My first post for 2025 is a Q&A with Professor Hal Brands on his new book, The Eurasian Century. His book explores the events and people of the first Eurasian Century, and the contours of the second.
Enjoy reading your insights, thanks for taking the time to share them. Aren't we seeing the 3 major powers arrayed against the West (China, Iran, Russia) taking a beating right now?
Iran's entire foreign initiative has disintegrated in the last year and they face a leadership struggle as the leader passes from the scene.
China's economy is collapsing even before Trump can apply any sanctions, driven by a demographic collapse on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. How aggressive can they be militarily, especially considering their oil and raw material supply chain exposure?
Russia is being bled economically, militarily, and demographically by their Ukrainian war, and now are struggling to keep control of their southern flank. Their military supply post in Syria is gone, and a fallback to Libya is very uncertain and risky, with follow-on impacts on their African expeditions. Strategically doesn't the U.S. just need to keep them bleeding in Ukraine as long as possible?
Mike, you make some cogent points. As far as the US “strategy “ of just keeping Russians bleeding in Ukraine, that keeps Ukraine bleeding as well. Biden’s great failure in Ukraine policy seems to have been not giving our brave allies all the support they need when they needed it to defeat the aggressors. I suppose this is through some misplaced fear of destabilizing Russia, a rogue nation running a low grade war against the rest of Europe as well. After two devastating world wars, the Pax Americana has keep the peace in Europe for almost 80 years. Should that finally fail, the planet could well be in for another round of war sooner than later.
For those interested in further analysis of current geopolitics, I recommend Alfred McCoy’s To Govern the Globe:World Orders and Catastrophic Change.
"I spend more time thinking and worrying about this than any other subject. I want to be fair to Trump and the people around him: I think it is very likely that this administration will pursue strong, necessary policies in a variety of areas. If Trump rolls back Iran's nuclear program and its power in the Middle East, if he hikes defense spending, if he pushes the allies--hard--to do the same, all of those things would leave the free world better positioned for the hard fights ahead.
But with Trump, there's also the possibility that he will spend his time brawling with allies over tariffs or host-nation payments, or that his administration will simply be a conflicted, disorganized mess. People who don't like Trump's policies might be tempted to root for that outcome, but that would be a mistake.
The US and its friends need Trump to be a successful foreign policy president if we are all to get through the dangerous years ahead."
A clarifying and scary statement. The Trump administration on foreign policy is akin to high stakes trading in volatile stocks. The upside could be big, but the downside could wipe out all of your life savings.
You are correct. This "axis of resistance" to the US and our allies is doing very badly. I think Trump will crush Iran, and help send Communist China into the scrapheap of history.
I have avoided Hal Brands because his views seem so extreme.... and indeed, the very premise of his book is incorrect: the Eurasian continent "heartland" has been dominated by Europe for centuries. World War I was NOT the beginning of the European century, it was a catastrophic conflict which broke Europe's power. Europe had dominated the world for centuries!
MacKinder's theories are only useful up to a point. But it is far more likely that Russia will break apart than dominate the Heartland.
Putin's War on Ukraine has been a disaster. The Russian air force (which has been billed as an existential threat to us for half a century) has shown itself to be useless. And half of Russia's Black Sea Fleet has been sent to the bottom by a poverty stricken country with no navy! The "second most powerful" army on Earth cannot conquer a former province!
Remember, Russia was the military power, and China was the economic power in the partnership. Most Chinese weapons are pirated copies of Russian weapons.
Very succinct. It's a mystery to me that these points even need to be made, but alas they do. I'm afraid we don't have the luxury of four years of drift.
Thank you for the interesting review of the interesting book. In my view this Assumption that you and BRANDS mention is correct:
“ They outlined how aggressive powers would try to conquer Eurasia's vital regions and use them as platforms for global expansion--and how worldwide coalitions, made up of onshore and offshore nations, would try to hold them back. That's a pretty good template for understanding”
This aggressive power is off course the declining U.S.-NATO trying to expand and conquer Eastwards and Southwards. This imperial Mission is stated in the U.S. Grand Strategy and is not secret.
The amazing self-delusion of Western theorists and intellectuals cocooned in their bubble remains an endless source of surprise and failure…
The only self delusion I see here, is by yourself. No one forced Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and last but not least Hungary and Slovakia to join NATO. Being democratic nations, they made that decisions themselves. They clearly did not want to stay in Moscows orbit. The Ukrainians deserve the same option and our support.
