The limit of American Influence.

[N3bu]

So I was reading this article on the nature of the western (Mostly G7) response to the Crimean issue, excluding likely NATO action in the coming months to a year. What struck wasn't so much the general conclusion of the piece, which is that Russia doesn't give a ******** about the G7, given the G20, but instead a more narrow conclusion made by the writer regarding western influence.

Quote:

It is no surprise that the joint statement threatening further sanctions came at a G7 level — it was limited enough to allow for aligned policy. It is clear that the G7 is sufficiently like-minded to exhibit true leadership and project its core values like human rights, democracy and rule of law. In Obama’s speech on Wednesday, he explained his view that “these ideals that we affirm are true. These ideals are universal.”

But while they may be universal for the United States, they are not for China, Russia or Saudi Arabia. These nations have conflicting ideals of their own that they won’t water down — and in today’s world, they are sufficiently powerful that the West cannot convince or force them to do so.

In this context, Western powers can either cling to their values within a global framework — with little success. Or they can cling to their values in a narrower coalition of the like-minded, although it’s much harder to bring about a global result.

The point is of course that Global Policy requires significant compromise given the diversity of cultures, key ideals and special interests. Because of this global organisations like the G20 and the UN can rarely agree on effective policy. More so in a world were the developing world takes larger pieces of the global pie, western values, long seen by the west as fairly non-negotiable are becoming less important.

Thus if the US and Europe wants to create global change like it used to, it now needs to be more willing to discard or compromise on it's ideals, which I imagine sit's uncomfortably with them.

The other choice, is to instead forgo global influence to focus on more regional influence, like the article suggests. Discard the need for a global result so as to better hold onto their values.

What do you think?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

******** that s**t.

It's my way or...


Hell, it's my way.

Russia will get in line or they will get the boot.


If they want to turn this into a boxing match we'll see what 50% of the world's military spending 90% of the world's Navy can do.

Russia's entire economy relies on the rest of the world in exports; it's them that need us, not the other way around.


And what's China gonna do? We have all their money and their stuff.

No, they can stop enslaving children. That's how it's going to go. We can be patient, we can be kind; we can spare the rod, give them a guiding hand, and even spoil them. But as soon as they start being violent that guiding hand will turn into an iron fist and they're going to get stomped into the ground.


Or at least that's how it should go.

We'll probably just ignore them for now, maybe pass a few sanctions. xp

[The20]

[******** that s**t.

It's my way or...


Hell, it's my way.

Russia will get in line or they will get the boot.


If they want to turn this into a boxing match we'll see what 50% of the world's military spending 90% of the world's Navy can do.Unless you are willing to start WW3 they aren't going to do anything.

[CuAnnan]

Suicidesoldier#1

Russia will get in line or they will get the boot.

Neither actually.
They won't get in line and American/G7 won't do much beyond sanctions.
This would all be ******** hilarious to those of us not involved in the ego-off between the US and Russia if both of you didn't have nukes.
Giants in the Playground.

[Wraith of Azrael]

America and Europe seem to be lost in the old ideas.

The old ideas I refer to is the nuclear deterrent.

You see, because the West appears to be still afraid of a nuclear war (Despite the fact that no sane nation would wage such a thing) they're allowing a nuclear power to walk all over them.

When it comes to countries which are nuclear and are not backwaters (Iraq,Afghanistan) the U.S and Europe seem to lack the will to stop them.

They talk of ideals and use the language of sanctions but if a country doesn't care about the threat of sanctions (or your country is in greater danger of being hurt by the sanctions than them) suddenly Western power becomes little more than a minor nuisance.

It's time for an old clip to be re-watched.



Surprisingly, this clip seems far more relevant than what I previously thought....

[CuAnnan]

Wraith of Azrael

Surprisingly, this clip seems far more relevant than what I previously thought....

Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister never cease to be relevant.

[Patton]

In other words, continue with the spinelessness of the Obama Doctrine, or perhaps we could George Bush it up in this place? Let's face some brutal facts...

1) The E.U. needs Russia a lot more then any of its cowardly politicians will ever admit. They certainly need to avoid angering Putin more then they need to mollify President Obama's bruised ego. So the policy in western Europe is likely going to seek compromise with Russia, while giving 1600 Pennsylvania the finest in Euro lip service.

2) Russia can not be harmed overly much by U.S. and E.U. sanctions, especially not the weak sauce ones they came out of the gate with initially. Most assuredly not as much harm as Putin can do with sanctions against the E.U. if the west made him feel like doing so.

3) The very idea of effecting meaningful global change using international bodies has been so discredited, over so many years, that to still have faith in the idea in the twenty-first century is laughable at its most charitable. And I do indeed cite the first round of "sanctions" that were levelled against President Putin.

