Should US Leave NATO???

[Renegade7]

14 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

No.

 

NATO being without its strongest member is exactly what Russia wants.  Russia will whisper that oh if only the US left NATO we could all be friends....and then would immediately invade eastern Europe.

 

If you show that's what they want to do or even have resources to do it, I'll listen, that's not what I'm seeing or reading.  Destabilizing NATO is very different then invading half the continent.

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This was the post I was looking for.  It's impossible to take his intentiona for Russia seriously because at the same time hes trying to stay in power like a dictator.  The problem is I dont know if we can sanction Russia into a more moderate government like we did Iran, not when Putin is killing his political opponents.  What do you do?

 

Sanctions against Russia are not about getting them to take on a more moderate government.  They are about limiting the reach and power of Putin.  We are trying to make it as hard as possible for Putin to accumulate more money/power.

 

(you win a war by identifying your opponents objective and preventing them from achieving it.)

 

For most countries, the road to democracy is not a straight a line.  France continually went through waves of attempts at democracy to dictatorships (Napolean) before forming a stable democracy.

 

What we do is do what we can to limit Putin's power and wait him out, and then after his government fails/he dies, we try again.

 

In terms of the Eastern European countries, it is hard to say if it was necessary or not.  It was the easiest/most obvious way to achieve the objective.  Is it possible we could have signed some treaty with them that would have protected them without actually letting them in NATO?  Yes, but I'm also not sure what the real advantage to that would have been, and there is no real way of knowing if it would have worked.

[Renegade7]

18 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

It shouldn't be a choice.  That's what a military alliance is.  You know what started WWII?  A lack of British and French resolve to honor their alliance with Czechoslovakia.  They were committed to protecting Czechoslovakia, and when when the Sudetenland was occupied by the Germans, they weaseled out of their commitments because they weren't firm enough.  Germany knew they would.  This emboldened them and greatly expanded their military capacity and motivated their invasion of Poland.

 

Peace is ONLY sustainable through strength and a rock solid commitment to protect our European allies.  There can be no doubt about the consequences of an attack on any of our allies.  And our engagement on the continent keeps them united.  A united Europe means wars stay regional.  It's good for the entire human race.

 

This is why I brought up founding fathers and how times have changed since they didnt want anything close to NATO.  It's tough because I can see both sides of it, but its 2018, not 1776.  

 

You bring up beginnings of world war 2, which is a fair point, but both world wars were started by European powers.  This is a different time, so the fact France and Germany both invaded Russia probably doesnt belong here.  The real question is if Russia would do the reverse if given chance to.

 

Quote

BTW, you can't be sensitive about this.  If you post something that is not only crazy, but dangerous and mirrors the whataboutism, moral equivocation, and propaganda of our enemies, you're going to get a rough pushback.

 

I'm not, but we are not always right and that's convo I'm trying to have.  I'm not sensitive,  I knew risks starting this thread and the timing of it.  Why I added the "not yet" option and why I picked it.

[twa]

52 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Look ahead to the next 100 years of foreign policy crises and the one that looms largest to me is potential Chinese-Russian conflict.  We get to a point where the Earth warms and China has a massive and cramped up and hungry population right on the doorstep of Siberia and there is very little influence that Europe and the US can exert over this area and thus you have a potential nuclear powder keg.  If anything, Russia should be looking to placate us to help protect them against Chinese growth and potential expansionism.

 

Russia is playing a really dumb game.  They've become a pariah state whose prosperity is 100% reliant on hydrocarbon energy exports.  They've got an illiberal and bifurcated society with a small, unhealthy population and massive regional rivals on their borders.  Their institutions of government are weak and would struggle to survive an economic or foreign policy crisis.  Peter is right that Putin's regime isn't governing in the national interest of Russia, they're a kleptocracy desperately trying to keep their power.

 

While in general I agree with your posts in this thread , you are more likely to see more Russia/China cooperation(which is not going to go well for us)

Expansion/migration will not be towards Siberia

[Renegade7]

40 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I don't know that a lot of people want to fill our shoes, but a ton of people want to be top dog. Now, what they do as top dog may look entirely different than what the US has tried to do, but the question is... will it be better or worse for us Will it be better or worse for the world? Will it be better or worse for the individual and their families in terms of safety, commerse, environment, etc.