The “democratic” nation of the “United” Kingdom enslaved and colonised the Rest of us…including trafficking in drugs (opium) to China…the “democratic” nation of the “United” States annexed, stole and invaded other countries to occupy and plunder their resources…
As the Carnegie Endowment for Peace noted on 7 January 2025:
“Two hundred years ago, as rebellions against Spanish colonial rule rocked Latin America, U.S. leaders worried that other European powers might fill the vacuum. To preempt this outcome, Monroe conjured an “American system” in which European powers were forbidden to meddle. He declared that the Western hemisphere would be off limits and put the imperial powers on notice: “We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and security.” As U.S. power grew, successive administrations invoked the doctrine not just as a shield, but as a sword.
In 1845, President James K. Polk annexed Texas, lest it become “an ally or dependency of some foreign nation more powerful than [the United States].” The next year Polk cited the doctrine to defend a war with Mexico that brought California and the American southwest under U.S. sovereignty. In 1867, Andrew Johnson summoned it in purchasing Alaska.
By the 1890s, the Monroe Doctrine was understood to imply that the entire Western Hemisphere was an American preserve. Grover Cleveland’s administration made this explicit in 1895, intervening in a dispute over the boundaries between Venezuela and British Guiana. U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney expressed what became known as the doctrine’s Olney Corollary: “Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.” Lest that pedantic formulation left any doubt, he warned Britain that America’s “infinite resources combined with its isolated position render it master of the situation and practically invulnerable as against any or all other powers.” Three years later, war with Spain handed the United States the island of Puerto Rico and a new protectorate in Cuba. In the Caribbean basin, it now intervened at will. In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt interceded to guarantee Panama’s secession from Colombia, securing sole rights for the U.S. to build an isthmian canal. “
The “democratic” American President-Elect noted that he wants to take Canada, Panama and Greenland - by force if necessary.
The Washington Post Editorial Board on 06 January 2025 suddenly tells the truth that “Ukraine is losing the war” - they lied too about Afghanistan until right at the end - and writes: “Ukraine is also losing troops at a rate far beyond what it can sustain and continue fighting. The official casualty estimate of 400,000 killed or wounded is considered a vast undercount. Thousands of exhausted Ukrainian soldiers are deserting the front lines. Only last year, Ukraine began drafting men 25 and older; the previous age was 27. Some, including U.S. lawmakers, have been pressing Ukraine to start drafting men as young as 18, but President Volodymyr Zelensky has so far resisted, concerned about decimating the next generation and hampered by a lack of equipment to arm new troops.”
The deluded US-West is shedding all pretenses of acting in a “democratic” manner as it resorts to power and bloc politics, coercion and compellance, stealing Syrian oil and Russian financial assets; rigging elections and engineering coups where they see fit…even threatening to just “take” whole countries…and deceiving their own publics as they try in desperation to extend NATO through subterfuge, proxy wars, genocides, foreign military bases, coups and false narratives…some “democrats” they are…
The self-delusion they suffer from is as comical as it is tragic.
Thank you for your response. You clearly know your history, I cannot pretend to have your level of knowledge. But lets just acknowledge that this is history - as you noted, “the Carnegie Endowment for Peace noted on 7 January 2025: “Two hundred years ago, as rebellions against Spanish colonial rule rocked Latin America, U.S. leaders worried that other European powers might fill the vacuum.” Two Hundred years ago? Do you not think that the world has moved on a bit? Or are we destined to be stuck in past history? Much of the world has trouble remembering as far back as the II World War, let alone 200 years. Currently I am not aware of any countries in Latin America that are controlled by the US, beyond any military bases they might have there.
America is not perfect, in fact, let the first perfect country cast the first stone.
After World War II ceased and despite it being the only superpower at the time, America chose to leave the majority of countries it had helped to free from German & Japanese dictatorships. Did the Soviet Union do the same? I think not.
In reality in 1939 the Soviet Union actually had a non-aggression (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) pact with Germany that involved the conquering and dividing up Poland and the Baltic States. This only changed when, surprise surprise Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union maintained neutrality with Japan right up to the end of the war. The lend-lease program by the US & UK supplied the Soviet Union with over $11 million dollars (1940’s) worth of supplies. Very little of this was ever returned as per the Lend-Lease Act.
