Russian vassalization of Ukraine

[Dylan]

[exploited]

I have literally no idea how a person can say it is the same or less complexity as the Cold War. That statement makes almost no sense at all. I actually get the impression you are arguing about it just because, as that would be the most rational explanation possible for the position you are taking.

Complexity refers to the presence of more variables. Do you think there are more variables faced by the US? Of course. I mean that is beyond question. You have North Korea, backed up by China, detonating nuclear weapons and threatening South Korea. You have Russia and China vying for influence over India and Pakistan, who just might end up killing each other. Russia supports India, China supports Pakistan, the US supports both. A half dozen of your Middle Eastern allies are destabilized as hell. Iran is going to get a nuclear weapon. Russia is making power plays in Eastern Europe. Japan and China can't stop posturing, and its only a matter of time before Japan either gets nuclear weapons or militarizes like crazy.

I mean, dude, what on earth are you talking about? I haven't even touched on the various new threats faced by the US, like cyber-warfare or terrorism. Or climate change and the shit that is going to cause.

[gla22]

To be fair the cold war was more complex than how the U.S. rationalized it which led to us making lots of stupid decisions. It was easy to lump the Sandinistas, Castro, the North Vietnamese ect. into an extension of the Soviet Union but that was a drastic oversimplification. Most of those revolutions were nationalist and for independence, the primary reason that they ended up leftist is that Marxism at the time was the only ideology that provided a revolutionary framework and that the U.S. alienated any movements with a hint of leftism in them, driving them in the U.S.S.R's arms.

[exploited]

That's how the game was played. It is called Cold War logic for a reason. It was far less complex because we had an ideological framework to work within. A clearly defined enemy and goal - Russia, and the containment of communism.

Everything was imterpreted through that lense. Mistakes were made, as they continue to be made now, but that doesn't make decisions more complex. Now we have massive global issues to deal with - water, climate change, terrorism, cyber-warfare, etc - with far more competitors for influence. It is, by definition, more complex.

[Dylan]

[exploited]

Dude what are you even talking about lol.

The assertion is that foreign policy is more complex now. Decisions need to factor in more variables. Simply pointing out that some of these issues existed historically doesn't address that very simple and concise point at all.

It's as if you are being deliberately obtuse. Seriously. I have no idea why you are arguing against a point that just about every commentator in the discipline has made at some time since the fall of the Iron Curtain.

[exploited]

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/marc ... 30314.html

Political scientist Amy Zegart argues that the notion of an American foreign policy grand strategy in the post-9/11 world is a relic of Cold War thinking. Today's threats are much more complex and shifting than ever before. Rather, U.S. international relations should be based on 'orienting principles' – a middle ground between ad hoc reactions and unrealistic grand visions.

BY CLIFTON B. PARKER

In a new essay, political scientist Amy Zegart argues that the notion of an American foreign policy grand strategy is outdated.

In the post-9/11 world, forging a successful grand strategy in U.S. foreign policy is unlikely and dangerous, according to a Stanford scholar.

During the Cold War, American leaders understood that the Soviet Union was their primary adversary, writes political scientist Amy Zegart in an essay for the Hoover Institution's Foreign Policy Working Group, a new two-year initiative that brings together Stanford scholars to examine key U.S. foreign policy challenges.

Zegart notes that the Soviet threat – one of nuclear annihilation – brought a singular focus to U.S. foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century.

Successful grand strategies, she writes, depend on knowing the number and identities of one's enemies, what they want, how they operate and what damage they can unleash.

That is no longer the case in 2014 and for the foreseeable future, she suggests.

...

I'd highly suggest you read the full article.

[Dylan]

[gla22]

[Dylan]