[N3bu]

Patton

In other words, continue with the spinelessness of the Obama Doctrine, or perhaps we could George Bush it up in this place?

Well more accurately, does the west continue to push for globalism and a global world, which they can no longer push western ideals on, or decide to go for regionalism, where the west's biggest interest is in the west, ignoring most else, where they are far more sure their ideals will have support.

[Samadhi23]

I highly agree that the bottom up approach - fixing things on as local a level as possible before moving/expanding to higher levels - is the only way that we can ever succeed.

[Brothern]

N3bu

Thus if the US and Europe wants to create global change like it used to, it now needs to be more willing to discard or compromise on it's ideals, which I imagine sit's uncomfortably with them.

The other choice, is to instead forgo global influence to focus on more regional influence, like the article suggests. Discard the need for a global result so as to better hold onto their values.

What do you think?

Suicidesoldier#1 may have a point. The US and Europe (G7) still makes up a large portion of the world's economy, population, military spending and standing armies. That's still influence. Sure, yes, we can say a number of the world's autocratic governments (G20) have a distaste for our liberal 'political values' or Western cultural values, but that doesn't mean that we have absolutely NO influence upon their policies. It's only influence at a reduced capacity of what it once was. That shouldn't be a reason to give up.

The moment the G7 gives up on pushing for liberal/Western values across the global community is the moment we've all given up.

[Brothern]

Patton

In other words, continue with the spinelessness of the Obama Doctrine, or perhaps we could George Bush it up in this place? Let's face some brutal facts...

1) The E.U. needs Russia a lot more then any of its cowardly politicians will ever admit. They certainly need to avoid angering Putin more then they need to mollify President Obama's bruised ego. So the policy in western Europe is likely going to seek compromise with Russia, while giving 1600 Pennsylvania the finest in Euro lip service.

2) Russia can not be harmed overly much by U.S. and E.U. sanctions, especially not the weak sauce ones they came out of the gate with initially. Most assuredly not as much harm as Putin can do with sanctions against the E.U. if the west made him feel like doing so.

3) The very idea of effecting meaningful global change using international bodies has been so discredited, over so many years, that to still have faith in the idea in the twenty-first century is laughable at its most charitable. And I do indeed cite the first round of "sanctions" that were levelled against President Putin.

If we're going to be taking on brutal facts ....

Russia "took over" a small, impoverished region that is almost exclusively ethnic Russian. The region had been operating independently of Ukraine since 1992, which was the last time it tried to secede. Now it contains a minority of incredibly bitter Tartars and ethnic Ukrainians; while the rest of eastern Europe has strongly backed off from Russia's sphere of influence. Even the Balkan states were expressing nervousness, which is kinda unexpected. Not to mention the rest of Ukraine is now firmly outside of Russia's grasp. It's hardly a win for Russian geopolitical aims and many polls seem to be saying that Russian citizens are rather unimpressed with this.

With that in perspective, I don't see the reason to trash Russia through sanctions. It's more than satisfactory to flip Russia the bird. Their economic prospect for this year have been absolutely whomped, and sanctions on the Russian elites is just perfect. They pride themselves in being "cultured" and a lot of them have vacation homes, investments and college kids in Europe. (Which was more than mentioned by those LGBT Russian groups.) The anti-gay actions didn't get travel bans imposed, but this certainly did and that's why they've now retaliated against US officials.

In the end, I think it's going to work out. Crimea is going to find out that self-governance was a lot better than the Kremlin's rule, and Mr. Putin is watching that hated liberalism move eastward. See not only Ukraine, but the protest/reforms in Turkey and each of the former Soviet states.

[Patton]

N3bu

Patton

In other words, continue with the spinelessness of the Obama Doctrine, or perhaps we could George Bush it up in this place?

Well more accurately, does the west continue to push for globalism and a global world, which they can no longer push western ideals on, or decide to go for regionalism, where the west's biggest interest is in the west, ignoring most else, where they are far more sure their ideals will have support.

That difference (global vs regional) is quite meaningless when you delve into it. All that matters in the 'now' of wolf thought, is who is hungrier? Is the 'west' hungry to see its ideals expand worldwide, or is Russia hungrier?

You can not push for globalism on the premise of western ideals if you do not believe in those ideals in the first place. Whether the west's focus is global or regional, it does not matter. What matters is if you...'you' as in the "west" (because saying 'European Union' is probably a waste of both breath and pagespace), the United States, or Russia... are willing to go to the mat for those "ideals" when the time calls for it.