In regard to Ukraine, I wouldn’t take anything that the Washington Post writes as gospel. Their truths are just that - theirs, nobody else’s. Not everybody shares their views.
Ukraine has been fighting this Russian invasion for nearly 3 years, of course they are bloody tired, you would be to. It does not mean that they are ready to give up, they know what Russian dominance looks like. There will be ups and downs, as there are in any war. It was 1942 before the allies started to turn back the axis forces and that war started in 1939.
I understand the reticence of Zelensky to lower the age of conscription, but they are fighting an existential war and sooner or later the next generation will have to fight unless they they are prepared to accept Russian dominance. They must be supplied with the training and tools to do the job. The US & EU (NATO) have to step up to the mark, especially if they hope to benefit from the resources found in Ukraine. At the same time Russia has given up its right to any frozen assets ($300 billion) that are held outside of Russia by the very act of invading a sovereign country.
If Russia is allowed to get away with its invasion of Ukraine and Trump carries out his threat to take over Canada, Greenland (both NATO Members) and the Panama Canal, then we are back to the era of imperial conquests and the world as we know it will be gone for another 200 years. Hopefully, there will be enough checks and balances that this does not happen.
I have very little faith in Trump, but he is only guaranteed 2 years of unfettered power, unlike Putin. In the scheme of things 2 years is a very short span of history.
Unfortunately the last 10 lines of your comment read like a conspiracy theory. Just not Trumps.
Thank you for your thoughtful response: we do agree that we should not remain stuck in the past.
This is precisely what the Rest is advocating and working towards: a non-zero sum; non-bloc and multipolar world in which each country can choose its own political-economic path. In other words to undo the past of American unipolarity, primacy, preponderance and hegemony and build a world system that is inclusive and tolerant of different civilisational histories and trajectories. It is not an anti-American or anti-Western project; it is a project about tolerance for diversity and mutual respect. It is us - the Rest - that have been the victims of Western intolerance and its belief in exceptionalism: that it is above international law but the Rest of us are not.
We therefore also agree that institutions - international law, mutually-agreed upon rules and multilateral organisations - are far better than “power” or war to settle our differences. Unipolarity and Primacy is built on the Assumption that “the strong will do as they wish, whilst the weak suffer what they must”; it is built on Power (particularly military and economic power)…this is why we need to replace this and not remain stuck in this outdated system of the past.
David VINE in his 215 book on American military colonialism - Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World - wrote that:
“While there are no freestanding foreign bases on U.S. soil, today there are around eight hundred U.S. bases in foreign countries, occupied by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Although the United States has long had some bases in foreign lands, this massive global deployment of military force was unknown in U.S. history before World War II. Now, seventy years after that war, there are still, according to the Pentagon, 174 U.S. bases in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea. There are hundreds more dotting the planet in Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, to name just a few. Worldwide, we have bases in more than seventy countries. Although few U.S. citizens realize it, we probably have more bases in other people’s lands than any other people, nation, or empire in world history.”
Glenn Diesen - a Norwegian scholar - in his 2024 book on the Ukraine War wrote
The world order taking shape is repudiating Western-centric globalisation in terms of the dominance of maritime powers, economic and political liberalism, and a liberal global civil society. The West can also no longer impose the conditions for states’ acceptance as a full member of the community of sovereign states. The international distribution of power, ideals, rules, and the nature of diplomacy is accordingly being reorganised. The proxy war in Ukraine revealed the fatal dysfunction of the hegemonic world order that has accelerated the transition to a multi-polar world order. While the Westphalian world order seeks a balance of power to avoid conflicts, the unipolar order necessitates perpetual conflicts to ensure allies are dependent and rivals are weakened.”
By now it’s old news that Russia and Ukraine tried desperately to avoid war - even as it started. But it is the shocking admissions of Western leaders that they were never serious about implementing the negotiated Minsk Agreements as they saw it as mere tools to buy time in order to build up the Ukrainian Army; 11 CIA bases in Eastern Ukraine and eventually send hundreds of thousands of innocent and misguided Ukrainians to an unnecessary death. Boris JOHNSON and Joe BIDEN urged and coerced the hapless ZELENSKY to not conclude the peace deals brokered by Türkiye (and Israel) that would have left Ukraine intact; Russian forces withdrawing; and Ukraine maintaining its neutral stance on NATO. TRUMP and his Advisors are now suggesting he would annex countries close to America because he wants to secure its near-abroad - and PUTIN instead tried to do this with diplomacy!
