What a joke! They introduced the term "rules-based" solely because the US government and its allies so often break international law. For example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And there are many more. Any use of the term "rules-based" should be immediately called out in this way.
These neocon “thinkers” want us to believe the rules-based international order they are always talking about is the one setup after WWII - the UN Charter primarily. Even while the US government was signing and ratifying the Charter, the post-WWII intelligence apparatus was violating it.
These people live in a fantasy world, and if they get their way, all of us will be living in a post-apocalyptic world of terror.
You think US policy should adhere to the rule of law? You must hate America--we have the rule-of-rules here, pal, and we get to make 'em up as we go along. /s
It's not as if Farkas will be on the front lines herself.
Of course, Farkas and likeminded ghouls cannot be seen to back down or even reach an accord, lest other vassals and the political opposition take note. So they have to keep doubling down, pushing both sides into a war that neither wants.
That's how WWI got started, with ultimatums and red lines and brave talk of Muh Credibility. Of course, WWI also had the subtext of Britain and France looking at German population growth and industrial capacity and getting nervous, while Germany and Austria Hungary looked at rapidly modernizing Russia and Serbia, respectively, and what they saw gave them the willies.
In today's situation, the neocons have to be aware, in spite of their hubris, that the American Empire is looking more and more wobbly compared with China and Russia, and that their chances of retaining global hegemony are receding with every passing day.
Note that the West doesn't have any really good options here. Sanctions are likely to be ineffective, both because the West needs Russian petroleum and because Russia has largely de-dollarized and sits on massive and growing cash and gold reserves. At the same time, Ukraine is a kakistocracy by any reasonable definition, and without constant infusions to the tune of billions of dollars both from the IMF and from gas transit revenues from Russia, it would be in more pathetic shape than it already is. (And no, don't blame the war. Ukraine was a kleptocracy long before 2014, although the leadership since that time has been more corrupt and thievish than even Ukraine pre-2014 was used to.)
Even if a NATO military action could be won on behalf of the Ukrainian nationalists (and every wargame suggests that it can't), there is no such scenario that doesn't end in WWIII. So who here is ready to take a nuke on behalf of the Nazis of Lvov?
At the same time, even though he has no good cards to play, Biden cannot be seen to climb down. In part this is because America is a declining power and therefore it cannot let its vassals start to get ideas. But the real problem is the fundamentally Third World nature of contemporary USA-ian politics.
If you have ever spent more than a few hours living in a Third World country and you were sort of paying attention during this time, you will note that politics in such a country is a zero-sum game. Anything that helps your opponents hurts you, and anything that helps you hurts your opponents. So even a policy that benefits the country as a whole must be bitterly opposed, if your opponents are for it or it also benefits them. (War and the military seem to be the exception in the United States. Wars that in no way benefit the country enjoy unswerving bipartisan support, rising even to the status of sacred cows that must never be questioned.)
This means that if Biden calls for anything less than Total Victory, his opponents on Team R will pounce, calling for the fainting couch and rending their garments most piteously while wailing something about "appeasement", and insisting that Trump is the reincarnation of Winston Churchill who would have pushed The Button sooner and better. It doesn't help that Team D was doing the same thing to Trump a year or so ago, pushing wackadoodle conspiracy theories that were contradicted by all available facts and just about everything that the Trump maladministration did. So for Team R, the opportunity to call the other guy an appeaser and weakling acting on behalf of foreign powers is especially sweet.
Biden owns this one.
Forgive me for a second post, and forgive me if linking to someone else's Substack is a no-no around here.
Evelyn Farkas has provided a valuable service by exposing the mindless insanity that passes as thoughtful leadership at DoD. Is it any wonder why the crime syndicate they work for is only good at raping the taxpayers, starting and then losing wars?
What a joke! They introduced the term "rules-based" solely because the US government and its allies so often break international law. For example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And there are many more. Any use of the term "rules-based" should be immediately called out in this way.
