Kathianne
08-21-2008, 05:47 AM
Western Europe will not/cannot stand up to Russia. That's all about the oil and spending any money on defense. I do think they may be paying attention now that the US is not going to quickly engage in what is essentially a European problem.
Essentially, but not necessarily morally. The US, especially under the Clinton administration encouraged the expansion of NATO. They wanted to surround Russia with a pro-Western ring. To some degree, especially with Poland and the Baltics, they succeeded. Too bad for those countries that thought doing what the US was asking, assumed we'd rush to their aid if the need arose. We'll 'rattle cages' but are not going to head over there any time soon. Western Europe was not so quick to expand Europe, especially where it would be perceived by Russia to be aggressive; Georgia and the Ukraine. While the US couldn't overcome the EU, (Turkey being a different case in most ways), the US did get out front in encouraging the two important former satellites to become more and more independent.
It's been clear since the 50's that Western Europe had philosophically changed from a continent of aggression to one of narcissism on a geo-political scale. It seemed to the US that might be a very good thing, considering in less than 50 years the previous form had brought the pale blue ball two world wars. So for 20 years or so, the post-secular continent rebuilt, chastised the superpowers, and became an international institutions cheerleader. Corruption dominated some governments, several built up powerhouse economies, though none provided for security for themselves.
To their east though, things were very different. Within 15 years of the end of WWII, the entire East was the USSR, some by agreement, most by force. Berlin was the dividing line. The US became the force between the East and West. While that role led to some dangerous moments for the citizens of the US, mostly we seemed to like the 'control.' It took Europe out of the equation. The US and USSR would play chess all over the world. The war in Vietnam was just another showdown between US and USSR, one that developed into a lack of will to win by the politicians that had started it. Indeed, that was the beginning of change, for more than a generation, a defining era.
Then came the end of the USSR, in some larger or smaller degree because of US winning the chess game and the inevitable collapse of the Soviet system built on providing for military expansion at the price of their people's standard of living. So it seemed that the US was the last superpower standing.
To a lesser degree, this had happened twice before to the US, though without the recognition of such by the US or other nations. Both times the result ended with others rising to challenge the 'new order' as a nation or as a concert. Both times the results were a world war. Will the fact that the US and 'the world' recognized the period of sole superpower change the possible outcome of tipping the balance? In truth, most Americans recognized the lack of balance regarding power was not a good thing, but what to do with the vacuum created by the collapse of the USSR?
Now Russia has pushed back, albeit against a very small power, but the one with the closest ties to US. The first of the near abroad as they are now being referred to, that Rose up in Revolution, pun intended.
So here we are on the brink of historical elections in this country, looking at a world that is rapidly changing. It's not a safe world, indeed it seems to be one of the most obviously dangerous time that I have seen, without any immediate danger being clear and present. We are not building up our military, nor can we see any reason to. A new age of conflict seems to be arising, with 7th C enemies on one side; old foes with powerful weapons on the other. Everything is changing, while everything appears to be the same. Whatever the threat, if there is one, we are not yet recognizing it. The US has always battled within, unless a real threat is perceived, then mostly it becomes one. Not there, not yet, the elections illustrate that without comment being needed.
How will the future look? What alignments will there be? There are always alignments in dangerous times. Western Europe is changing, but glacially considering the times. Russia controls their lifeblood and they are fearful for good cause. The East however, they are standing together recognizing the US isn't currently going to do more than talk and rattle the cage. In some ways it reminds me of Poland taking on Germany, gallantly but futilely. Horses do not win against tanks. Will Russia finish their 'stand', pull back, regroup, and decide their next move? Will the traditional alignment of modern times see the US realign with Western Europe, finding some way to balance power without war?
So far I think the US has moved correctly, we do not belong as a sole power in Europe, it's not our continent. On the other hand, there is no 'power' in Europe but Russia, regardless of it's reemerging, but still relatively small military might. One thing both powers learned during the Cold War, nukes are not the most important weapon, using them is lose-lose.
