nothing good ever came out of a country or bloc of countries conspire to dominate the world. There is no room to accommodate others when you want to be the hegemon. similarly, the world cannot allow a hegemon to dictate.
First of all thank you very much Professor Diesen for your brave efforts to disseminate your lucid explanations about the Ukraine war for years.
I would like to underline an obvious nuance: every time that anybody talks about the US in geopolitics is NOT talking about the people of the US but about some neocon politicians, their puppet masters and all their accomplices (mainly mainstream media and corrupt officials). To my eyes 99% of the US people are NOT accountable of the monstrous crimes of US politicians.
And I would also like to remind that the FINAL GOAL of these US politicians is to dismember Russia to be able to steal all its wealth (petrol, gas, rare minerals...) and to eliminate any restriction, any counter power to the arrogance of US politicians.
No, the Soviet Union - and post coldwar Russia never constituted an imperialist expansionist military threat to Europe. On the contrary, They were always in defence having persistent illusions on getting on good terms with the US and its European allies.
Well, the Soviets hoped that the fire of socialist revolution would spread to Europe in the 1920s, primary Germany, but we know very well what happened to the working class leaders, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg.
So only ideologically constituted socialism a threat.
And after the Second World War, where the Soviet Union lost up to 30 million, it was of course legitimate for the Soviet Union to demand a security guarantee at the Yalta Conference in 1945.
So the American and European public were deceived and/or they blindly supported the US and EU imperialism and its anti-Soviet propaganda and lies, because they thought they this way would share in its profits in the form of increased consumption, which they did.
The point is US and EU imperialism achieved to finally wipe out the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party, which was supposed to unite the atomized subjects.
How else can peace, climate recovery and worldwide wellbeing materialize?
The Soviet Union WAS an Empire, by any definition.
Just as the USA IS an Empire.
The official position of the communist Internationale was that communism would take over the world. The USSR claimed the obligation to make it happen by force if necessary, thus denying their marxist claim that it was an historical inevitability, but the strict logic of non-contradiction is not a feature of Empires. Empires follow only the logic of expedience, as we also see in the USA today.
My problem with Prof. Diesen's central thesis is that the USA does not "misunderstand" Russia at all; it simply is determined to destroy Russia as a rival power and the "mistakes were made" and "they don't understand" are disappointing excuses from an academic who seeks to critique the US' application of power politics to every relationship. It weakens his case and leads the cynical to suspect he's merely another in a long line of academics who exist (and are well paid) solely for the purpose of thinking up plausible apologias for the repugnant crimes of the Empire.
"If we can recognise the security concerns of our adversaries, then we can mitigate the security competition and establish peace....."
Sure. But the US believes and has a policy of militarily achiving "full-spectrum dominance" globally. That being defined as the ability to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the full range of military operations.
I can understand this goal inside your own country, or on your own borders. But world-wide? Who wants that other than a megalomaniac or someone who believes the rest of the plant is populated by sub-humans who dont deserve to control their own lives too?
When a country explicitly believes it is "the chosen people" on this planet....and has an explicit policy of being the stronger power in every region of this planet earth..........well then I think anything you are speaking there is a foreign language. Because such a country only recognises one people: "us" and one language: war.
So that's what we have seen for most of the last half century. Hardly a shock.
I think in oder to get anywhere in the current landscape, the professor is going to need to develop specialised political theories of rational mutual self-interest for psychopathic nations. Because that's what we've got here...
I think looking at it from the security competition angle gets it wrong. Russia is sitting on one third of the worlds resources (Greenland is sitting on a sizeable chunk as well, btw). And the Empire of Lies relies on looting, but there is not much wealth left to be extracted in its sphere of influence. So they need to start looting Russia to stay afloat.
It’s all very simple and that’s why it seems so hard to understand how foolish our top foreign policy makers and leaders have been.
All we would have had to have done was to listen to the words of wisdom of George Kennan and then John Mearsheimer and we would have avoided a huge amount of death and destruction. If we had followed their advice we in the US would be a lot stronger and we’d be playing a lot more prominent role on today’s world stage.
nothing good ever came out of a country or bloc of countries conspire to dominate the world. There is no room to accommodate others when you want to be the hegemon. similarly, the world cannot allow a hegemon to dictate.