These neocon “thinkers” want us to believe the rules-based international order they are always talking about is the one setup after WWII - the UN Charter primarily. Even while the US government was signing and ratifying the Charter, the post-WWII intelligence apparatus was violating it.
These people live in a fantasy world, and if they get their way, all of us will be living in a post-apocalyptic world of terror.
You think US policy should adhere to the rule of law? You must hate America--we have the rule-of-rules here, pal, and we get to make 'em up as we go along. /s
It's not as if Farkas will be on the front lines herself.
Of course, Farkas and likeminded ghouls cannot be seen to back down or even reach an accord, lest other vassals and the political opposition take note. So they have to keep doubling down, pushing both sides into a war that neither wants.
That's how WWI got started, with ultimatums and red lines and brave talk of Muh Credibility. Of course, WWI also had the subtext of Britain and France looking at German population growth and industrial capacity and getting nervous, while Germany and Austria Hungary looked at rapidly modernizing Russia and Serbia, respectively, and what they saw gave them the willies.
In today's situation, the neocons have to be aware, in spite of their hubris, that the American Empire is looking more and more wobbly compared with China and Russia, and that their chances of retaining global hegemony are receding with every passing day.
Professor Adam Tooze is known as an informed, dispassionate and even-handed economist. Read his Substack below, for there is not a dull word in it.
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-68-putins-challenge-to
Note that the West doesn't have any really good options here. Sanctions are likely to be ineffective, both because the West needs Russian petroleum and because Russia has largely de-dollarized and sits on massive and growing cash and gold reserves. At the same time, Ukraine is a kakistocracy by any reasonable definition, and without constant infusions to the tune of billions of dollars both from the IMF and from gas transit revenues from Russia, it would be in more pathetic shape than it already is. (And no, don't blame the war. Ukraine was a kleptocracy long before 2014, although the leadership since that time has been more corrupt and thievish than even Ukraine pre-2014 was used to.)
Even if a NATO military action could be won on behalf of the Ukrainian nationalists (and every wargame suggests that it can't), there is no such scenario that doesn't end in WWIII. So who here is ready to take a nuke on behalf of the Nazis of Lvov?
At the same time, even though he has no good cards to play, Biden cannot be seen to climb down. In part this is because America is a declining power and therefore it cannot let its vassals start to get ideas. But the real problem is the fundamentally Third World nature of contemporary USA-ian politics.
If you have ever spent more than a few hours living in a Third World country and you were sort of paying attention during this time, you will note that politics in such a country is a zero-sum game. Anything that helps your opponents hurts you, and anything that helps you hurts your opponents. So even a policy that benefits the country as a whole must be bitterly opposed, if your opponents are for it or it also benefits them. (War and the military seem to be the exception in the United States. Wars that in no way benefit the country enjoy unswerving bipartisan support, rising even to the status of sacred cows that must never be questioned.)
This means that if Biden calls for anything less than Total Victory, his opponents on Team R will pounce, calling for the fainting couch and rending their garments most piteously while wailing something about "appeasement", and insisting that Trump is the reincarnation of Winston Churchill who would have pushed The Button sooner and better. It doesn't help that Team D was doing the same thing to Trump a year or so ago, pushing wackadoodle conspiracy theories that were contradicted by all available facts and just about everything that the Trump maladministration did. So for Team R, the opportunity to call the other guy an appeaser and weakling acting on behalf of foreign powers is especially sweet.
Biden owns this one.
Forgive me for a second post, and forgive me if linking to someone else's Substack is a no-no around here.
That article was a tour de force. Who is that guy?
Adam Tooze is a professor at Cambridge, IIRC.
He also has written some truly gangsta stuff on the economic and monetary history of WWI, among other.
Thanks for the link. I was not familiar with Tooze, but he certainly lays out the background well.
Evelyn Farkas has provided a valuable service by exposing the mindless insanity that passes as thoughtful leadership at DoD. Is it any wonder why the crime syndicate they work for is only good at raping the taxpayers, starting and then losing wars?