 

The US has dropped a lot of balls. Do you want China calling the shots?

 

When we say top dog, are we talking about the country everyone looks to decide what to do?  I dont think any country should have that role should be UN.  In regards to being a bigger super power then us, there are papers on how China is being stunted by their corruption,  slowing economy, and eventual population decline because of their one child policy they stopped to late.  Basically,  there's a serious possibility they couldn't replace us as the most powerful super power even if they wanted to.

 

  @PeterMP talked about waiting out Putin and hope for the next guy, I dont know if waiting out Xi will work as well, we're leaving future up to chance when the environment could be very different 100 years from now like what @stevemcqueen1 mentioned.  We may be running out of time to have this conversation of the relations between the three of us in regards to hostilities being a choice versus survival.

[Renegade7]

Also may need a separate thread, but I think yall get the jist of trying to find some way to normalize relations with that country, some of the sanctions are on the entire country in some cases and Putin is using that to say world is against Russia as a whole. 

 

If hes killing his political opponents, would limiting the sanctions to individuals instead of the whole country make a difference?  Feels like damned if you so damned if you dont, lifting sanctions in a way that helps overall economy could play right into Putins hand improving his approval rating (it's the economy stupid)  Does anyone trust their population to see right through it?  There were peices when western style restaurants in Moscow started to suffer when Putin went after trade with the west, I dont know how far gone that population is as a whole.

[DCSaints_fan]

If NATO were to break up, I'm not sure the EU would be enough to stop Russia from making a play for the Eastern Europe, particularly the Baltics.  And as the Brexit is showing, the EU isn't exactly on firm footing.  I could easily see the EU effectively dissolving and European nations falling back into nationalism, at which point, the smaller nations in Eastern Europe would be devoid of protection from Russia.

[Going Commando]

30 minutes ago, twa said:

 

While in general I agree with your posts in this thread , you are more likely to see more Russia/China cooperation(which is not going to go well for us) 

Expansion/migration will not be towards Siberia 

 

The problem is, in the event of warming, Russia would have what China needs.  Land that is potentially useful for agriculture and settlement.  And there isn't a way for Russia to easily defend the fringes of that massive hinterland without their nuclear capacity.  They don't have enough population to fill up their border regions and their population only recently started growing again.

 

What's to stop waves of Chinese immigration into the region which spark an eventual conflict/attempt at annexation?  Everywhere the Han migrate and overtake the native population eventually falls under Chinese dominion.

[Renegade7]

11 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

The problem is, in the event of warming, Russia would have what China needs.  Land that is potentially useful for agriculture and settlement.  And there isn't a way for Russia to easily defend the fringes of that massive hinterland without their nuclear capacity.  They don't have enough population to fill up their border regions and their population only recently started growing again.

 

What's to stop waves of Chinese immigration into the region which spark an eventual conflict/attempt at annexation?  Everywhere the Han migrate and overtake the native population eventually falls under Chinese dominion.

 

Population issue is a big problem for them, didnt know it went positive for a second, knew it was dropping and looks like its dropping again.

 

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/russia-population/

 

Russia wouldnt stand a chance in your scenario, another reason to try reaching out to those countries now instead of waiting until it possibly gets to that point.

 

In your opinion, In a Russia-China war where China is the aggressor, do we take a side or stay out of it?  

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

While in general I agree with your posts in this thread , you are more likely to see more Russia/China cooperation(which is not going to go well for us)

Expansion/migration will not be towards Siberia

 

China is already expanding into Siberia, at the national level it is happening peacefully, but eventually the locals are either going to start to resist, which will force Moscow's hands.  (And have been for years now).

 

https://jamestown.org/program/china-expanding-russias-transbaikal-russian-taxpayers-paying/

 

https://www.ft.com/content/3106345c-f05e-11e7-b220-857e26d1aca4

 

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2100228/chinese-russian-far-east-geopolitical-time-bomb

 

The issue is going to become natural resources, not so much population.  China is looking for a natural resource supply that they can use to vault their economy into a 1st world economy.  Right now, they are looking at using economic power to gain control of other countries natural resources.  If that doesn't work or in the future they decide going into Russia will be easier, at some time, they will look at Russian oil in Siberia.

 

For now, buying up mining rights in Africa is much safer than invading Russia, and it might give them what they need/desire.  Military expansion then for China is really about protecting those rights that they are buying to have a stick to keep the countries that have sold them the rights from renigging (e.g. nationalizing the industry at some time in the future).

