On US Isolationism, Expectations for the Post-US World Order

[Cope]

There was no non-response from Trump, in fact his early response to the outbreak drew criticism from Democrats who called people to join large public gatherings just barely over a month ago. Funny how desperately establishment propaganda is trying to do a 180.

The usual crowd are pretending to have a sort of clairvoyance which gives them all the answers to the pandemic. Of course they know no more than what the "experts" (who disagree with each other) tell them, but the current situation plays into their propaganda narrative that "reality" is catching up with Trump's ill-informed "populism". Being a backseat driver is easy.

Also American decline has been going on long before Trump even considered a political career, and it isn't something necessarily bad. The future where US is a regional power with limited military capability would be beneficial not just to the rest of the world, no longer terrorized by "importations of democracy", but to American citizens who would no longer have to have their money wasted on parasitic military-industrial complex.

Yes, wouldn't it be great if the US retreated from the world and allowed global events to be dictated by communists and Islamic theocracies? That would be choice.

[Prodromos]

America-haters be like,

"Man, living in a world led by liberal America is so oppressive. Things would be much better if fascist Russia or communist China were in charge"

[Heathen Hammer]

The usual crowd are pretending to have a sort of clairvoyance which gives them all the answers to the pandemic. Of course they know no more than what the "experts" (who disagree with each other) tell them, but the current situation plays into their propaganda narrative that "reality" is catching up with Trump's ill-informed "populism". Being a backseat driver is easy.

They basically change narratives faster then their electorate changes colors in its hair.

Yes, wouldn't it be great if the US retreated from the world and allowed global events to be dictated by communists and Islamic theocracies? That would be choice.

Neither China nor US would be able to have much influence, since their economies desperately rely on US. As for Iran, I'm perfectly fine with them running things in Middle East, I mean Middle East can and should be considered as Iran's sphere of influence.
So yeah, as for China - American is to blame for how strong they are now anyways, so...
The best part about dismantling militar-industrial complex, is that how low-maintenance state will become. They could easily cut taxes in half, if not more, creating conditions for thriving economy. Many Americans don't understand that military-industrial complex and federal reserve are their enemies to a far bigger extent, then Russia China and Iran put together.

[Coughdrop addict]

America-haters be like,

"Man, living in a world led by liberal America is so oppressive. Things would be much better if fascist Russia or communist China were in charge"

When America is gone and Putin's thugs show up at their doorstep to rape and pillage, followed by Xi's thugs coming to install telescreens and throw any who complain into concentration camps, followed by the ayatollah's thugs looking to kill a few infidels before lunch, maybe then they will realize they have been lied to.

[Abdülmecid I]

Not to be pedantic, but I believe that the more appropriate term is Safavid thugs.

[Heathen Hammer]

When America is gone and Putin's thugs show up at their doorstep to rape and pillage, followed by Xi's thugs coming to install telescreens and throw any who complain into concentration camps, followed by the ayatollah's thugs looking to kill a few infidels before lunch, maybe then they will realize they have been lied to.

"Oh no, if we don't hand out half of our income to military-industrial complex, Putin will get me!"
Seriously, the last thing average American Joe has to worry is "Putin's thugs" when his own government can red-flag him and legally murder him in his sleep.
Nor would one worry about Taliban in A-stan, when US has its own leftist taliban calling for killing "nazis", which is everyone to the right of Mitt Romney.

[Cope]

In FY 2018, ~19-20% of US revenue went toward military expenditure, not half; in the same year it is estimated that ~23% of the Kremlin's revenue went toward military expenditure. In terms of GDP, the US spent 3.2% compared to Russia's 3.9%.

[Heathen Hammer]

Russia does not pretend to be some kind of beacon of freedom and democracy as an excuse to LARP as world's policeman.

[Cope]

So we agree that Russia is an oligarchy then. An oligarchy which has a larger military sector (proportionally) than the US. And whatever the reasons, according to your own standards, both the US and Russia have meddlesome foreign policies.

[Heathen Hammer]

Indeed, only difference is that Russia's geographic proximity to the region justifies its current policy. US could cut its military presence overseas tomorrow and Americans would lose nothing from that.

[Cope]

Indeed, only difference is that Russia's geographic proximity to the region justifies its current policy. US could cut its military presence overseas tomorrow and Americans would lose nothing from that.

Putin's foreign policy is no more justified by geographical happenstance than is Erdogan's. No one is entitled to meddle in the the affairs of sovereign countries on the basis of proximity. We didn't take that stance with the NSDAP or the Soviet Union and we shouldn't with Russia, Iran or Syria.

[Heathen Hammer]

Putin's foreign policy is no more justified by geographical happenstance than is Erdogan's. No one is entitled to meddle in the the affairs of sovereign countries on the basis of proximity. We didn't take that stance with the NSDAP or the Soviet Union and we shouldn't with Russia, Iran or Syria.

