putin, Russia’s actions in Ukraine constitute a special military operation and not an act of war. He also spoke of Poland, hinting that Poland and Lithuania are renegades whose roots are inseparable from Russia. The discussion of Russian history was lengthy, but it was not merely academic. Putin’s argument was that history binds a place to its surroundings and its inhabitants and, in this case, gives Russia the right to make claims on foreign territory. I admired the way he slipped in his claims to the region in a way that might be dismissed or overlooked. He did, however, lay the foundation for Russian claims in Poland.

Some of what Putin said was confusing. For example, he asserted that the current Ukrainian government and its predecessors were Nazis and therefore were an enemy of Russia. He cited two men who had become Nazi collaborators before concluding that this made Ukraine a remnant of Nazi Germany and therefore hostile to Russia and other countries that had fought Hitler. This left me confused, as there is no country that was occupied by the Germans that didn’t have collaborators, from France to the Netherlands and so on. Some may have been ideologically Nazis, but all were seeking to survive or prosper. Putin made this argument from the beginning, but if followed logically it would compel Russia to invade most of Europe as a moral obligation. Putin showed himself to be highly sophisticated, so he must understand what he is saying and depend on the world to not understand his claims or take them seriously.

In another part, while expressing his readiness to negotiate, Putin said the United States was damaging itself by using the dollar to compel foreign powers to align with its worldview. He then claimed, in his most baffling remarks, that China’s economy dwarves America’s and that its economic future is bright. It is as if he has missed China’s reality in the two years since Ukraine was attacked. He said this in the context of claiming that a new economic order is emerging, and for that to happen, China must drive it. It is interesting that Putin’s seriously deep analysis of things, even if parts are debatable, concluded with obviously wrong assertions, but he was at it for a long time and was probably tired.

One other thing that struck me was his remarks about Russia’s intercontinental hypersonic missiles. The speed and maneuverability of hypersonics make defense against an attack – in the U.S. or elsewhere – very difficult. I advocated the development of intercontinental hypersonics in my book “The Future of War.” The U.S. has not yet fielded a hypersonic missile, nor do I have any evidence that it is developing an intercontinental version. If Russia’s intercontinental hypersonic missile is as capable as Putin suggested, then that may have been the most significant thing he said.

The rest of Putin’s remarks consisted of complaints about NATO and the United States and his insistence that the uprising in Kyiv in 2014 was the real beginning of the war. He left unexplained how Russia could have ignored such a terrible threat for so long.

Putin is the president of a modern nation-state, so he must explain his policies to his people and try to influence other governments and foreign publics. The goal is not to be truthful but persuasive in order to put other governments under carefully shaped pressure. What can be said is that Russia has stepped fully into modernity with an excellent presentation of truth and myths while allowing Carlson a few rebuttals. Putin saw him as friendly but a wild card, so few cards were dealt to him.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://americanmind.org/salvo/saving-americas-future-from-the-blob/?utm_campaign=American%20Mind%20Email%20Warm%20Up&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=294382011&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8an-zpCsOHsTzWoqF-47zhDCfee3VX1AZB784bu8koIE_DCIjFi0yoFKjPZtEXA1sd6kMHNBVknhKClZL-10PFZb0yUQ&utm_content=294382011&utm_source=hs_email

===========================

https://dc.claremont.org/restoring-american-manufacturing-a-practical-guide/

[DougMacG]

From a 'related link' in the Russia-China story:

"Russia must know that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
  - NATO General Secretary, Jens Stoltenberg

https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/vladimir-putin-nuclear-war-targets-32243272

Think about that. NATO leader (from Norway) admits it. The reason nuclear war, any war, would not be fought is deterrence.  Peace through strength.  If you attack you will regret it.

Meanwhile we neglect to replenish our munitions and modernize our fleets to meet the known risks, much less being ready to face the unknown unknowns.

NATO estimates that Norway will spend 1.7% of GDP on defense in 2023.
https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/norway-defense-and-aerospace-technologies
Oops, wasn't that supposed to be 2%.

May 2, 2023 - Norway aims to raise its defence spending to at least 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2026, in line with a long-held goal among members of the NATO alliance, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere said on Tuesday.

[Doug]  I thought Putin wasn't a threat. Are they afraid of Britain, Sweden?

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fagtI6MOCUo

[Crafty_Dog]

Uncle Sam’s Guide to Peace and Prosperity
American economic and military might can underwrite a new economic and security commons.
By Kevin Warsh
March 19, 2024 1:31 pm ET
WSJ

Economic and geopolitical instability are frequent bedfellows. That’s because policy errors are contagious. Absent the creation of a new American-led economic and security framework, it’s doubtful the U.S. can sustain prosperity and achieve a durable peace.

Massive government spending, surging debt burdens and bank rescues over the past several years have alarmed America’s allies and emboldened its adversaries. The surge in inflation has added considerable weight to America’s woes. It shocked central banks, knocked the economy, and prompted foreign adversaries to challenge America’s geopolitical standing.

The U.S. government is striving to mask the country’s economic and financial troubles. In the past several months, the Treasury Department has issued more short-term bills and fewer long-term notes than expected. Its machinations have lowered 10-year Treasury yields by nearly 1 percentage point, to about 4%. The Federal Reserve has gotten into the act, too. It pledged at its year-end press conference to deliver interest-rate cuts and other policy easing in the new year.

The immediate results include a melt-up in asset prices, a loosening of financial conditions, and higher and less stable prices. Hardworking Americans aren’t fooled. They see the country going down the wrong track. And they watch adversaries plotting to take advantage. Bad actors operating in the Black, Red and South China seas are undeterred. A foreign axis of resistance is unimpressed by the American economic engine, unintimidated by U.S. military might, and unconvinced Washington will rise to the geopolitical challenge. The axis seeks to divide our allies and, worse, to sow domestic discord. U.S. deterrence is flailing. American diplomats are being asked to carry too heavy a burden.

