tadmjones

Anti western ,lol.

Elvis is King

Ultimately the responsibility for the administration falls to Trump , so it doesn’t make a difference whether he made good decisions or had good decision makers in the administration . He ‘lucked out’ because not much was happening on his watch , the only administration in history were the US had little or no influence on what happened internationally. Trump had been making his views on foreign policy and trade fairly public since the late eighties and has stayed fairly consistent on those views and actually tried to implement some of them , he lucked out in that they seemed to work or at least not cause immediate negative effects. He just lucked out lol, that TDS sure blunts reasoning.

Well the other Ukrainian officials will always have a blackmail element to fallback on.

Perhaps you don’t realize , but your thesis intimates that ‘we’ are not a democracy which is tantamount to sedition . Trump ‘went’ because a record 81 million made a wise and sober choice of avoiding another administration in which military action was not likely to increase.

When trying to weigh possibilities looking to past actualities presents information to analyze. Given the title of the thread , the media narrative concerning the US efforts at supporting Ukraine scores Obama being ‘weak ‘ and only sending ‘blankets’ Whereas Trump was mainly lauded for sending antitank missiles. Looking back though , I don’t remember much news narrative /coverage of NATO’s support or action at the same time . It feels now, that NATO has been active in supply and training the Ukraine military during both administrations. Perhaps the narrative was to keep the public’s eye off the ball with partisan bickering about aid /support from the ‘US’ wasn’t the actual or most substantial portion of the support received. But I just throw shit out , feel free to ignore .

And just to continue my tradition of throwing shit out there, willy nilly. How is not imperialist of the US to have a ‘say’ in the financing and construction of the Nord Stream pipelines?

All NATO expenditures , especially allocation and use of military equipment and man power is government spending , capital consumption . Any profit that accrues is ultimately tax revenue that is transferred to individuals via corporate structures. The more governments spend tax revenues on military equipment the more ‘profit’ is generated , or actually transferred. Or is there some sense that military spending is an investment and a sign of wealth creation ?

Ike is the original conspiracy theorist.

Heh, the fact that a high placed Wehrmacht official ends up as NATO military commander 'fits nicely' with putinist 'propaganda' .

Nope. As I said, the "popular culture" impression I had was a vague understanding and or agreement that NATO was the 'good guys' and was surprised to see that a Nazi was once picked as the military commander.

Why should military actions in the Balkans or Eastern European countries necessitate global insecurity ? If not for multinational blocs ?

I brought it because it is at least tangential to my comments on the OP. I’m not sure if AlexL posted Journo’s essay as an example of a counter point to the realpolitik school’s argument as voiced by Mearsheimer or to endorse Journo’s stance via a critique , he seems to be more a champion of Journo in regard to Tony’s critique.

The US supported Iraq for decades during their war with Iran. Without that help the Iraqi regime was as weak and prone to disintegration as it was which made it that much more easier to topple. In comparison Ukraine still enjoys a full US and most western nations full throated support. Even in the midst of a quasi civil war since 2014, after a coup that resulted in pro NATO , pro EU regime.

Until this morning I had never heard of him , nor could I name any other NATO military commander throughout the history of the organization. But today the algorithm pointed me to an article that mentioned him , having little if even detailed knowledge of NATO actions my impressions of its comings and goings are only shaped by whatever general or casual information floats around in popular culture , basically in the broadest view in the west ‘they’ are pretty much the ‘good guys’. I would never have guessed that one of Hitler’s former military officers would have been selected for such a post. Do you think the ‘official’ or legal Nazi status as compared to ‘plain ole Wehrmacht officer ‘ is a difference in kind and not simply degree? I would assume that even if he was a member , that that would have been ‘scrubbed’ to allow for more acceptability in the post WW2 west. Or maybe NATO really is and always been Nazi friendly. ps I figured when I mentioned it , someone would be triggered ‘he wasn’t a Nazi , he only helped Hitler establish the Third Reich , he had a totally different uniform !’