With regards to WW2/The Great Patriotic War, you will know that Russia sacrificed 20 million people in order to fight and defeat the Nazis - the German (Nazis) too were Westerners and so was Mussolini. With the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939 the two contracting parties had fixed the line of demarcation between their spheres of interest in Poland, but there had been no final decision on the future status of the country. In the secret protocol they reserved the right to resolve ‘by means of a friendly agreement’ the question of ‘maintaining an independent Polish state’ and of settling its future boundary.”. America dropped two nuclear bombs on innocent civilians in Japan and rescued many Nazi scientists, agents and supporters - Werner Von Braun designed and built the NASA rockets that took the USA into space.
The question isn’t really which State or Government is “perfect” or not; it’s rather how will we manage our common human and planetary existence…the people of each country can decide how they will be governed and by whom in their own countries. I think our respective positions are not that far apart in the end: thank you for an enjoyable and interesting exchange and to Mick RYAN for his always stimulating posts!
Sorry I do not understand who are the “Rest” you are referring to? The idea of a non-bloc and multipolar world may be a desirable outcome for the planet, but not a realistic one I fear.
The US is the only true superpower, hence the innumerable military base scattered around the world. (I do not have the actual number of US military bases in the world on hand, but I believe it is the region of 750-800 bases in 70-80 countries) Neither Russia or China has the resources or capabilities to match the US, but this has not stopped them from wanting to secure their own zones of influence. They want a multipolar world, but only on their terms. If the US didn’t exist then either Russia or China (or both) would assume the position of a superpower and I don’t see any signs of them being benevolent superpowers, certainly not more so than the US. Also I haven’t seen any information re 11 CIA bases in Eastern Ukraine.
Being Australian I guess my preference is for an American dominance rather than Russian or Chinese. I do not believe that they are always right, Vietnam and Iraq were major errors of judgment ,driven by a political system blinded by its own self belief.
I do believe that the initial intervention in Afghanistan was correct, but once again the reason they were there was lost or forgotten and they allowed themselves to be distracted. Afghanistan never had a viable Government or Civil Service, so nothing to bind the country. Their only common goal was to drive out the infidels, which with Trumps assistance (talks to leave the country) they did, for better or worse. Certainly the women of Afghanistan are regretting the takeover by the Taliban. Germany & Japan both had viable governments and civil services, and with help such as the Marshall Plan were able to be revitalised.
Iraq was a mess. The initial invasion may have been a success (although unwarranted), but the exclusion of civil servants and military personnel, the blatant oil grab and the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib will forever taint the US involvement in Iraq and in the eyes of the people in the Middle East.
Indeed, Russia did lose 20 million people in the II World War and after seeing how they treat their people in Ukraine you start to understand why. Between 1924 and 1953 Stalin was responsible for another 6-9 million deaths, including 22,000 Polish Officers in 1940 at the Katyn forest - perhaps something to do with the “secret protocol” to establish the future status of the country. In any case it goes without saying that the Russians could not have defeated the Germans without assistance from the US in the form of lend-lease aid.
Russia was just as guilty as the US of “rescuing” Nazi scientists, agents and supporters. Some could say they were even more successful.
I did not see where it is old news that Russia & Ukraine desperately sought to avoid war. I’m sure Ukraine would have preferred to not go to war, after all Russia is very much larger than Ukraine and it has nuclear weapons. Something Ukraine gave up at the Budapest Memorandum with security assurances by Russia, the US and the UK. Look where that got them. In any case the belief in a multipolar world ie where countries decide there own fate (ie join NATO) didn’t stop Russia invading when things weren’t going as they wanted or hoped. Although the US may have stuck its oar in were it wasn’t wanted, I do not believe that the Revolution of Dignity was a CIA plot.
Once again, whilst a multipolar world may be a desirable end goal, given human nature I cannot ever see this being achieved, someone always wants to be top dog. At the moment it appears to be Trump, but I’m sure Putin and Xi would take his place if they could.
Just to conclude: the Rest means the “non-West”. There is no need for a “top dog”; nor do China or Russia desire it. It’s a peculiar Western (American) belief that “the world is anarchic” and needs “a policeman”. Each country can look after its own people and we (the Rest) most certainly don’t want the U.S. or its military bases. Thanks
Enjoy reading your insights, thanks for taking the time to share them. Aren't we seeing the 3 major powers arrayed against the West (China, Iran, Russia) taking a beating right now?