The relationship between the U.S. and the rest of the world is more fragile than it’s been in half a century. French statesman Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929) feared that peace might be no more than the interlude between wars. If he’s right, current prosperity will serve as a fleeting interval between economic shocks.

A powerful economic and security commons, in George Shultz’s original framing, was established in 1945. After the devastation of the Great Depression and two world wars, the U.S. fortified its economy and strengthened alliances in a dangerous world. Americans benefited enormously from a surge in economic growth and heightened well-being for decades. America’s leaders made clear that empire-building wasn’t the goal. Rather it was to make the U.S. safer and stronger by supporting allies who supported us.

American peace and prosperity grew shaky in the late 1970s. Economic malaise and runaway inflation, institutional dysfunction and cultural decay, and a weakened military posture caused Americans to lose faith in their country’s prospects. U.S. allies no longer trusted us, and adversaries scarcely feared us. Failed efforts to rescue American hostages held by the mullahs in Iran was illustrative. America’s hegemony risked eclipse.

Ronald Reagan changed all that. He vanquished the Soviet Union and debilitated its proxies. His administration rebuilt an economic and security commons suited to the times. With a bolstered military, the U.S. held close to its allies and deterred its adversaries, occasionally with force. Strong, noninflationary growth and higher standards of living became the norm. The peace dividend wasn’t only prosperity. It was peace, and it lasted for two decades.

The 21st century has brought new challenges: terrorist attacks on the homeland, wars in the Middle East, a financial crisis and a global pandemic. The American economy swings between booms and busts. People have lost faith in institutions. Moral confusion clouds debates about the nation’s history. Finally, a big runup in prices has harmed the least well-off. It’s surprising that populism isn’t more popular.

America’s leaders ought to build a new economic and security commons. The U.S. should act as a sturdy point in a turbulent world. Strong, unapologetic national-security policy begins with a prosperous, sustainable economy. The U.S. must demonstrate again the superiority of its economic system. Washington’s conduct of fiscal, monetary, regulatory and trade policy needs fixing so soft power can share the burden with hard power.

Outspending the nation’s capacity is dangerous. Absent a fiscal anchor, the list of buyers retreating from America’s debt markets won’t be limited to those who wish us trouble.

Monetary policy requires a revamped framework, too. Inflation isn’t caused by workers earning too much and living too well. It’s caused by the government living too well—spending, printing and borrowing too much.

Government-directed industrial policy, as currently practiced, is akin to the command-and-control dictates of foreign regimes. Better for the private sector to out-innovate, outgrow and outsmart the competition. Regulators should take heed of U.S. comparative advantages—including in the energy sector—and better respect the separation between the private sector and the government.

China is actively courting many U.S. trading partners, promising privileged access in exchange for allegiance to Beijing. A revamped economic and security commons should be at least as clear and formidable as sanctions policy with adversaries. Put plainly, if a country acts as a trusted security partner of the U.S. and treats American businesses and citizens as it treats its own, the U.S. will act reciprocally. If, however, foreign countries disfavor U.S. interests, they won’t gain the precious benefit of American protection or ready access to U.S. technology or markets. I prefer a new paradigm to bring allies and partners into closer collaboration. Adversaries would take notice, not comfort.

Neither peace nor prosperity are self-reinforcing. The U.S. margin for error is small. Establishing a new security and economic commons may be difficult, but it’s necessary and pressing.

Mr. Warsh, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board, is a distinguished visiting fellow in economics at the Hoover Institution.

[Crafty_Dog]

I found this post by YA in the India thread very interesting and so paste it here:

=============================

I was impressed with the understanding of India by Alexander Dugin, a Russian thinker close to Putin. His understanding of things is very close to that of the Indian mind. Have not seen any other Western commentator, and definitely no American commentator with this level of accuracy. Dugin by the way says Russia should side with China!, which may be the correct response for Russia.

https://twitter.com/Agdchan/status/1781435242865123423

India Aims to Emulate Chinese Strategy

To the surprise of many, India currently boasts the fastest-growing economy in the world. In 2023, the country’s GDP grew by 8.4%. By 2027, it is projected to become the third-largest economy globally. If this trend continues, India might surpass the USA and even China in the 2030s.

India is also leading in demographics and the IT sector. The Indian diaspora now controls a significant segment of Silicon Valley, and the UK’s prime minister is Rishi Sunak, who is ethnically Indian, albeit with liberal-globalist views. Interestingly, a prominent conservative politician in the Republican Party, a staunch Trump supporter of Indian origin, Vivek Ramaswamy, represents a complete ideological antithesis to Sunak. In any case, Indians are advancing.

We are witnessing an entirely new phenomenon — the emergence of a new global centre right before our eyes. India owes these successes largely to a new turn in policy that coincided with the rise to power of the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party. Indeed, modern India was founded during decolonisation by a different party, the left-leaning and progressive Indian National Congress. Of course, the highest value for Indians after gaining independence was liberation from the impacts of colonialism, yet India remained a member of the post-colonial Commonwealth of Nations, where Britain dominated, and clung firmly to the democracy introduced by the British. Moreover, it even took pride in being ‘the largest democracy in the world’. The Congress was content that the country had achieved political independence from its former rulers but agreed to emulate the socio-political, economic, and cultural paradigm of the West.

For the first time, the Congress’s monopoly on power in India was challenged by the victory of an alternative right-conservative party — the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) — in the 1996 elections for the lower house of parliament (Lok Sabha). This party was founded based on the extremely conservative movement Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in 1980.

In 2014, Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister from this party and has held the position ever since. According to analysts, Modi has every reason to retain his post following the 2024 elections, which commence on 19 April and conclude on 1 June.

The rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Modi’s personal political charisma have fundamentally changed India. Interestingly, the official name of India under Modi was changed to its Sanskrit version — Bharat. This reflects that Modi relies on a completely different ideology than that of the Indian National Congress.

Initially, in the Indian struggle for independence from the British, there were two main approaches: one was gentle and pacifist, embodied by Mahatma Gandhi, who advocated non-violent resistance; the other was more militant and uncompromising, represented by figures such as the Indian traditionalist Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the founder of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Keshav Hedgewar, and the nationalist Vinayak Savarkar.

As the British departed from the country, they comfortably entrusted power in India to the Congress (having previously severed several territories populated by Muslims — Pakistan and Bangladesh — as well as Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Nepal), believing that this party would keep India within the Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence and lead it along the path of modernisation and Westernisation (with regional specifics), thereby maintaining some form of colonial control.

In contrast, the main opponents of the Congress had believed from the very start of the struggle for independence that India was not just a country or a former colony but the territory of a mighty and distinct civilisation. Today, we refer to this concept as a ‘civilisation-state’. This idea was first articulated by Kanaiyalal Munshi and came to be known as Akhand Bharat, ‘Undivided India’, or ‘Greater India’.

In 2022, Narendra Modi declared the main goal to be the ‘decolonisation of the Indian mind’. Before us emerges an India we hardly knew — a right conservative India, a Vedic civilisation-state, and a Greater India on the path to total sovereignty.

Certainly, a superficial observer might notice a contradiction: India is geopolitically aligning more with the United States and Israel, becoming involved in an escalating border conflict with China (hence India’s participation in several regional anti-China blocs such as the QUAD), and relations are intensifying with the Islamic world — both within India and towards Pakistan. If Indian traditionalists are concerned with the ‘decolonisation of the Indian mind’ and combating Western material civilisation, what do they have in common with the US?

To resolve this ambiguity, one might look to the history of modern China’s rise. Representatives of the American Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), especially Henry Kissinger in the late 1970s, proposed a bilateral partnership to China against the USSR, aiming to ultimately dismantle the socialist bloc. China, under Deng Xiaoping, capitalised on this and gradually transformed over forty years from an economic client of the US into a powerful independent pole, with which the US is now competing and, essentially, engaged in a trade war. The escalating issues surrounding Taiwan suggest that this confrontation might soon enter a hot phase.

Now, the same globalist forces in the West have decided to support India — this time against China. Modi, considering the Chinese experience, has adopted this strategy. But just as China used globalisation for its purposes, strengthening rather than losing its sovereignty, so too does Greater India intend to act. Initially, considering the objective realities of international politics, to strengthen its power, raise the welfare of its vast population, expand domestic market volumes, military might, and technological potential, and then, at the opportune moment, emerge as a fully independent and sovereign pole.

The globalists understand this strategy best. For instance, George Soros and his Open Society Foundations — which is banned in the Russian Federation and openly aims to combat tradition, sovereignty, and independent cultures and societies — have declared war on Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party. In doing so, Soros not only supported the opposition Congress but also actively fomented social and ethnic strife in India, specifically calling for the Dalits (a widely prevalent caste of untouchables) to rise up against Modi. This represents another version of the ‘colour revolution’ that the globalists are orchestrating.

Russia needs to recognise the fundamental changes occurring in India. This is a completely different country from the one with which we had quite close relations during the Soviet period. Yes, Indians still regard Russians with great fondness and nostalgia. This applies not only to the leftists in the Congress (where, incidentally, under the influence of Soros, voices of Russophobia are becoming increasingly loud) but also to the right-wing traditionalists. In this case, the key factor is not inertia but a clear understanding that Russia itself declares itself as a civilisation-state, is a major force in building a multipolar world, and is also currently undergoing its own kind of ‘decolonisation of consciousness’. If India has certain conflictual issues — especially in border areas — with China, another civilisation-state and another pole of the multipolar world, nothing similar exists with Russia, even in the long term.

That said, we absolutely should not be moving closer to India by sacrificing our close strategic partnership with China. On the contrary, we are vitally interested in settling relations between these two great powers because if conflict breaks out between them (as the West is indeed pushing for), the prospects for a multipolar world will be indefinitely delayed. Russia is now defending its traditional values. Thus, we should better understand all those who are standing up to defend their own.

Then the energy partnership, strategic plans for the North-South transport corridor, processes of Eurasian integration, cooperation in high technology (with India currently being one of the global leaders in IT), and the financial sector will acquire a new ideological dimension: traditionalists, interested in civilisational sovereignty and in stopping the expansion of Western hegemony, will understand each other much better.

Translated by Constantin von Hoffmeister

===================

*India as a civilization state
*China
*Globalism (George Soros and Open Society Foundations openly aim to combat tradition, sovereignty, and independent cultures and societies)
*Russia Russia itself declares itself as a civilisation-state, is a major force in building a multipolar world,

[Crafty_Dog]

Obviously, this is a pimple on an elephant's ass in the big picture of things, but it so clearly illustrates the cross civilization cultural issues described in the Russian piece that YA posted:

https://dailycaller.com/2024/04/22/biden-admin-trans-india-state/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rundown&pnespid=r_V6CiBdMvMT1_Pd_znqHc_DshCnUZgvcOjj37JspxZmJbcbehDzc1okH6Zcsd9Plv0EnXFT

[Crafty_Dog]

April 24, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

European Views on US Global Posture
Perceptions aren't consistent with reality.
By: Antonia Colibasanu

The notion that all countries operate within constraints is one of the main pillars of geopolitics. It came up repeatedly during my recent visit to the United States, where I attended several talks on European and Russian affairs. Though we at GPF try to stay out of the D.C. bubble, it’s nonetheless important for us to know what those in the bubble are saying, especially since Europe right now appears so consumed by what’s happening in Washington.

