Europe at War

[Todd]

In Todd's inverted reality the USA is the hegemon that needs to be weaken.

The US is the global hegemon.  There's a vast literature in IR publications covering that.  US global hegemony is not universally accepted, of course, but it is very widely accepted.  Authors who reject that characterization recognize the unique position the US holds in the international system.  Among those who do accept the premise, most authors prefer the US to maintain its relative power, some do not.  I do not.  Most of the rest of the world is simply not worth American blood and treasure.  I recognize that non-Americans have no problem expending those two resources.  They have no just claim to do so.

There's almost universal agreement in IR publications that the changes to the international system are causing a shift in the balance of power globally and a strain on international organizations.  In the context of such a shift, US policy makers will need to decide if the US should attempt to exert the same degree of global control that it does now, further overextending itself, or if it pushes to reorganize international institutions, and financial and security relationships.  First Trump and now Biden have both hobbled the WTO for instance, and Biden has pushed through more aggressive mercantilist legislation than even Trump did in the form of the Inflation Reduction Act.  Biden has also maintained the majority of Trump era tariffs levied against China.  We're witnessing shifts right now, but some people prefer to pretend they are not happening.

Even supposing this were reality, who would you prefer as Emperor, Biden or Putin?   

Typical Eurocentrism.  Xi or his successor would become the next modern-day equivalent of an emperor if the changes to the international system resulted in one power supplanting the US.  The actual, observable trajectory of international relations is a return to multi-polarity.  When US hegemony finally dies, around the same time that dollar dominance dies as it happens, the world will have already arrived at a place where China and India, at least, have emerged as either global actors, or actors sufficiently powerful to help direct politics and war on the Eurasian landmass. 

[Fëanor]

...
Typical Eurocentrism.  Xi or his successor would become the next modern-day equivalent of an emperor if the changes to the international system resulted in one power supplanting the US.  The actual, observable trajectory of international relations is a return to multi-polarity.  When US hegemony finally dies, around the same time that dollar dominance dies as it happens, the world will have already arrived at a place where China and India, at least, have emerged as either global actors, or actors sufficiently powerful to help direct politics and war on the Eurasian landmass. 

Well here at least are some valid points.

USA prominence, (I won't say hegemony), will decline over time and China and possibly India will catch up with it.  (Some would argue that Xi is already de facto Emperor but that's another matter.)  All the more reason for a strong EU, (and the bigger the better), to offer some balance against these rising powers.

If Putin had been a more rational actor he would have sought EU membership for Russia, and quite likely would have achieved it by now.  Instead is his grandiose vision Was and is to restore a Tsarist/Soviet empire.

The other valid point is about the US dollar's reserve currency status.  The US economy is even now much more powerful than it would be without its currency's status.  That is, with out the USD's reserve status the USA's trade balance deficit would have put the USD in the toilet.

[Herman]

There are worse things than war. Slavery and cultural genocide, for starters.

Slavery and cultural genocide are things that accompany war. They're the same thing.

[Herman]

If Putin had been a more rational actor he would have sought EU membership for Russia, and quite likely would have achieved it by now.

He is a rational actor. His goal was and is to take as much money as is possible off the economy and enrich himself and his coterie.
Joining the EU would have made that impossible, so he did not join.

[Todd]

All the more reason for a strong EU, (and the bigger the better), to offer some balance against these rising powers.

Only if you think that US and European interests will continue to align in terms of economic policy or foreign policy.  The IRA has created a public rift in the former, and with the potential future US administrations currently on the political horizon, these rifts will most likely grow as mercantilism becomes more entrenched.

The best military power that the US could partner with to counter China, and India if it becomes overtly hostile to the US, is Russia.  Unfortunately, that option is not open for years to come, though it should not be ruled out.  The US should keep open all options and should not view Europe as a permanent partner.  Europeans openly act in bad faith regarding security, and there is no basis to conclude that once the Russo-Ukrainian War ends that Europeans will act differently.  We are already witnessing backpedaling in Germany, for instance.

If Putin had been a more rational actor he would have sought EU membership for Russia, and quite likely would have achieved it by now.

Putin is a rational actor.  He does not want to be part of the EU.  That is entirely rational.  It requires an entirely blinkered, Eurocentric outlook to think it rational to want to be part of the EU and irrational to not want to be a part of it.  Sovereignty is critical for some states, and while Europeans may happily sacrifice sovereignty, others will not and should not.  It is irrational to think that the EU is universally or even widely appealing.

The other valid point is about the US dollar's reserve currency status.  The US economy is even now much more powerful than it would be without its currency's status.  That is, with out the USD's reserve status the USA's trade balance deficit would have put the USD in the toilet.

The eventual demise of the dollar as a reserve currency is one of the primary reasons the US should pursue a policy to destroy or at least severely weaken the EU and the Euro.

[Fëanor]

Only if you think that US and European interests will continue to align in terms of economic policy or foreign policy.  The IRA has created a public rift in the former, and with the potential future US administrations currently on the political horizon, these rifts will most likely grow as mercantilism becomes more entrenched.

The USA isn't in the EU ...

Putin is a rational actor.  He does not want to be part of the EU.  That is entirely rational.  It requires an entirely blinkered, Eurocentric outlook to think it rational to want to be part of the EU and irrational to not want to be a part of it.  Sovereignty is critical for some states, and while Europeans may happily sacrifice sovereignty, others will not and should not.  It is irrational to think that the EU is universally or even widely appealing.