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

Also may need a separate thread, but I think yall get the jist of trying to find some way to normalize relations with that country, some of the sanctions are on the entire country in some cases and Putin is using that to say world is against Russia as a whole. 

 

If hes killing his political opponents, would limiting the sanctions to individuals instead of the whole country make a difference?  Feels like damned if you so damned if you dont, lifting sanctions in a way that helps overall economy could play right into Putins hand improving his approval rating (it's the economy stupid)  Does anyone trust their population to see right through it?  There were peices when western style restaurants in Moscow started to suffer when Putin went after trade with the west, I dont know how far gone that population is as a whole.

 

We've done quite a few sanctions against individuals or at least designed to hit individuals in Russia.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/06/united-states-imposes-new-sanctions-russia/490814002/

 

But it is hard because, as they run the country, the can pretty easily transfer their wealth to what is the best way to make money.

[Renegade7]

31 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

We've done quite a few sanctions against individuals or at least designed to hit individuals in Russia.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/06/united-states-imposes-new-sanctions-russia/490814002/

 

But it is hard because, as they run the country, the can pretty easily transfer their wealth to what is the best way to make money.

 

Ya, I probably should of clarified that I get that and also part of my concern on this as well. 

 

Reading that article was interesting, it claims we try not to go after Russia as a whole, but it's clear the sanctions we and others supported is having an effect in their entire economy.  Looking around, I didn't know at the time France and to an extent even Germany was on the fence about this, if my memory is right, it was going too far to pointed it affected Europe's economy as well, especially from a natural resource standpoint.

 

When the economy is that interlinked with Putin and his buddies, gotta wonder if there's a way to tweak the sanctions to more effect the individuals then the overall economy.  The court of public opinion worked in Iran to force the Iran deal, I can't tell if it's working in Russia, it doesnt look like it is.

 

 

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

In your opinion, In a Russia-China war where China is the aggressor, do we take a side or stay out of it?  

 

We pray that it never comes to that because it's a potential nuclear war that could be a global catastrophe.  I think a nuclear war between two powers must necessarily effect everyone on the planet.  Global environmental impacts.  Collapse of the social order in a civilization with a major population.  Mass migrations.  Disruption of an unfathomable range of economic sectors.  Potential for allies who are geographic neighbors to get hit.

 

I don't think there is anyway something like that could happen without it sucking us in.  We can't wall ourselves off from the world's troubles.

[Skin'emAlive]

China and Russia will never team up, nor will they fight each other as they are a proxy just as NK is one to the Pacific. And honestly, China doesnt have to fight with Russia to conquer them. They will do the same thing they have done since the beginning of the Han. They will infiltrate the area with seductive offers of wealth and prosperity, flood the region with migrant Han workers, eventually change laws that favor the Chinese, and wait it out. Soon enough the region will be cleansed of whomever resided there and it will be another extension of China. Its called cultural genocide, and most outside of China are blind to it because it is a slow burn.

 

Its happening right now as we speak with the Uyghur people of West China: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/asia/uyghur-china-xinjiang-interview-intl/index.html

 

In 1953, the Han minority accounted for 6% of the Xinjiang population. The Uyghur accounted for 75%

In 2000, the Han accounted for 40% of the Xinjiang population. The Uyghur accounted for 45%

 

I can guarantee that number has fallen drastically since then. That was 18 years ago. Inner Mongolian has also been absolutely raided for minerals. I know, because Ive been there and seen hundreds of miles of strip mines that have decimated the landscape. Mongolia is not part of China by the way. But all the best ore is found in the Inner Mongolian region, hence why that part is filled with Chinese businesses.

 

The Uyghur are being destroyed from within just as the Miao people were after they provided help during the Rebellion. The same happened to everyone in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The same happened to Lhasa.

 

The reason is very simple: strength and power via minerals through Africa and Eastern Europe.

 

China will build infrastructure from Beijing all the way through Cape Town. Its already begun. And contrary to our antiquated methods of infrastructure, they will have highspeed rail in place within a decade. Ive seen them put in an entire subway system underneath Beijing within 6 years. Ive seen them set up multiple highspeed rail from Beijing to Harbin and beyond within 3 years. And in 50 years, everywhere along new silk road will be Chinese Han territory. China has no need to fight anyone yet, but rest assured in 50 years time they will have expanded directly into East Africa, the Baltics, South America where they have already begun in Chile, and further into the South Chinese Sea (which they already control); subsequently they will be the new world power.