I traveled to the U.S. with a delegation of experts and policymakers from Romania. Analysts and officials from other parts of Europe, including Germany and Poland, were also in attendance. The main topics on the agenda were security and, of course, Ukraine. The event coincided with heated discussions in the U.S. Congress over aid packages for Ukraine and Israel. Though the situation in Israel is potentially hugely impactful for American politics, the conflict in Ukraine is the main focus for many policymakers in Europe. After all, the war there has shifted NATO’s containment line and transformed Eastern Europe into a literal battleground.

Considering that Kyiv is hugely dependent on military aid from Washington, European lawmakers are making concerted efforts to learn more about the constraints within which U.S. politics and politicians operate. Europeans typically have a narrow view of U.S. politics, mainly focusing on the presidency and the administration, which they perceive as ultimately responsible for maintaining the United States’ global leadership role and, by extension, the Western security structure.

That’s because the Europeans tend to believe the U.S. political system mirrors those in Europe, where foreign policies are forged by governments and primarily driven by urgent security threats to their borders. The Europeans thus get either nervous or excited every time another U.S. presidential election comes around, believing that a change in the presidency could alter how Washington interacts with the world. In doing so, they misjudge the way U.S. politics works, believing falsely that the presidency overrides every other institution in the United States, especially when it comes to strategy and foreign policy.

In fact, the U.S. president isn’t as powerful as many assume – and that’s by design. The nation's founders didn’t want to assign too much authority to one person in the political hierarchy. They instead built a system of checks and balances, splitting power among three branches of government: the legislative (Congress), the executive (the president) and the judiciary (the courts). This division of powers guarantees that no branch can overpower the others. Congress enacts legislation, which the president can veto, which Congress can in turn override with two-thirds majorities in both houses. Congress also controls the federal budget, and thus can limit funding for the president’s agenda. The president is commander-in-chief of the military but cannot declare war; that power belongs to Congress. The president also appoints federal judges and other officials, but the Senate must confirm the appointments. The courts, meanwhile, interpret laws and can strike down legislation that they rule unconstitutional. All this means that a president’s powers are limited by the legislative and judicial branches of government – even if his party holds a majority in Congress.

The president thus has a limited ability to wield power over U.S. foreign policy. Moreover, the United States’ global posture isn’t a product of its politics or policymaking to begin with. America's evolution as the leader of the Western world was largely driven by economic interests and the idea that global markets, mobility and interconnectivity would bring profit to U.S. businesses and drive economic growth and development. The role of the private sector – sometimes in coordination with the government – is central to the country’s global standing. Though interactions between companies and politicians are complex, one of the ways in which businesses influence foreign policy is by lobbying representatives in Congress to pursue policies that meet their interests abroad. This pressure resulted in legislation that made it possible for administrations to implement strategies that, over time, turned the U.S. into an economic leader and superpower. This role enabled the government to maintain domestic stability and pursue growth.

Still, the United States’ approach on Ukraine is often perceived in Europe as a reflection of the administration’s global priorities. During my visit to Washington, Congress was discussing a new Ukraine aid package, which was finally passed on Saturday. Many of the Europeans present at the talks tied the matter to America's leadership role in the world. To many Americans, however, aid for Ukraine is treated more as a matter of domestic politics than foreign affairs. Recent polls indicate Americans are equally split between thinking the U.S. is doing too much for Ukraine and wanting the U.S. to do more.

Another topic of discussion was the security situation around the Black Sea. In 2022, a bill was introduced in Congress that would authorize the National Security Council to direct an interagency strategy to increase coordination with NATO and the European Union, deepen economic ties, and strengthen the security and democratic resilience of partners in the Black Sea region in accordance with U.S. values and interests. The bill was passed in 2023 and has become of increasing interest to the business community in both the U.S. and the Black Sea region.

Western businesses increasingly see opportunities here, especially with the Ukraine war and sanctions on Russia disrupting more traditional routes through which they conduct trade around the world. The Danube has become an alternate trade route linking the so-called Middle Corridor (which connects Southeast Asia to Europe through Central Asia and Turkey instead of Russia) to Germany’s North Sea coast. New rail and road projects linking Romania’s port of Constanta to Gdansk in Poland also have been discussed to help integrate European markets and build a strong containment line in Eastern Europe.

The future of these and other infrastructure projects will depend on how states and businesses address the fallout of the war, its duration and the strategies of both Russia and Ukraine for rebuilding after its conclusion. Any investment plans in Ukraine will need to take into account Russia’s long-term strategy, announced in 2023, to counter Western influence around the world. Thus, the Black Sea region can’t be decoupled from the future of Ukraine – as some suggested during my trip to Washington. Should Ukraine be forced to negotiate ceding parts of its territory to Russia, Kyiv could fall under Russian influence in the longer term – which wouldn’t require a massive investment from Moscow considering the socio-economic realities in Ukraine today. The biggest risk many grappled with was that Ukraine could become a failed state, a black hole between Europe and Russia that Moscow could eventually control.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WSUdVu75M0Y

[ccp]

Nixon on the Shah
and the Jewish liberals who were against him
Are they happier with present regimes?

More fodder for me to be fed up.

[Crafty_Dog]

Well, left out of that was discussion of Kissinger's machinations to enable the Shah to form and lead OPEC , , ,
(Working from memory here-- do I have this right?)

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3BvtjIrIw8

[DougMacG]

"An overwhelming majority of Americans support Israel in its war against Hamas over the militant group running the Gaza Strip, according to a new poll.

The Harvard CAPS-Harris survey shared with The Hill showed 80 percent of registered voters said they support Israel more in the war, while 20 percent said they support Hamas more."