It's not "blinkered Eurocentric" if you happen to be in Europe.  But apparently Putin doesn't see that.  Peter the Great was a few steps ahead of him 400 years ago.

The eventual demise of the dollar as a reserve currency is one of the primary reasons the US should pursue a policy to destroy or at least severely weaken the EU and the Euro.

Shear nonsense.

[Todd]

The USA isn't in the EU ...

Correct.

It's not "blinkered Eurocentric" if you happen to be in Europe.  But apparently Putin doesn't see that.  Peter the Great was a few steps ahead of him 400 years ago.

Incorrect.

Shear nonsense.

Incorrect.

[Karl Henning]

Russia's "dirty bomb" disinformation, annotated

[Karl Henning]

Just quoting the above in case he sobers up and deletes it.

Is that an example of saying the quiet part out loud?

[prémont]

Just quoting the above in case he sobers up and deletes it.

Also fine for those, who have put him on their ignore list, to see that he must stay there.

[drogulus]

   

   

[LKB]

Is that an example of saying the quiet part out loud?

Pretty much.

And there's really no available damage control either, once someone has explicitly stated that they really are as repellent as they've seemed when posting.

[Fëanor]

He {Putin} is a rational actor. His goal was and is to take as much money as is possible off the economy and enrich himself and his coterie.
Joining the EU would have made that impossible, so he did not join.

A good point, whether or not it's Putin's principal motivation.

EU membership would be bound to constrain the avarice of Putin and his lackey oligarchs.

[Todd]

EU membership would be bound to constrain the avarice of Putin and his lackey oligarchs.

It would also impede Russian sovereignty.  It appears impossible for a good number of people to understand that contemporary western political ideas and economic constraints are not as appealing to the entire world as they are to western Europeans.  Western ideals are not universal.  Public policy is much less so.

[Fëanor]

It would also impede Russian sovereignty.  It appears impossible for a good number of people to understand that contemporary western political ideas and economic constraints are not as appealing to the entire world as they are to western Europeans.  Western ideals are not universal.  Public policy is much less so.

... And the power-hunger of local dictators and avarice of local oligarchs is the leading reason that the collective rule-of-law of the EU does not appeal to them.  Putin's Russian is one example;  Brexitiers Britain is another, less extreme example.

Note that cynical elites often leverage "nationalism" to delude the simple-minded and solidify their power.  E.g. Donald Trump with his "MAGA" lie.

[Todd]

... And the power-hunger of local dictators and avarice of local oligarchs is the leading reason that the collective rule-of-law of the EU does not appeal to them

That is very highly debatable.  Not only Putin and Russia dislike the West - and its oligarchs. 

[Todd]

... And the power-hunger of local dictators and avarice of local oligarchs is the leading reason that the collective rule-of-law of the EU does not appeal to them.  Putin's Russian is one example;  Brexitiers Britain is another, less extreme example.

Note that cynical elites often leverage "nationalism" to delude the simple-minded and solidify their power.  E.g. Donald Trump with his "MAGA" lie.

You fundamentally changed your post.  It is as wrong as the prior one.  Your initial and revised posts necessarily rely on a blinkered, Eurocentric worldview.

[Fëanor]

... And the power-hunger of local dictators and avarice of local oligarchs is the leading reason that the collective rule-of-law of the EU does not appeal to them.  Putin's Russian is one example;  Brexitiers Britain is another, less extreme example.

Note that cynical elites often leverage "nationalism" to delude the simple-minded and solidify their power.  E.g. Donald Trump with his "MAGA" lie.

You fundamentally changed your post.  It is as wrong as the prior one.  Your initial and revised posts necessarily rely on a blinkered, Eurocentric worldview.

Not at all.  Nationalism is an "opiate of the preliterate proletariat".  Patriotism is a red herring used by Right-wing elites to confound regular citizens.

This true all over the world, by no means only in Europe.

[Todd]

Nationalism is an "opiate of the preliterate".  Patriotism is a red herring used by Right-wing elites to confound regular citizens.

Paul Samuelson began questioning the purported benefits of "free trade" in 2004.  Do you consider him a preliterate nationalist?  Critics on the left and right question the EU's changes to ISDS mechanisms because they do not address the concerns of developing countries and focus instead on intra-bloc trade.  Do you consider those critics preliterate nationalists?  Critics on the left and right point out that so-called free trade agreements contain non-tariff trade barriers that exploit developing countries.  Do you consider them preliterate nationalists?  Critics and politicians in non-Western countries argue, convincingly and with facts on their side, that the US and Europe both have historically exploited them and continue to do so, including via structural mechanisms and limitations contained within international organizations.  Many of these same people also point out that some conditions imposed in trade and other agreements contain political clauses regarding certain preferred Western concepts - eg, women's rights - that are not at all universal, never have been, and never will be.  Do you consider such people preliterate nationalists?

I don't know if you coined the phrase "opiate of the preliterate", or if someone else did, but it means nothing.  The nation state remains the primary organizing entity of large-scale political organization and administration around the world, and it serves as the basis of the Westphalian system, which still governs international relations.  It is entirely rational for national level politicians to focus on the well-being of the citizens and/or residents of their countries, even if those policies may result in some type of harm, material or immaterial, to other countries.  International relations is used to ameliorate imbalances and harms. 

Your views, based on what you write, are Eurocentric.  That is very common among WEIRD people - ie, people from Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic countries.  I did not coin that phrase.

[Todd]

How to avoid another world war

A Henry Kissinger joint.