Iran's entire foreign initiative has disintegrated in the last year and they face a leadership struggle as the leader passes from the scene.
China's economy is collapsing even before Trump can apply any sanctions, driven by a demographic collapse on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. How aggressive can they be militarily, especially considering their oil and raw material supply chain exposure?
Russia is being bled economically, militarily, and demographically by their Ukrainian war, and now are struggling to keep control of their southern flank. Their military supply post in Syria is gone, and a fallback to Libya is very uncertain and risky, with follow-on impacts on their African expeditions. Strategically doesn't the U.S. just need to keep them bleeding in Ukraine as long as possible?
Mike, you make some cogent points. As far as the US “strategy “ of just keeping Russians bleeding in Ukraine, that keeps Ukraine bleeding as well. Biden’s great failure in Ukraine policy seems to have been not giving our brave allies all the support they need when they needed it to defeat the aggressors. I suppose this is through some misplaced fear of destabilizing Russia, a rogue nation running a low grade war against the rest of Europe as well. After two devastating world wars, the Pax Americana has keep the peace in Europe for almost 80 years. Should that finally fail, the planet could well be in for another round of war sooner than later.
For those interested in further analysis of current geopolitics, I recommend Alfred McCoy’s To Govern the Globe:World Orders and Catastrophic Change.
"I spend more time thinking and worrying about this than any other subject. I want to be fair to Trump and the people around him: I think it is very likely that this administration will pursue strong, necessary policies in a variety of areas. If Trump rolls back Iran's nuclear program and its power in the Middle East, if he hikes defense spending, if he pushes the allies--hard--to do the same, all of those things would leave the free world better positioned for the hard fights ahead.
But with Trump, there's also the possibility that he will spend his time brawling with allies over tariffs or host-nation payments, or that his administration will simply be a conflicted, disorganized mess. People who don't like Trump's policies might be tempted to root for that outcome, but that would be a mistake.
The US and its friends need Trump to be a successful foreign policy president if we are all to get through the dangerous years ahead."
A clarifying and scary statement. The Trump administration on foreign policy is akin to high stakes trading in volatile stocks. The upside could be big, but the downside could wipe out all of your life savings.
You are correct. This "axis of resistance" to the US and our allies is doing very badly. I think Trump will crush Iran, and help send Communist China into the scrapheap of history.
I have avoided Hal Brands because his views seem so extreme.... and indeed, the very premise of his book is incorrect: the Eurasian continent "heartland" has been dominated by Europe for centuries. World War I was NOT the beginning of the European century, it was a catastrophic conflict which broke Europe's power. Europe had dominated the world for centuries!
MacKinder's theories are only useful up to a point. But it is far more likely that Russia will break apart than dominate the Heartland.
Putin's War on Ukraine has been a disaster. The Russian air force (which has been billed as an existential threat to us for half a century) has shown itself to be useless. And half of Russia's Black Sea Fleet has been sent to the bottom by a poverty stricken country with no navy! The "second most powerful" army on Earth cannot conquer a former province!
Remember, Russia was the military power, and China was the economic power in the partnership. Most Chinese weapons are pirated copies of Russian weapons.
Would YOU want to start a war with Chinese arms?
This was written in support of Mike Snow's comment, but it ended up as a stand alone. "You are correct" is in response to Snow, NOT Hal Brands!
Very succinct. It's a mystery to me that these points even need to be made, but alas they do. I'm afraid we don't have the luxury of four years of drift.
Thank you for the interesting review of the interesting book. In my view this Assumption that you and BRANDS mention is correct:
“ They outlined how aggressive powers would try to conquer Eurasia's vital regions and use them as platforms for global expansion--and how worldwide coalitions, made up of onshore and offshore nations, would try to hold them back. That's a pretty good template for understanding”
This aggressive power is off course the declining U.S.-NATO trying to expand and conquer Eastwards and Southwards. This imperial Mission is stated in the U.S. Grand Strategy and is not secret.
The amazing self-delusion of Western theorists and intellectuals cocooned in their bubble remains an endless source of surprise and failure…
The only self delusion I see here, is by yourself. No one forced Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and last but not least Hungary and Slovakia to join NATO. Being democratic nations, they made that decisions themselves. They clearly did not want to stay in Moscows orbit. The Ukrainians deserve the same option and our support.
