[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.23340978 [View]
File: 224 KB, 2424x1326, 4c0765b2-3a26-4a93-be09-3cb459f95aea_2424x1326.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23340978

>>23340821
>The American right isn't justifying it, they're saying America's geopolitical strategy is outdated and shitty.
There are a lot of people on the American right who would prefer an American-European-Russian alliance against China. That's what Tucker Carlson seems to believe, and these guys think it is just crazy to push Russia into the Chinese camp when what the U.S. should really be doing is a reverse Nixon/Kissinger maneuver but with Russia instead of China (which is the new "USSR").

But I suspect some of the Atlanticist liberals who are more anti-Russia than they are anti-China want to be more aggressive towards Russia precisely because Russia is weaker than China and is in long-term decline. Sure, Russia is in an expansionist mode now, but this like short-term junkie energy while the long-term statistics for Russia are really fucking dire:
https://youtu.be/r5FlaRUcNec

Fareed Zakaria thinks the U.S. made a strategic error pushing Russia towards China though. But this strategy of being more aggressive to the weaker power is reminiscent of British policy in the lead-up to WWI. The Russian Empire in fact posed a more serious challenge to British global interests (in Central Asia), which is why the British opted to appease Russia and go harder on Germany. That led to an alliance with Russia in the war. Also, one of the motivations behind Nixon going to China was not necessarily because China was weaker than the USSR, but because China over the long term was going to grow, and they knew that at the time, and the USSR was acting as an expansionist power. Or at least that's how I think they saw it.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]