 

NATO is necessary to prevent the European territories from dissolving from two powers that have converse methods of expansion, but nonetheless effective.

[Renegade7]

17 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I don't think there is anyway something like that could happen without it sucking us in.  We can't wall ourselves off from the world's troubles.

 

I agree, and hate to say it, but we may be forced to take Russia's side vs waging our finger at China.  It's not like Russia is above taking territory itself, but I think this is different. I know you might think im crazy, but stuff like what you are talking about is why I started this thread, really limited in where to have this discussion and confirm how right or wrong I am with people that know what they are talking about.  My hope is that nuclear powers avoid mutually assured destruction.. That we will be more efficient with hydroponic growing and green energy that China invading wouldnt be neccesary.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Skin'emAlive said:

The reason is very simple: strength and power via minerals through Africa and Eastern Europe.

 

China will build infrastructure from Beijing all the way through Cape Town. Its already begun. And contrary to our antiquated methods of infrastructure, they will have highspeed rail in place within a decade. Ive seen them put in an entire subway system underneath Beijing within 6 years. Ive seen them set up multiple highspeed rail from Beijing to Harbin and beyond within 3 years. And in 50 years, everywhere along new silk road will be Chinese Han territory. China has no need to fight anyone yet, but rest assured in 50 years time they will have expanded directly into East Africa, the Baltics, South America where they have already begun in Chile, and further into the South Chinese Sea (which they already control); subsequently they will be the new world power.

 

NATO is necessary to prevent the European territories from dissolving from two powers that have converse methods of expansion, but nonetheless effective.

 

China's economy is teetering on the edge.  They've been lying about their economic growth for years.  Their GDP never grew by 10% a year, and for several years now it has been declining.  Much of the economic growth they did achieve came at a huge environmental costs that will have long term consequences in terms of human health and other less obvious long term expenses.  The rest was concentrated in the hands of a few people that moved much of the money out of the country (which realistically is a transfer of that wealth to other countries) so that they could be wealthy.  They've also got large issues with corruption that have further exacerbated reporting on human health issues.  Coupled with an aging population, they've got real issues with having a future efficient work force.  Their economy will go backwards from where it is before it goes forward.

 

And with their economy going backward so will them being a super power.

 

This post also comes off as mildly racist by suggesting that all ethnic Han are the same and have the same objectives (in this case territorial domination.  Many ethnic Han came to the US and have assimilated relatively well and are not part of a Chinese plot to dominate the US.)

[haithman]

15 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said:

China and Russia will never team up, nor will they fight each other as they are a proxy just as NK is one to the Pacific. And honestly, China doesnt have to fight with Russia to conquer them. They will do the same thing they have done since the beginning of the Han. They will infiltrate the area with seductive offers of wealth and prosperity, flood the region with migrant Han workers, eventually change laws that favor the Chinese, and wait it out. Soon enough the region will be cleansed of whomever resided there and it will be another extension of China. Its called cultural genocide, and most outside of China are blind to it because it is a slow burn.

 

Its happening right now as we speak with the Uyghur people of West China: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/asia/uyghur-china-xinjiang-interview-intl/index.html

 

In 1953, the Han minority accounted for 6% of the Xinjiang population. The Uyghur accounted for 75%

In 2000, the Han accounted for 40% of the Xinjiang population. The Uyghur accounted for 45%

 

I can guarantee that number has fallen drastically since then. That was 18 years ago. Inner Mongolian has also been absolutely raided for minerals. I know, because Ive been there and seen hundreds of miles of strip mines that have decimated the landscape. Mongolia is not part of China by the way. But all the best ore is found in the Inner Mongolian region, hence why that part is filled with Chinese businesses.

 

The Uyghur are being destroyed from within just as the Miao people were after they provided help during the Rebellion. The same happened to everyone in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The same happened to Lhasa.

 

The reason is very simple: strength and power via minerals through Africa and Eastern Europe.