The “democratic” nation of the “United” Kingdom enslaved and colonised the Rest of us…including trafficking in drugs (opium) to China…the “democratic” nation of the “United” States annexed, stole and invaded other countries to occupy and plunder their resources…
As the Carnegie Endowment for Peace noted on 7 January 2025:
“Two hundred years ago, as rebellions against Spanish colonial rule rocked Latin America, U.S. leaders worried that other European powers might fill the vacuum. To preempt this outcome, Monroe conjured an “American system” in which European powers were forbidden to meddle. He declared that the Western hemisphere would be off limits and put the imperial powers on notice: “We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and security.” As U.S. power grew, successive administrations invoked the doctrine not just as a shield, but as a sword.
In 1845, President James K. Polk annexed Texas, lest it become “an ally or dependency of some foreign nation more powerful than [the United States].” The next year Polk cited the doctrine to defend a war with Mexico that brought California and the American southwest under U.S. sovereignty. In 1867, Andrew Johnson summoned it in purchasing Alaska.
By the 1890s, the Monroe Doctrine was understood to imply that the entire Western Hemisphere was an American preserve. Grover Cleveland’s administration made this explicit in 1895, intervening in a dispute over the boundaries between Venezuela and British Guiana. U.S. Secretary of State Richard Olney expressed what became known as the doctrine’s Olney Corollary: “Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.” Lest that pedantic formulation left any doubt, he warned Britain that America’s “infinite resources combined with its isolated position render it master of the situation and practically invulnerable as against any or all other powers.” Three years later, war with Spain handed the United States the island of Puerto Rico and a new protectorate in Cuba. In the Caribbean basin, it now intervened at will. In 1903, Theodore Roosevelt interceded to guarantee Panama’s secession from Colombia, securing sole rights for the U.S. to build an isthmian canal. “
The “democratic” American President-Elect noted that he wants to take Canada, Panama and Greenland - by force if necessary.
The Washington Post Editorial Board on 06 January 2025 suddenly tells the truth that “Ukraine is losing the war” - they lied too about Afghanistan until right at the end - and writes: “Ukraine is also losing troops at a rate far beyond what it can sustain and continue fighting. The official casualty estimate of 400,000 killed or wounded is considered a vast undercount. Thousands of exhausted Ukrainian soldiers are deserting the front lines. Only last year, Ukraine began drafting men 25 and older; the previous age was 27. Some, including U.S. lawmakers, have been pressing Ukraine to start drafting men as young as 18, but President Volodymyr Zelensky has so far resisted, concerned about decimating the next generation and hampered by a lack of equipment to arm new troops.”
The deluded US-West is shedding all pretenses of acting in a “democratic” manner as it resorts to power and bloc politics, coercion and compellance, stealing Syrian oil and Russian financial assets; rigging elections and engineering coups where they see fit…even threatening to just “take” whole countries…and deceiving their own publics as they try in desperation to extend NATO through subterfuge, proxy wars, genocides, foreign military bases, coups and false narratives…some “democrats” they are…
The self-delusion they suffer from is as comical as it is tragic.
Thank you for your response. You clearly know your history, I cannot pretend to have your level of knowledge. But lets just acknowledge that this is history - as you noted, “the Carnegie Endowment for Peace noted on 7 January 2025: “Two hundred years ago, as rebellions against Spanish colonial rule rocked Latin America, U.S. leaders worried that other European powers might fill the vacuum.” Two Hundred years ago? Do you not think that the world has moved on a bit? Or are we destined to be stuck in past history? Much of the world has trouble remembering as far back as the II World War, let alone 200 years. Currently I am not aware of any countries in Latin America that are controlled by the US, beyond any military bases they might have there.
America is not perfect, in fact, let the first perfect country cast the first stone.
After World War II ceased and despite it being the only superpower at the time, America chose to leave the majority of countries it had helped to free from German & Japanese dictatorships. Did the Soviet Union do the same? I think not.
In reality in 1939 the Soviet Union actually had a non-aggression (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) pact with Germany that involved the conquering and dividing up Poland and the Baltic States. This only changed when, surprise surprise Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union maintained neutrality with Japan right up to the end of the war. The lend-lease program by the US & UK supplied the Soviet Union with over $11 million dollars (1940’s) worth of supplies. Very little of this was ever returned as per the Lend-Lease Act.
In regard to Ukraine, I wouldn’t take anything that the Washington Post writes as gospel. Their truths are just that - theirs, nobody else’s. Not everybody shares their views.