You do realize that Russia is there because Syria told them to, right? They didn't invite Americans, they didn't invite Turks, they invited Russians and Iranians, which is why their presence there is justified, which is not the case with Americans or Erdogan.

[Cope]

You do realize that Russia is there because Syria told them to, right? They didn't invite Americans, they didn't invite Turks, they invited Russians and Iranians, which is why their presence there is justified, which is not the case with Americans or Erdogan.

This is a different excuse from the proximity argument. Now you're saying that Russia's activities in Syria (which isn't the only country that Russia is involved in) are justified because of the say-so of a tin pot dictator. Well I've got news for you: the Kremlin's complicity in war crimes in Syria isn't justified just because Assad invited them to join in.

So you see where I'm going with this? You have a never ending list of excuses (many of them conspiratorial) for the Russian, Syrian and Iranian regimes despite the fact that, even according to your own criteria, they're engaged in a similar (near identical) pattern of behaviour to the US. At this point, your double standard leads me to believe that your professed opposition to authoritarianism is just a LARP to cover for your anti-American attitude and partisan commitment to the Moscow-led alliance (a position I see almost exclusively from radical leftists).

Why someone who claims to support western civilization would prefer a despotic Shiite takeover of the Middle East (which would almost certainly lead to the subjugation or liquidation of Israeli Jews) to a non-interventionist, containment strategy is beyond me. Even people who simply don't care what happens outside of their own borders don't tie themselves in knots to defend foreign theocrats, oligarchs and dictators.

[Heathen Hammer]

That's not a different excuse, it is response to you switching goal posts from Russian military presence in Syria from domestic to international perspective. Domestically, Russian presence there is justified to curb enthusiasm of various salafist groups that would inevitably move their sights north had Syria fallen and become a problem within Russia and her Central Asian backyard. Internationally it is justified because Syria itself invited them.
That's not the case with US both domestically and internationally, as it was explained above.

[Cope]

That's not a different excuse, it is response to you switching goal posts from Russian military presence in Syria from domestic to international perspective. Domestically, Russian presence there is justified to curb enthusiasm of various salafist groups that would inevitably move their sights north had Syria fallen and become a problem within Russia and her Central Asian backyard. Internationally it is justified because Syria itself invited them.
That's not the case with US both domestically and internationally, as it was explained above.

Yet another excuse.

Excuse #1: Russia's actions are justified by her proximity to the region.
Excuse #2: Russia's actions are justified by virtue of having been "invited" into Syria by Assad (which isn't even applicable to Ukraine, Georgia etc.)
Excuse #3: Russia's actions are justified because she's combating Islamic extremism.

Even if this third excuse were the only reason that Russia has an interest Syria (which it obviously isn't), that would merely make its behaviour analogous to that of the US-led coalition which has been going after extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria for years. Though yet again, we have a double standard: when the US and its allies use force against extremist groups like ISIS, AQ, the Taliban, Hamas or Hezbollah (the two latter groups being funded by Iran) you don't see that as excusing their presence in the region; but when the Kremlin supports action against ISIS in Syria, that suddenly justifies its entire foreign policy.

So again, why you've allowed your criticisms of Washington to evolve into support for the radical left, the Russian autocracy and Shiite extremists is a mystery to me. Maybe you were concern trolling all along.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yet another excuse.

Excuse #1: Russia's actions are justified by her proximity to the region.
Excuse #2: Russia's actions are justified by virtue of having been "invited" into Syria by Assad (which isn't even applicable to Ukraine, Georgia etc.)
Excuse #3: Russia's actions are justified because she's combating Islamic extremism.

Even if this third excuse were the only reason that Russia has an interest Syria (which it obviously isn't), that would merely make its behaviour analogous to that of the US-led coalition which has been going after extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria for years. Though yet again, we have a double standard: when the US and its allies use force against extremist groups like ISIS, AQ, the Taliban, Hamas or Hezbollah (the two latter groups being funded by Iran) you don't see that as excusing their presence in the region; but when the Kremlin supports action against ISIS in Syria, that suddenly justifies their entire foreign policy.

So again, why you've allowed your criticisms of Washington to evolve into support for the radical left, the Russian autocracy and Shiite extremists is a mystery to me. Maybe you were concern trolling all along.

1) The thread is about US, not Russia
2) I already explained why Russia's military activities are a necessity, while US can easily chose to end its military involvements overseas and average American would only gain from that, since he'd either stop having state steal as much of his money or that money would be spent on things like scientific research or infrastructure instead of military-industrial complex.

Not to mention that US is hardly there to combat Islamic extremism, when it is allied to Saudi Arabia, world's terrorist capital and provided aid to groups Islamic terrorist groups against Syria and Libya. So US did contribute more to Islamic extremism in the region then it did to fight it. Heck, even Taliban is there mainly thanks to US.