First of all thank you very much Professor Diesen for your brave efforts to disseminate your lucid explanations about the Ukraine war for years.
I would like to underline an obvious nuance: every time that anybody talks about the US in geopolitics is NOT talking about the people of the US but about some neocon politicians, their puppet masters and all their accomplices (mainly mainstream media and corrupt officials). To my eyes 99% of the US people are NOT accountable of the monstrous crimes of US politicians.
And I would also like to remind that the FINAL GOAL of these US politicians is to dismember Russia to be able to steal all its wealth (petrol, gas, rare minerals...) and to eliminate any restriction, any counter power to the arrogance of US politicians.
A comprehensive analysis. Excellent
Thank you Glenn. Just a side question — was it really the case that the Soviet Union wanted to build an empire? Historically, I just cannot see it.
No, the Soviet Union - and post coldwar Russia never constituted an imperialist expansionist military threat to Europe. On the contrary, They were always in defence having persistent illusions on getting on good terms with the US and its European allies.
Well, the Soviets hoped that the fire of socialist revolution would spread to Europe in the 1920s, primary Germany, but we know very well what happened to the working class leaders, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg.
So only ideologically constituted socialism a threat.
And after the Second World War, where the Soviet Union lost up to 30 million, it was of course legitimate for the Soviet Union to demand a security guarantee at the Yalta Conference in 1945.
So the American and European public were deceived and/or they blindly supported the US and EU imperialism and its anti-Soviet propaganda and lies, because they thought they this way would share in its profits in the form of increased consumption, which they did.
The point is US and EU imperialism achieved to finally wipe out the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party, which was supposed to unite the atomized subjects.
How else can peace, climate recovery and worldwide wellbeing materialize?
The Soviet Union WAS an Empire, by any definition.
Just as the USA IS an Empire.
The official position of the communist Internationale was that communism would take over the world. The USSR claimed the obligation to make it happen by force if necessary, thus denying their marxist claim that it was an historical inevitability, but the strict logic of non-contradiction is not a feature of Empires. Empires follow only the logic of expedience, as we also see in the USA today.
My problem with Prof. Diesen's central thesis is that the USA does not "misunderstand" Russia at all; it simply is determined to destroy Russia as a rival power and the "mistakes were made" and "they don't understand" are disappointing excuses from an academic who seeks to critique the US' application of power politics to every relationship. It weakens his case and leads the cynical to suspect he's merely another in a long line of academics who exist (and are well paid) solely for the purpose of thinking up plausible apologias for the repugnant crimes of the Empire.
"If we can recognise the security concerns of our adversaries, then we can mitigate the security competition and establish peace....."
Sure. But the US believes and has a policy of militarily achiving "full-spectrum dominance" globally. That being defined as the ability to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the full range of military operations.
I can understand this goal inside your own country, or on your own borders. But world-wide? Who wants that other than a megalomaniac or someone who believes the rest of the plant is populated by sub-humans who dont deserve to control their own lives too?
When a country explicitly believes it is "the chosen people" on this planet....and has an explicit policy of being the stronger power in every region of this planet earth..........well then I think anything you are speaking there is a foreign language. Because such a country only recognises one people: "us" and one language: war.
So that's what we have seen for most of the last half century. Hardly a shock.
I think in oder to get anywhere in the current landscape, the professor is going to need to develop specialised political theories of rational mutual self-interest for psychopathic nations. Because that's what we've got here...
Brilliant. In case you have not come across professor Haslams latest book. Here is the release speech. Sensational. releaving. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dAfd1dOFgaA&pp=ygUWQ2VudHJlIGZvciBnZW9wb2xpdGljcw%3D%3D
I think looking at it from the security competition angle gets it wrong. Russia is sitting on one third of the worlds resources (Greenland is sitting on a sizeable chunk as well, btw). And the Empire of Lies relies on looting, but there is not much wealth left to be extracted in its sphere of influence. So they need to start looting Russia to stay afloat.
It’s all very simple and that’s why it seems so hard to understand how foolish our top foreign policy makers and leaders have been.
All we would have had to have done was to listen to the words of wisdom of George Kennan and then John Mearsheimer and we would have avoided a huge amount of death and destruction. If we had followed their advice we in the US would be a lot stronger and we’d be playing a lot more prominent role on today’s world stage.