Ukraine has been fighting this Russian invasion for nearly 3 years, of course they are bloody tired, you would be to. It does not mean that they are ready to give up, they know what Russian dominance looks like. There will be ups and downs, as there are in any war. It was 1942 before the allies started to turn back the axis forces and that war started in 1939.
I understand the reticence of Zelensky to lower the age of conscription, but they are fighting an existential war and sooner or later the next generation will have to fight unless they they are prepared to accept Russian dominance. They must be supplied with the training and tools to do the job. The US & EU (NATO) have to step up to the mark, especially if they hope to benefit from the resources found in Ukraine. At the same time Russia has given up its right to any frozen assets ($300 billion) that are held outside of Russia by the very act of invading a sovereign country.
If Russia is allowed to get away with its invasion of Ukraine and Trump carries out his threat to take over Canada, Greenland (both NATO Members) and the Panama Canal, then we are back to the era of imperial conquests and the world as we know it will be gone for another 200 years. Hopefully, there will be enough checks and balances that this does not happen.
I have very little faith in Trump, but he is only guaranteed 2 years of unfettered power, unlike Putin. In the scheme of things 2 years is a very short span of history.
Unfortunately the last 10 lines of your comment read like a conspiracy theory. Just not Trumps.
Thank you for your thoughtful response: we do agree that we should not remain stuck in the past.
This is precisely what the Rest is advocating and working towards: a non-zero sum; non-bloc and multipolar world in which each country can choose its own political-economic path. In other words to undo the past of American unipolarity, primacy, preponderance and hegemony and build a world system that is inclusive and tolerant of different civilisational histories and trajectories. It is not an anti-American or anti-Western project; it is a project about tolerance for diversity and mutual respect. It is us - the Rest - that have been the victims of Western intolerance and its belief in exceptionalism: that it is above international law but the Rest of us are not.
We therefore also agree that institutions - international law, mutually-agreed upon rules and multilateral organisations - are far better than “power” or war to settle our differences. Unipolarity and Primacy is built on the Assumption that “the strong will do as they wish, whilst the weak suffer what they must”; it is built on Power (particularly military and economic power)…this is why we need to replace this and not remain stuck in this outdated system of the past.
David VINE in his 215 book on American military colonialism - Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World - wrote that:
“While there are no freestanding foreign bases on U.S. soil, today there are around eight hundred U.S. bases in foreign countries, occupied by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Although the United States has long had some bases in foreign lands, this massive global deployment of military force was unknown in U.S. history before World War II. Now, seventy years after that war, there are still, according to the Pentagon, 174 U.S. bases in Germany, 113 in Japan, and 83 in South Korea. There are hundreds more dotting the planet in Aruba and Australia, Bahrain and Bulgaria, Colombia, Kenya, and Qatar, to name just a few. Worldwide, we have bases in more than seventy countries. Although few U.S. citizens realize it, we probably have more bases in other people’s lands than any other people, nation, or empire in world history.”
Glenn Diesen - a Norwegian scholar - in his 2024 book on the Ukraine War wrote
The world order taking shape is repudiating Western-centric globalisation in terms of the dominance of maritime powers, economic and political liberalism, and a liberal global civil society. The West can also no longer impose the conditions for states’ acceptance as a full member of the community of sovereign states. The international distribution of power, ideals, rules, and the nature of diplomacy is accordingly being reorganised. The proxy war in Ukraine revealed the fatal dysfunction of the hegemonic world order that has accelerated the transition to a multi-polar world order. While the Westphalian world order seeks a balance of power to avoid conflicts, the unipolar order necessitates perpetual conflicts to ensure allies are dependent and rivals are weakened.”
By now it’s old news that Russia and Ukraine tried desperately to avoid war - even as it started. But it is the shocking admissions of Western leaders that they were never serious about implementing the negotiated Minsk Agreements as they saw it as mere tools to buy time in order to build up the Ukrainian Army; 11 CIA bases in Eastern Ukraine and eventually send hundreds of thousands of innocent and misguided Ukrainians to an unnecessary death. Boris JOHNSON and Joe BIDEN urged and coerced the hapless ZELENSKY to not conclude the peace deals brokered by Türkiye (and Israel) that would have left Ukraine intact; Russian forces withdrawing; and Ukraine maintaining its neutral stance on NATO. TRUMP and his Advisors are now suggesting he would annex countries close to America because he wants to secure its near-abroad - and PUTIN instead tried to do this with diplomacy!