[Gaul]

I beg for survival. A first rate country but with second rate influence on the world. As we wouldn't have the ability for both.

[Lord Thesaurian]

China, Iran and Russia are using the coronavirus crisis to launch a propaganda and disinformation onslaught against the United States, the State Department warns in a new report.

The three governments are pushing a host of matching messages: that the novel coronavirus was an American bioweapon, that the U.S. was scoring political points off the crisis, that the virus didn’t come from China, that U.S. troops spread it, that America’s sanctions are killing Iranians, that China’s response was great while the U.S.’s was negligent, that all three governments are managing the crisis well, and that the U.S. economy can't bear the toll of the virus.

“What we saw as the health crisis started to come under control in China is that the CCP really started pushing a concerted effort to try to re-shape that narrative,” she said, using the acronym for the Chinese Communist Party. “So in a short period of time the CCP went from letting Russian disinformation claiming the U.S. was the source of the virus proliferate in Chinese social media, to raising questions on state media about the origin’s source, to promoting disinformation that the U.S. was the source of the virus.”

The Chinese government’s messaging is both defensive and offensive, she said.
“At the same time, we saw Beijing unleashing a steady drumbeat of pro-PRC content across its global media networks and also from its overseas missions and that included increasingly vocal criticism of how democratic countries were responding to the crisis,” she said.

Of particular interest: dueling messages about whether the U.S. or China is a better ally.
“There’s a big increase in attention recently in Arabic language to Western foreign aid, interestingly, where there had been hardly any attention focused on that at all,” he said. “It sticks out like a sore thumb.”

And since the pandemic’s start, Meyer said the firm has seen heightened interest from Hindi and Persian-language internet users in websites that denigrate Western medicine and tout alternatives, including energy therapies and questionable supplements.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...artment-193107

It appears the coordination between the emerging Axis powers has only grown stronger amidst the present crisis. Meanwhile the West continues to circle the drain, hindering any efforts at common defense. Will the democratic world order become a casualty of this disease? Time will tell, but it appears that if anything, the virus has dramatically accelerated existing geopolitical trends.

[Cope]

It appears the coordination between the emerging Axis powers has only grown stronger amidst the present crisis. Meanwhile the West continues to circle the drain, hindering any efforts at common defense. Will the democratic world order become a casualty of this disease? Time will tell, but it appears that if anything, the virus has dramatically accelerated existing geopolitical trends.

1. The accusation that the virus was engineered by the US will gain no traction in the west. The only people who'll believe it are people already committed to opposing the US and its allies.

2. Likewise, the suggestion that China's handling of the virus was "great" will largely be dismissed by western electorates - the usual apologists and agitators not included.

3. The press in Europe and the US has already done a remarkable job at politicizing the virus: the WaPo, NYT, MSNBC and CCN have already smothered what little we know about C19 behind a wall of false and irrelevant stories designed to damage Trump. When the Chinese propagandists' best material is regurgitated talking points from the liberal press, you know you have a problem.

4. If the democratic world order becomes a casualty of C19, it'll be because economies are allowed to be destroyed through the elongated use of panic solutions. Whether certain international institutions will survive is another question: organizations like the European Union and the WHO have, as per usual, proven themselves to be fair-weather friends. I expect that the liberal globalists' will fall over themselves to protect such institutions.

[Lord Thesaurian]

2. Likewise, the suggestion that China's handling of the virus was "great" will largely be dismissed by western electorates - the usual apologists and agitators not included.

3. The press in Europe and the US has already done a remarkable job at politicizing the virus: the WaPo, NYT, MSNBC and CCN have already smothered what little we know about C19 behind a wall of false and irrelevant stories designed to damage Trump. When the Chinese propagandists' best material is regurgitated talking points from the liberal press, you know you have a problem.

Point 2 feeds into point 3. US adversaries don’t need to prove they handled things “great,” they just need to create the impression they handled it better than did western democracies. Authoritarian govts are by nature always trying to construe western democracy as weak, decadent and ineffective, in order to discourage their own populations from seeing it as an alternative. That doesn’t render criticism of Trump or other western leaders’ response disloyal or without substance; the two are separate issues.

Point 4: Nationalists and isolationists have always leveled such criticisms against international cooperation. For the most part it’s deliberate concern trolling. If the West neglected its institutions, like the WHO and EU, allowing either to fall under authoritarian sway, we have only ourselves to blame. Surrendering/jettisoning them entirely won’t solve the underlying problems, and will merely feed the authoritarian narrative that seeks international legitimacy and recognition at the expense of western democracy.

If the US had better prepared for the crisis (and yes, Trump is an obvious key component of that reality), the aforementioned propaganda campaign would indeed gain no traction. As things stand, we’ll have to see how it all shakes out. With the US continuing to look inward, it’s not unexpected to see the rest of the world look elsewhere for leadership. That is how decline becomes a fall, and the authoritarians understand this.