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4629597-americans-israel-hamas-gaza-student-protests-poll/
-------------

[Doug]  As far as I know, Joe Biden has been a supporter of Israel his entire career. Yet he hedges on support of this operation, existential to Israel. How would we like it if some other power put constraints on our ability to fight our enemy in any of our conflicts, iraq, Afghanistan, even World War II?

Look at this politically since that's what President Biden is doing. 80% support Israel but the percentage that support this military operation is way smaller, a slight majority. Of the 20% that support hamas, let's assume all of them are Democrat or at least Left leaning.

That means 40 to 50% of the Democrat Party doesn't even support Israel to win, much less this military operation.

Politically, we look for 60/40 issues and keep finding 80/20 issues. Not to get off topic but 80% support some restriction on abortion and the Democratic party is pursuing no restrictions.  They obviously see this election as a base turnout election.

2.4% of the US is Jewish. 70% of those are Democrat. In rough numbers, 4% of Biden's base is Jewish. In a close election that is also a group he cannot afford to lose,

I wouldn't want to be Joe Biden right now or his advisors, deciding life and death and strategic policies based on which way the political winds are blowing, absent principles or convictions.

The majority of ardent Israel supporters in this country I believe are white, Christian, conservative voters who won't vote for Biden under any circumstances either.

Democrats invented this political box they live in and it has worked for them to some degree so far. Now they have to live with it. Support Israel and live with the media lies about the civilian casualties, or come to the rescue of Hamas and leave the Middle East In perpetual war.

Impossible decision if you have no backbone.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scylla-and-Charybdis

Some ancient history profs think this may be a mythic referall to the waters between Italy and Sicily.   IIRC these played a key role in denying the Spartacus uprising a move to Sicily.

[Crafty_Dog]

The ‘Uniparty’ Is Real—but It Isn’t What You Think
Democrats and Republicans aren’t overzealous about foreign intervention. They’re feckless about American leadership.
By Dalibor Rohac
May 19, 2024 3:43 pm ET


From Ralph Nader to Steve Bannon, self-styled populists and outsiders have disparaged Washington’s “uniparty.” When this critique turns to foreign policy, the uniparty is accused of groupthink and militarism—dragging the U.S. into unnecessary and endless wars while neglecting the concerns of regular Americans.

While the epithet is often overstated and used in bad faith, it contains a kernel of truth. Foreign-policy experts from both parties agree on a lot, and that consensus can lead to poor decisions. The wars in Gaza and Ukraine, as well as America’s geopolitical competition with China, expose a bipartisan problem of this sort that critics of U.S. foreign policy frequently miss.

Today’s uniparty isn’t defined by a zeal to export democracy and launch ill-advised wars against governments that don’t threaten us. Rather, it is defined, on both the Democratic and the Republican side, by a lack of initiative and an urge to do things on the cheap and halfheartedly, to manage crises instead of resolving them. It is also fundamentally dishonest, as it suggests that peace and security can be sustained without major sacrifices.

On Oct. 10, when it was perfectly clear that Israel could no longer tolerate living side by side with Hamas and that this terrorist organization would have to meet the same fate as ISIS, President Biden promised that he would “make sure Israel has what it needs to take care of its citizens, defend itself and respond to this attack.” Today, when support for the Jewish state has become a political liability for Mr. Biden in Michigan, his support for Israel is wobbly at best.

Ukraine is a similar story. Ukrainians are fully aware that “for as long as it takes” means until the end of 2024, when a new supplemental appropriation bill will be necessary. And whatever assistance the Biden administration has provided has come with strings attached. The U.S. is denying important weapons systems to Kyiv or restricting its use of them.

The problem is bipartisan. As Israel divides Democrats, Ukraine divides Republicans. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s manifesto for the next Republican administration, admits as much, offering only the faint hope “that next conservative President” will seize “a generational opportunity to bring resolution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement.”

The list goes on. Unlike in the early 19th century, when the U.S. successfully defeated the Barbary pirates and their sponsors, freedom of navigation hasn’t been restored to the Red Sea, as Houthi rebels continue to control what is normally one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

Even on China, there are few signs that the sudden centrality of Beijing’s threat has been translated into effective action, or that it would be under a second Trump administration. As the China archhawk Elbridge Colby tweeted recently, “Americans are war-weary and more skeptical of military interventions. Taiwan matters a great deal to Americans. But it’s not existential and it’s remote to most.”

In short, as the world burns and new conflagrations loom, our uniparty pretends that business as usual is adequate—or, worse yet, that ignoring the world will somehow enable us to address problems at home. It is an illusion. If you’re concerned about the southern border, our asylum system being overrun, or about the fentanyl crisis, you have to care about the political stability and security of America’s neighbors to the south—a subject on which both political parties remain largely silent.

The U.S. needs to adjust to a more dangerous world. It is past time to prioritize hard power over other areas of government spending—in other words, more guns and less butter—and plug the holes left by decades of enjoying the “peace dividend.” Yet keeping the existing entitlement schemes intact even as they head for bankruptcy remains a central tenet of America’s uniparty—a rare point of domestic bipartisan consensus in a polarized time.

As the eras of World War II and the Cold War illustrate, the U.S. can lead the world. That requires political leadership capable of defeating the complacent, feckless, and shortsighted uniparty.

Mr. Rohac is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

[DougMacG]

A few interesting points in this. 
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/remembering-memorial-day-we-must-avoid-world-war-iii-211175
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Doug] The article is about avoiding another world war today.  The passage below has to do with lessons from history.  I have asked on these pages and in discussions, what were the lessons of WWII?