With the "west" those ideals are drowned out by the perversities of concensus, to the point where there are no clearly defensable "ideals" for them to stand upon. In a "Union" which still has 28 different outlooks on what is best for them in either a global or regional context, any retreat from the former necessarily means defeat in the latter. And don't anyone fool themselves, defeat for the one does indeed mean victory for another.

With the United States, we no longer believe in "American Exceptionalism", so exactly what ideals have we been pushing for the last half dozen years? None but appeasement and cowardice, federally sanctioned and congressionally underwritten. It is equally pointless to continue pushing these ideals as it is to push the ideals of the "west".

The problem that the global community is having is that, when push comes to shove, Russia is the only power that is actually thinking of its ideals in a global context. No matter one's opinion of Russian ideals, which are as old as time itself, at least they have a concrete set of them. It is just such a set of ideals with which a nation, led by a government of sufficient intent, can win either in a regional context or a global one.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

I was kind of joking but, Russia and China almost entirely rely upon exports for their economy; although a large chunk of Europe's fossil fuels do come from Russia, they are somewhat more expensive than average, and it was only done to strengthen ties with Russia and out of geographical convenience. If Russia is no longer a convenient neighbor, then they can easily, easily get fossil fuels from other sources.

Similarly, Chinese manufacturing has largely taken over due to subsidization. China's strategy thus far has been to dump cheap products en masse into the market, and when it crashes, take up and spike the prices afterwords. (Examples of this include the solar panel issue where they violated over 200 treaties and a handful of other issues). However, this obviously isn't a successful long term strategy, since other businesses will out do you; U.S. manufacturing is still, despite their best efforts, ultimately cheaper than Chinese in most areas. Technology can out do human work in nearly every factor (sewing machines compared to hand stitching), and is more consistent.


Essentially, they make be able to game world markets using cheap tactics or brute force, but, that doesn't really make them important per say. Most people are fed up with it anyways.

So they essentially rely on everyone else. Am I afraid of them, am I going to compromise my morals, my principles, my integrity, just to keep doing business with them? Not really. I wouldn't anyways, but they don't exactly have much to go on other than us trying to play nice with them while they consistently violate human rights and basic integrity on a daily basis. Virtually the entire world is united against them, where as China, Russia, North Korea, all have their own agendas. It's not really "western" morals but human morals, for democracy, union, basing things on fundamental rights, and that's why it catches on so well. It's not native to the West but to humanity in general, we find other examples of democracy and similar morality; don't steal, don't kill, don't assault etc. in other cultures and countries. It's basic human decency, derived from our innate sense of empathy and love for our fellow man. Will I compromise this just so we can be on friendly terms today; not really. When the Soviet Union fell the new Russia promised to more or less live up to the ideals that virtually all of mankind aspires to. I still hold them up to that. I expect them to change to fit how to help others. At the end of the day, there is still a human thread among us all and a singular concept of basic human decency present; we can argue the ideological differences of capitalism or communism and which will be the most successful, but we can all see that gulags and mass murder are wrong, or at least 98% of the population.

[Patton]

Brothern

In the end, I think it's going to work out. Crimea is going to find out that self-governance was a lot better than the Kremlin's rule, and Mr. Putin is watching that hated liberalism move eastward. See not only Ukraine, but the protest/reforms in Turkey and each of the former Soviet states.

To think Putin "hates" liberalism is to misread his intent. Whatever his intent foreign policy wise, it certainly isn't so short-sighted as to whether or not people get to vote.

As to when, not if, Crimea realizes the grass isn't always greener on the Moscow side...so what, and who cares? I'm sure the people of the Saar realized that sometime in the decade after the referendum, but that didn't matter for a hill of beans. And as has been seen with protests elsewhere in Russia, the youth of both Russia and Crimea really aren't that upset with Putin if protest is all they do. Qui tacet consentire videtur, and all that.

As to taking over some small region is to ignore the beauty that is Maskirovka. Whether a small move or a large one, Russia won that round clearly and uncontestedly. The protest of the 'west' has been limited to a profusion of hot air and nothing else. Even if Putin does go for eastern Ukraine, as I am constantly regaled with the thought of such possibilities, what exactly is the 'west' going to do? More sanctions...now Putin will not only be blocked from visiting Disney Epcot, but now his ilk can't go to Euro Disney? Victories do not always have to be big...but sometimes they are undeniable, and that never hurts in a war of dueling Moscow-Brussels-D.C. rhetoric.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

[******** that s**t.

It's my way or...


Hell, it's my way.

Russia will get in line or they will get the boot.


If they want to turn this into a boxing match we'll see what 50% of the world's military spending 90% of the world's Navy can do.Unless you are willing to start WW3 they aren't going to do anything.

I think WWIII can be arranged.

In all honestly they really wouldn't stand a chance, but I abhor war anyways. whee