 

China will build infrastructure from Beijing all the way through Cape Town. Its already begun. And contrary to our antiquated methods of infrastructure, they will have highspeed rail in place within a decade. Ive seen them put in an entire subway system underneath Beijing within 6 years. Ive seen them set up multiple highspeed rail from Beijing to Harbin and beyond within 3 years. And in 50 years, everywhere along new silk road will be Chinese Han territory. China has no need to fight anyone yet, but rest assured in 50 years time they will have expanded directly into East Africa, the Baltics, South America where they have already begun in Chile, and further into the South Chinese Sea (which they already control); subsequently they will be the new world power.

 

NATO is necessary to prevent the European territories from dissolving from two powers that have converse methods of expansion, but nonetheless effective.

 

This sounds depressing

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

And with their economy going backward so will them being a super power.

 

Seen that as well, their economy in many ways has exploded because of the infrastructure spending, but then they have empty highways and cities in some places because. It's been brought up in a couple threads trying to temper them replacing us as the strongest super power.

 

https://www.afr.com/news/world/asia/chinas-ghost-cities-and-their-multibilliondollar-debt-20180404-h0ybjz

 

Africa in many ways is realizing this infrastructure thing is a deal with the devil and called China out for trying to do stuff like build it without any African workers.

 

That South China Sea thing is serious business, I'm really not sure the best way to address that yet.

[Going Commando]

One thing I'd add Skin'em is that Russia is not like the Uyghurs or Tibetans.  They're a formal global imperial power with a big military and nuclear arsenal.  Why would they let China seize territory from them or overrun their lands without a fight?  That is a very destabilizing situation.

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

One thing I'd add Skin'em is that Russia is not like the Uyghurs or Tibetans.  They're a formal global imperial power with a big military and nuclear arsenal.  Why would they let China seize territory from them or overrun their lands without a fight?  That is a very destabilizing situation.

 

Aka biting off more then you can chew.

[Kilmer17]

Not just no.  But **** NO.  That's insanity talking.

 

Should other countries pay more and contribute more?  without question.

[nonniey]

To many of many of you on the left are trespassing into my territory in this thread and sounding like a Neo-Con (Burgold). What gives? 

[PeterMP]

On 11/15/2018 at 2:22 PM, Renegade7 said:

It's been brought up in a couple threads trying to temper them replacing us as the strongest super power.

 

In general, it always amazes me that so many people that express a belief in American exceptionalism also believe we are going to be over taken by countries that express a very different organizing philosophy.

 

If you believe in freedom and liberty are the best, why would you think a country that believes in the suppression of freedom and liberty is really a threat to surpassing us?

 

Just think about the resources they are using to spy on and suppress their own population.  if you really believe that freedom and liberty result in positive outcomes, then that's a huge waste of resources.

 

**EDIT**

If you believe in democracy, liberty, and personal freedom, it should be clear that what the Russians and Chinese are doing is inferior and bound to fail eventually.  So we just need to wait them out.

[Renegade7]

@stevemcqueen1 i was wrong

 

Trump’s style inspires imitators, unleashes dark impulses around the world
https://wapo.st/2FJhJZL

 

I still do not like you even joking about doing the work of a Russian bot by having this conversation, thats exactly the emotional knee jerk reaction i asked us to avoid.  Over, squashed, moving on.

 

The more i think about history, i think about historical super powers that fell.  One thing i noticed, and you can correct me in this, is when they fell a common factor was not having another superpower having their back.  They had either conquered them or the rival was the one taking their lunch money finally.  Rome was interesting in that it split in half and the East saw Rome getting sacked, said "that's nice", and eventually became the  Byzantine Empire.

 

US has something unique in having a military alliance with an entire continent, some countries with their own nukes.

 

Here's why i finally bumped this thread: once Trump is out of power, we are going to figure out very quickly that his copycats aren't going to be our friends, they were his friends.  There's no telling what this momentum is going to look like this century, but it is looking bad right now. Bad enough that we need to keep an eye on what's going on with Europe.

 

What kinda situation are we talking about if NATO powers start dropping into authoritarianism like Romania and Poland?  What are we actually dealing with when our closest neighbor has a president taking $100 million bribes from cartels?  I kept telling myself there was only so much damage this guy could do in 2 years, i was wrong about that, too.

On 11/16/2018 at 2:24 PM, PeterMP said:

 

In general, it always amazes me that so many people that express a belief in American exceptionalism also believe we are going to be over taken by countries that express a very different organizing philosophy.