With regards to WW2/The Great Patriotic War, you will know that Russia sacrificed 20 million people in order to fight and defeat the Nazis - the German (Nazis) too were Westerners and so was Mussolini. With the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939 the two contracting parties had fixed the line of demarcation between their spheres of interest in Poland, but there had been no final decision on the future status of the country. In the secret protocol they reserved the right to resolve ‘by means of a friendly agreement’ the question of ‘maintaining an independent Polish state’ and of settling its future boundary.”. America dropped two nuclear bombs on innocent civilians in Japan and rescued many Nazi scientists, agents and supporters - Werner Von Braun designed and built the NASA rockets that took the USA into space.
The question isn’t really which State or Government is “perfect” or not; it’s rather how will we manage our common human and planetary existence…the people of each country can decide how they will be governed and by whom in their own countries. I think our respective positions are not that far apart in the end: thank you for an enjoyable and interesting exchange and to Mick RYAN for his always stimulating posts!
Sorry I do not understand who are the “Rest” you are referring to? The idea of a non-bloc and multipolar world may be a desirable outcome for the planet, but not a realistic one I fear.
The US is the only true superpower, hence the innumerable military base scattered around the world. (I do not have the actual number of US military bases in the world on hand, but I believe it is the region of 750-800 bases in 70-80 countries) Neither Russia or China has the resources or capabilities to match the US, but this has not stopped them from wanting to secure their own zones of influence. They want a multipolar world, but only on their terms. If the US didn’t exist then either Russia or China (or both) would assume the position of a superpower and I don’t see any signs of them being benevolent superpowers, certainly not more so than the US. Also I haven’t seen any information re 11 CIA bases in Eastern Ukraine.
Being Australian I guess my preference is for an American dominance rather than Russian or Chinese. I do not believe that they are always right, Vietnam and Iraq were major errors of judgment ,driven by a political system blinded by its own self belief.
I do believe that the initial intervention in Afghanistan was correct, but once again the reason they were there was lost or forgotten and they allowed themselves to be distracted. Afghanistan never had a viable Government or Civil Service, so nothing to bind the country. Their only common goal was to drive out the infidels, which with Trumps assistance (talks to leave the country) they did, for better or worse. Certainly the women of Afghanistan are regretting the takeover by the Taliban. Germany & Japan both had viable governments and civil services, and with help such as the Marshall Plan were able to be revitalised.
Iraq was a mess. The initial invasion may have been a success (although unwarranted), but the exclusion of civil servants and military personnel, the blatant oil grab and the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib will forever taint the US involvement in Iraq and in the eyes of the people in the Middle East.
Indeed, Russia did lose 20 million people in the II World War and after seeing how they treat their people in Ukraine you start to understand why. Between 1924 and 1953 Stalin was responsible for another 6-9 million deaths, including 22,000 Polish Officers in 1940 at the Katyn forest - perhaps something to do with the “secret protocol” to establish the future status of the country. In any case it goes without saying that the Russians could not have defeated the Germans without assistance from the US in the form of lend-lease aid.
Russia was just as guilty as the US of “rescuing” Nazi scientists, agents and supporters. Some could say they were even more successful.
I did not see where it is old news that Russia & Ukraine desperately sought to avoid war. I’m sure Ukraine would have preferred to not go to war, after all Russia is very much larger than Ukraine and it has nuclear weapons. Something Ukraine gave up at the Budapest Memorandum with security assurances by Russia, the US and the UK. Look where that got them. In any case the belief in a multipolar world ie where countries decide there own fate (ie join NATO) didn’t stop Russia invading when things weren’t going as they wanted or hoped. Although the US may have stuck its oar in were it wasn’t wanted, I do not believe that the Revolution of Dignity was a CIA plot.
Once again, whilst a multipolar world may be a desirable end goal, given human nature I cannot ever see this being achieved, someone always wants to be top dog. At the moment it appears to be Trump, but I’m sure Putin and Xi would take his place if they could.
Just to conclude: the Rest means the “non-West”. There is no need for a “top dog”; nor do China or Russia desire it. It’s a peculiar Western (American) belief that “the world is anarchic” and needs “a policeman”. Each country can look after its own people and we (the Rest) most certainly don’t want the U.S. or its military bases. Thanks