My first answer (unfortunately) is intervene (against evil) earlier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the article:
"As Churchill wrote subsequently in his history The Gathering Storm, “One day, President Roosevelt told me he was asking publicly for the suggestions about what the war should be called. I said it was ‘the Unnecessary War.’” Churchill then goes on to explain that “There never was a war more easy to stop than that which just wrecked what was left of the world form the previous struggle.” Had they only listened: when Hitler violated the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty and remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936, Churchill called for Britain and France to send troops to enforce the peace. Had they done so, the German general staff would very likely have ousted Hitler, and World War II would never have happened."

[Doug]  (Churchill was not elected Prime Minister until 1940.)

How does this apply today to US China policy regarding South China Sea and the impending, threatened invasion of Taiwan?

[Crafty_Dog]

ProRussian blogger:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/ruling-class-finally-awakens-to-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1351274&post_id=145853907&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=z2120&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email



https://www.foreignraffairs.com/united-states/biden-foreign-policy-world-rhodes

[Crafty_Dog]

https://themostimportantnews.com/archives/10-signs-that-global-war-is-rapidly-approaching

[Crafty_Dog]

Don’t enlarge NATO

Members need to have military capability, strategic value to alliance

By Jed Babbin

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization — NATO — began in 1949 with 12 members. In 10 rounds of expansion, many of the former Warsaw Pact nations have joined to benefit from the NATO Treaty’s Article 5, which pledges that each member nation will defend every other. In 10 rounds of expansion, NATO has enlarged itself to 32 members, including Sweden and Norway, which joined this year. Other nations — Bosnia-Herzegovina, Ukraine and Georgia — are all aspiring to NATO membership.

As the NATO website points out, a 1995 study on new membership concludes that any nation that meets five criteria should be able to join. Those criteria are (1) the nation has a democratic political system based on a market economy, (2) it treats minority populations fairly, (3) it is committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, (4) it is able and willing to make military contributions to NATO operations and (5) it is committed to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.

Those criteria have been violated by the admission of certain members. Montenegro, for example, has — for those who remember “The Mouse That Roared” — the military capabilities of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

In its 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO agreed that Georgia and Ukraine would become NATO members. As this column has also pointed out, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg unwisely said a few months ago that NATO was trying to agree on an irreversible path to membership for Ukraine. Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who will succeed Mr. Stoltenberg as secretary general in October, should reverse that position and bring about a more rational approach to new nations’ membership.

The most critical questions must be: What does the prospective member bring to the fight, and what is its strategic value?

Mr. Rutte’s reputation is that of a man who can generate consensus, which will be as difficult in NATO as it is in the European Union. He has supported former President Donald Trump’s demand that the NATO members spend more on their own defense.

Mr. Trump’s demands have been effective. In 2024, 18 of NATO’s 32 members will spend the agreed-on 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. One of the worst laggards is Canada, which — under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — will spend only about 1.4%.

The genesis of NATO was the threat to Western Europe by the former Soviet Union. Russia, without its former empire, is still a significant danger to the NATO nations. Both Georgia and Ukraine border Russia. In the case of Ukraine, Russia’s 2014 invasion and subsequent annexation of its Crimean Peninsula, coupled with its 2022 invasion, brought war to Europe in a magnitude unseen since the Second World War.

Obviously, Ukraine cannot become a NATO member while that war goes on. It will probably continue — despite any interim peace agreement — as long as Russian President Vladimir Putin is alive.

Mr. Putin has hinted that, like Kaiser Wilhelm did of Germany before World War I, he believes Western nations are trying to surround Russia to deny its rightful place in the world. The addition of either Ukraine or Georgia would heighten Mr. Putin’s anxiety.

The only answer to the NATO membership issue is to stop NATO’s expansion at this point. There is no pressing need for nations such as Georgia or Ukraine to become members. That doesn’t mean NATO’s expansion should stop entirely. Why shouldn’t Israel, Japan or Australia be members? Each has considerable military capabilities from which NATO would benefit. Each is strategically placed and — in the cases of Australia and Japan — could mean a strategic deterrent to China. In the case of Israel, NATO membership would be a clear deterrent to Iran. The reason, unfortunately, is simple. The European members of NATO and Canada have neither the political will nor the military capability to defend any nation in the Pacific. In the case of Israel, they have an antipathy that has grown from the war with Hamas that has assumed an enormous ideological importance that Europe will not soon overcome. What would Mr. Trump do to (or with) NATO if he is reelected in November? Rumors abound that he would take radical action, perhaps keeping the NATO nations under the U.S. nuclear umbrella but taking U.S. troops out of Europe. Whatever he does, he should lead NATO into the future while still encouraging the laggards to spend more on defense. Any new member nation should have more military capability than Montenegro and more strategic value.

NATO was and can be again, a cornerstone of our deterrent strategy if it is led properly, which President Biden hasn’t done.

Under Mr. Biden, American deterrence has become ineffective. U.S. military spending is enormous, but much of the defense budget is being spent on the wrong things, which will be discussed in a future column. The ineffectiveness of our deterrence is best exemplified by the Houthis of Yemen, who — despite Mr. Biden’s efforts — are still attacking shipping in the Red Sea.

Deterrence is measured by the ability and willingness to use force for defense. We need to do a lot better, and NATO could be one good way to do so.

Jed Babbin is a national security and foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Times and contributing editor for The American Spectator

[Crafty_Dog]

House Speaker Mike Johnson said the House will vote on a series of bills “to empower the next administration to hit our enemies economies on Day One.” The legislation will combat what he called a “China-led axis” of nations intent on destroying America. ASSOCIATED PRESS

FOREIGN POLICY

Johnson preparing legislation to combat ‘China-led axis’

BY RYAN LOVELACE THE WASHINGTON TIMES

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday he wants to pass major legislation before the year’s end to combat what he called a “China-led axis” of nations intent on destroying America.

Mr. Johnson told the Hudson Institute that interconnected threats facing America are being orchestrated by China, and he made the case for a “new policy of peace through strength for the 21st century” epitomized by former President Donald Trump.