 

If you believe in freedom and liberty are the best, why would you think a country that believes in the suppression of freedom and liberty is really a threat to surpassing us?

 

Just think about the resources they are using to spy on and suppress their own population.  if you really believe that freedom and liberty result in positive outcomes, then that's a huge waste of resources.

 

**EDIT**

If you believe in democracy, liberty, and personal freedom, it should be clear that what the Russians and Chinese are doing is inferior and bound to fail eventually.  So we just need to wait them out.

 

Neither Russia or China has over democratically transistioned power from one political party to another peacefully in their entire history.  It is terrifyingly reasonable to believe they won't do so in the foreseeable future even with an inferior product.  Revolutions are hard, Syria showed just how bad a failed one can go.

On 11/15/2018 at 3:33 PM, nonniey said:

To many of many of you on the left are trespassing into my territory in this thread and sounding like a Neo-Con (Burgold). What gives? 

 

World had changed.  When facts change, your opinions based on those facts should at minimum be re-evaluated.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@stevemcqueen1 i was wrong

 

Trump’s style inspires imitators, unleashes dark impulses around the world
https://wapo.st/2FJhJZL

 

I still do not like you even joking about doing the work of a Russian bot by having this conversation, thats exactly the emotional knee jerk reaction i asked us to avoid.  Over, squashed, moving on.

 

The more i think about history, i think about historical super powers that fell.  One thing i noticed, and you can correct me in this, is when they fell a common factor was not having another superpower having their back.  They had either conquered them or the rival was the one taking their lunch money finally.  Rome was interesting in that it split in half and the East saw Rome getting sacked, said "that's nice", and eventually became the  Byzantine Empire.

 

US has something unique in having a military alliance with an entire continent, some countries with their own nukes.

 

Here's why i finally bumped this thread: once Trump is out of power, we are going to figure out very quickly that his copycats aren't going to be our friends, they were his friends.  There's no telling what this momentum is going to look like this century, but it is looking bad right now. Bad enough that we need to keep an eye on what's going on with Europe.

 

What kinda situation are we talking about if NATO powers start dropping into authoritarianism like Romania and Poland?  What are we actually dealing with when our closest neighbor has a president taking $100 million bribes from cartels?  I kept telling myself there was only so much damage this guy could do in 2 years, i was wrong about that, too.

 

Neither Russia or China has over democratically transistioned power from one political party to another peacefully in their entire history.  It is terrifyingly reasonable to believe they won't do so in the foreseeable future even with an inferior product.  Revolutions are hard, Syria showed just how bad a failed one can go.

 

World had changed.  When facts change, your opinions based on those facts should at minimum be re-evaluated.

 

1.  No country has transitioned peacefully into democracy until it does so, so that's a pretty meaningless statement.

 

2.  I'm not saying when the current regimes/governments fail what they will turn into next, but a regime change there will undo much of the work they've done.  Part of a civil war will include the destruction of infrastructure and other things that have been built.

 

Saying nothing about what comes next in Russia and China, it should be clear if you believe in western style liberty, freedom, and capitalism, what Russia and China are doing will fail.

 

3.  Just historically, we've been different than other Super Powers because we've very much had allies and not (just) satellite states.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  No country has transitioned peacefully into democracy until it does so, so that's a pretty meaningless statement.

 

That's nkt what i said, so it's not meaningless.  I said they aren't even switching political parties peacefully, let alone systems of government.

 

Quote

2.  I'm not saying when the current regimes/governments fail what they will turn into next, but a regime change there will undo much of the work they've done.  Part of a civil war will include the destruction of infrastructure and other things that have been built.

 

Saying nothing about what comes next in Russia and China, it should be clear if you believe in western style liberty, freedom, and capitalism, what Russia and China are doing will fail.

 

You are paying attention to that social credit system in China?  Or it's not entirely clear the majority of Russia actually wants a western style systemor ever did?  I'm an optimist by nature, but I wouldn't hold my breathe on either of them and those are ones you need worry about most.  No matter what i want, a 1984 type scenario is not impossible when even US voted for authoritarianism recently.

 

Quote

3.  Just historically, we've been different than other Super Powers because we've very much had allies and not (just) satellite states.

 

Exactly why we shouldn't get out of NATO right now, even if we a lot of both, especially in 20th century.