Anyone have any further thoughts, corrections, observations?
Essentially, but not necessarily morally. The US, especially under the Clinton administration encouraged the expansion of NATO. They wanted to surround Russia with a pro-Western ring. To some degree, especially with Poland and the Baltics, they succeeded. Too bad for those countries that thought doing what the US was asking, assumed we'd rush to their aid if the need arose. We'll 'rattle cages' but are not going to head over there any time soon. Western Europe was not so quick to expand Europe, especially where it would be perceived by Russia to be aggressive; Georgia and the Ukraine. While the US couldn't overcome the EU, (Turkey being a different case in most ways), the US did get out front in encouraging the two important former satellites to become more and more independent.
It's been clear since the 50's that Western Europe had philosophically changed from a continent of aggression to one of narcissism on a geo-political scale. It seemed to the US that might be a very good thing, considering in less than 50 years the previous form had brought the pale blue ball two world wars. So for 20 years or so, the post-secular continent rebuilt, chastised the superpowers, and became an international institutions cheerleader. Corruption dominated some governments, several built up powerhouse economies, though none provided for security for themselves.
To their east though, things were very different. Within 15 years of the end of WWII, the entire East was the USSR, some by agreement, most by force. Berlin was the dividing line. The US became the force between the East and West. While that role led to some dangerous moments for the citizens of the US, mostly we seemed to like the 'control.' It took Europe out of the equation. The US and USSR would play chess all over the world. The war in Vietnam was just another showdown between US and USSR, one that developed into a lack of will to win by the politicians that had started it. Indeed, that was the beginning of change, for more than a generation, a defining era.
Then came the end of the USSR, in some larger or smaller degree because of US winning the chess game and the inevitable collapse of the Soviet system built on providing for military expansion at the price of their people's standard of living. So it seemed that the US was the last superpower standing.
To a lesser degree, this had happened twice before to the US, though without the recognition of such by the US or other nations. Both times the result ended with others rising to challenge the 'new order' as a nation or as a concert. Both times the results were a world war. Will the fact that the US and 'the world' recognized the period of sole superpower change the possible outcome of tipping the balance? In truth, most Americans recognized the lack of balance regarding power was not a good thing, but what to do with the vacuum created by the collapse of the USSR?
Now Russia has pushed back, albeit against a very small power, but the one with the closest ties to US. The first of the near abroad as they are now being referred to, that Rose up in Revolution, pun intended.
So here we are on the brink of historical elections in this country, looking at a world that is rapidly changing. It's not a safe world, indeed it seems to be one of the most obviously dangerous time that I have seen, without any immediate danger being clear and present. We are not building up our military, nor can we see any reason to. A new age of conflict seems to be arising, with 7th C enemies on one side; old foes with powerful weapons on the other. Everything is changing, while everything appears to be the same. Whatever the threat, if there is one, we are not yet recognizing it. The US has always battled within, unless a real threat is perceived, then mostly it becomes one. Not there, not yet, the elections illustrate that without comment being needed.
How will the future look? What alignments will there be? There are always alignments in dangerous times. Western Europe is changing, but glacially considering the times. Russia controls their lifeblood and they are fearful for good cause. The East however, they are standing together recognizing the US isn't currently going to do more than talk and rattle the cage. In some ways it reminds me of Poland taking on Germany, gallantly but futilely. Horses do not win against tanks. Will Russia finish their 'stand', pull back, regroup, and decide their next move? Will the traditional alignment of modern times see the US realign with Western Europe, finding some way to balance power without war?
So far I think the US has moved correctly, we do not belong as a sole power in Europe, it's not our continent. On the other hand, there is no 'power' in Europe but Russia, regardless of it's reemerging, but still relatively small military might. One thing both powers learned during the Cold War, nukes are not the most important weapon, using them is lose-lose.
Anyone have any further thoughts, corrections, observations?