“I refer to it as a ‘China-led axis’ composed of partner regimes in Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and even Cuba,” the Louisiana Republican said in one of his first major statements on foreign policy. “Now they each have their own cultures, their own specific sinister aims, but they all wake up every morning thinking how they can take down America.”

“They are increasingly using their collective military, technological, and financial resources to empower one another in their various efforts to cut off our trade routes and steal our technology and harm our troops and upend our economy,” he told the think tank briefing.

As a result, Mr. Johnson said, the Congress must work to counter China with every tool at its disposal.

“The House will be voting on a series of bills to empower the next administration to hit our enemies’ economies on Day One,” Mr. Johnson said. “We will build our sanctions package, punish the Chinese military firms that provide material support to Russia and Iran, and we’ll consider options to restrict outbound investments in China.”

Mr. Johnson said votes on such legislative priorities would begin this fall, with a goal of passing a legislative package before 2025.

“Our goal is to have a significant package of China-related legislation signed into law by the end of this year, in this Congress, featuring these priorities and many more and we’ll work aggressively toward that package,” he said. “I’m very hopeful that much of this can be bipartisan.”

The House Republican leader championed Mr. Trump’s foreign policy record and the Republican Party’s agenda for foreign affairs in the years to come. Mr. Johnson praised Mr. Trump for calling out Russia and China, enforcing oil sanctions on Iran, and brokering the Abraham Accords establishing diplomatic ties between Israel and several once-hostile Arab nations.

“The Republican Party is not one of nation-builders or careless interventionists, we don’t believe we should be the world’s policemen, nor are we idealists who think we can placate tyrants,” Mr. Johnson said. “We are realists: ... We have to be prepared to fight and if we must fight, we fight with the gloves off.”

Mr. Johnson’s pitch for a muscular foreign policy is music to the ears of many at the Hudson Institute, which is now home to Mr. Trump’s rival for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, Nikki Haley, and former Rep. Mike Gallagher, who led the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party before exiting Congress this year.

The speaker said the work of the House’s CCP committee, established shortly after Republicans regained control of the House in the 2022 midterm elections, would not stop when the year ends, noting, “Beijing is our No. 1 foreign threat.”

He also pitched a vision for a new foreign policy built on a coalition big enough for Mr. Trump’s “America First” supporters and Ms. Haley’s more internationalist backers.

“We need a U.S.-led, America First coalition that advances the security interests of Americans and engages abroad with the interests of working families and businesses here at home,” Mr. Johnson said, “a coalition that’s good for everybody.”

[Crafty_Dog]

This post from the Death of NATO thread raises interesting questions.

Off the top of my head I'm not sure that I agree.

We are confronting the Chinese-Russian-Iran-North Korea-Venezuela-Cuban Axis.   Why wouldn't we want Europe/NATO as part of our team?  Or do we let them sell rope to the Chinese so that they are the last to be hanged as the West goes down?
=================================


This sort of scope expansion appears consistent with other globalist goals:

Imperial NATO is On The Way
But it is unlikely to reach its goals


STEPHEN BRYEN AND SHOSHANA BRYEN
JUL 10, 2024
NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  The name should have been changed long ago, when NATO shifted its focus and operations south and eastward. NATO is shifting once again, most seriously by expanding its membership without any serous planning about how to secure its new flanks.

Outgoing NATO Chief  Jens Stoltenberg said last month that China should face consequences for its support of Russia. He wasn’t specific. "It's too early for me to say exactly… My message is that is… it's not sustainable and viable that China continues to fuel the biggest security threats ... for NATO allies, especially in Europe."

Thanks for reading Weapons and Strategy! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.


Subscribe
Adding China, even theoretically, to the concerns of the Atlantic Alliance is a very big step and it widens the list of countries looking for NATO protection.

The limited good news at the NATO Summit is that the alliance actually recognizes its weakness.  The plan is to increase budgets and significantly enlarge the number of troops that can be committed if NATO goes to war.

According to the internal plan, NATO must grow its deployed or deployable troop strength by 35 to 50 brigades.  The NATO leadership will need to convince its members to enlarge their armies, equip them, and have the transport and supply capability to support them in the field.

The US also has around 100,000 troops in Europe, with around 20,000 helping shore up NATO’s battlegroups.  NATO’s troop expansion is on top of the US troop presence.

A brigade in NATO is 3-5,000 troops, meaning that NATO could be short up to 250,000 troops in total.  Raising and training a large number of soldiers in NATO countries is a challenging task; it may also be impossible.

In most of Europe and in the United States, military recruiting is well below where it should be. In the US, only the Marine Corps and Space Command met their recruiting goals – the Army, Navy and Air Force fell short. The British and Germans missed their targets by wide margins.

Germany, which could again become a front line target if there is a war in Europe, has an army of 184,000 military personnel and 80,000 civilian personnel made up of Professional soldiers (57,365), Contract soldiers (114,243) and Voluntary military personnel (9,748); there is no conscription. Very recently, the proposed German defense budget was reduced by 5 billion Euros.  For Germany to comply with NATO's plan it would have to quadruple its defense budget and impose conscription.

Fat chance.

At present NATO does not have brigades – it has battlegroups, each of which has about 1,000 soldiers. There are presently 8 battlegroups and NATO is trying to add 4 more. This means is that in addition to creating 35 to 50 new brigades, it would also have to enlarge its 8 battlegroups into brigades. So far at least, there is no agreement on how to do so.

At the NATO Summit, new commitments have been made to shore up Ukraine by offering four new Patriot air defense batteries and additional F-16s (six of them) from Norway. Some NATO members are now also talking about shipping “squadrons” of F-16s to Ukraine, but that may be propaganda. (There is a good chance the US will end up paying for the Patriots.) The reason is straightforward: NATO knows that its grandiose enlargement plans are not going to happen, so it needs Ukraine as a buffer to Russia.  As long as Russia is tied down, NATO can avoid exposure of its shortcomings.

