Russian vassalization of Ukraine

[exploited]

[broken robot]

okay so basically there seems to be a major contradiction in your posts. you say you accept that the us has an essentially unchallenged global hegemony, but then you go on to emphasize competitors that are challenging it. you mention russian incursion into ukraine and how the us wouldn't have "stood for it" thirty years ago, but what happened during prague spring of 1968? what's really changed? other than the fact that now russia's sphere of influence is limited to a region, as opposed to the world. same can be said of china. (your india-pakistan example isn't working by the way. neither china nor russia have a major stake in the battles of the subcontinent) i suppose you're managing this contradiction through the assertion that "There are more actors capable of asserting themselves regionally, and everybody has reason to pursue a decrease in American influence" but you need to flesh this idea out more. wouldn't the fact that there is decreased conflict on a global scale in fact indicate less complexity? in addition, i and i suspect others still don't buy into your somewhat simplistic notion that the cold war was just fought between two ideological rivals. in fact as i pointed out earlier, the sino-soviet split had a major impact on proxy wars throughout the world. just go back to the congo example. read that and tell me if that makes any sense at all. how is it less complex than the conflicts that are playing out today?

moreover, you haven't addressed your other point which is the idea that terrorism, climate change, etc. are new global problems that undermine the traditional boundaries of the nation-state. how would such a notion fit with the new reality you're describing of challenges to the us's authority based precisely on regional power assertion by nation-state competitors such as russia and china?

so which is it: is the us unchallenged or is it facing decline on a global scale? is russia, china, etc. a regional or global competitor? are there new problems that result in increased interdependency, or could the nation-state be stronger than ever in certain respects? again, i'm having a hard time tracking where your stances on these issues prove that the world is more complex than after the cold war.

[Lobster]

Pro-russian martyrs killed in Odessa, I only give it a matter of time before russian army intervenes to defend the opressed protesters. I wish someone had taken me up on my bet.

[The Comrade]

you mean it's only a matter of time before the russian army intervenes to defend the GRU operatives in ukraine.

[exploited]

[Kane]

Ya know, if you guys were arguing over something of substance I'd be impressed. You're not. Instead you're arguing whether or not our current foreign policy model is more or less complicated than it once was.

Who gives a f**k? Let the subjectivity of this judgment pass the both of you by, save your time, and refocus on arguments grounded in outcomes greater than that of "I was right about being right." Whether it is or it isn't, shit's still the same in the larger picture. There are regional actors. There are historical comparisons that remain relevant to contemporary policy setting. Agree that both are complicated and move the f**k on.

[exploited]

[Kane]

[broken robot]

Ex, haven't forgotten your post, just buried under tons of grading. Will get to it soon.

Kane, while we may not be able to answer the question whether foreign policy is more complicated or not, I do think it allows us to broach a bunch of other issues that have occurred throughout the world since the end of the Cold War, such as whether the balance of power has really shifted, how conflict has changed, etc. So again whether I can definitively say the world is or isn't more complicated, it's provided some useful food for thought to think about other things. It can be broken down into a bunch of mid-level questions that can potentially be operationalized and researched, such as how has the logic of global conflict changed, is it still based on great power rivalry, etc. Anyways, more concrete details to follow.

[Kane]

Does anybody else get the eerie feeling Russia is focusing Western attention in Eastern Europe away from the Pacific? Or at least creating dueling agendas?

Could the Sino-Soviet split be over?