In the Pacific

While NATO is floating plans for enlargement of its membership and its capabilities, and putting China on notice about its own behavior, democratic friends in the Pacific are looking for a NATO umbrella.

Australia is attending the Summit, wanting to take advantage of NATO military know-how.  New Zealand, which wants to encourage the US as the leading NATO member, to protect it from China, has sent its Prime Minister to the meeting.   

Japan’s Prime Minister and South Korea’s President are there, apparently buying into NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's vision that NATO must confront both Russia and China.  Japan has longstanding, unresolved issues over the Northern Territories (the Kuril Islands), occupied by the USSR at the end of World War II.   But the bigger problem is China, which Japan fears will soon take over the Pacific First Island Chain after "solving" the Taiwan issue; Taiwan sits right in the center of the chain. China has territorial claims on Japanese-administered islands, essentially the Senkaku Islands – which China calls the Diaoyu Islands. China also claims Okinawa, which is militarily important to the United States.

The US and Japan and the US and Korea have defense treaties (the 1960 Japan-US treaty was recently updated).  The US maintains a significant presence in both countries. In Japan there are 54,000 US military personnel and another 8,000 contractors (plus another 25,000 Japanese workers). The US home ports a nuclear aircraft carrier in Japan and maintains a significant air force and naval presence. In Korea, the US has 28,500 troops, primarily Army, stationed mostly at Camp Humphreys.  The US also maintains strategic missile defenses in Korea.

South Korea has mandatory military service for all males starting at the age of 18, producing a large army with 500,000 active troops and 3,100,000 reservists.  Its primary adversary, North Korea, has an even larger active army, now numbering 1,320,000 active troops and a reserve of 560,000.  Unlike North Korea, which has nuclear weapons, South Korea relies on the American "nuclear umbrella" for protection from its northern neighbor.

Japan, however, does not have conscription and has missed its Self Defense Force recruiting goal by more than 50%.  Young people in Japan today can get good jobs that pay well.  The Self Defense Force pays poorly and is unattractive as a career choice.

Who Benefits?

What would Japan or South Korea gain from a relationship with NATO – if not membership?  It is hard to see how NATO could be of any real help to either and it could complicate the US-Japanese and US-South Korean relationships by adding another command complex standing between them and their American sponsor.

Likewise, it is worth asking, what would NATO gain from a relationship with major US clients in Asia?  NATO does not have any power projection capability with respect to Asia.  There is not much that NATO can put on the table of any real interest to either Japan or Korea, other than politics.

In fact, it can be argued that many European “prestige” projects have squandered sensible efforts to strengthen conventional land, air, and naval forces.

Political Headwinds

NATO also faces some significant political headwinds.

One is from former President Donald Trump.  As president, Trump loudly demanded that the NATO partners increase their defense spending. While the US was spending 3.57 percent in 2018, only eight of the 29 allies at the time were spending the NATO goal of 2 percent. Some of the allies moved forward, some did not. Perhaps more worrisome, former Trump aides have suggested that Ukraine is a European problem, not an American one.  Stories that NATO wants to "Trump-proof" itself are all around, as European politicians fear that Trump won't favor a continuous war with Russia.

What is clear is that Trump's instinct is to negotiate with Russia, something Europe, aside from Hungary, rejects unequivocally.

There also are serious and unavoidable economic issues.  Should French President Emmanuel Macron make concessions to the left,  it will be painful.  The left wants a 90% "wealth tax" and far greater social spending. (“Wealth” is already leaving France.)  France cannot do that and still put billions into Ukraine.  Current arsenals are badly depleted, so real funding for the future will have to come out of current operating budgets.  The consequences are an economic death spiral for France; one that could be repeated in the UK with its new Labor government.

NATO's Imperial Plans are mostly smoke, and if Asian countries have common sense, they will not tie themselves to NATO.

Stephen D. Bryen is a former US Defense Department official; Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center.

https://weapons.substack.com/p/imperial-nato-is-on-the-way?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true

[ccp]

the authors of the article:

"What would Japan or South Korea gain from a relationship with NATO – if not membership?  It is hard to see how NATO could be of any real help to either and it could complicate the US-Japanese and US-South Korean relationships by adding another command complex standing between them and their American sponsor."

AND

"NATO's Imperial Plans are mostly smoke, and if Asian countries have common sense, they will not tie themselves to NATO."

CD asks:

"We are confronting the Chinese-Russian-Iran-North Korea-Venezuela-Cuban Axis.   Why wouldn't we want Europe/NATO as part of our team?  Or do we let them sell rope to the Chinese so that they are the last to be hanged as the West goes down?"

Me:

Not clear to me what the author's rationale is other then NATO can't/won't even maintain their military preparedness in Europe let alone be able to do anything in Asia.

And the authors this:

"NATO also faces some significant political headwinds.

One is from former President Donald Trump.  As president, Trump loudly demanded that the NATO partners increase their defense spending. While the US was spending 3.57 percent in 2018, only eight of the 29 allies at the time were spending the NATO goal of 2 percent. Some of the allies moved forward, some did not. Perhaps more worrisome, former Trump aides have suggested that Ukraine is a European problem, not an American one.  Stories that NATO wants to "Trump-proof" itself are all around, as European politicians fear that Trump won't favor a continuous war with Russia.

What is clear is that Trump's instinct is to negotiate with Russia, something Europe, aside from Hungary, rejects unequivocally."


Trump is right.   Give Russia the damn donbas and few more acres then shore up defense of Europe.

in my humble opinion.

We ARE footing too much of the bill in cash and arms.   We already bailed out Europe twice.