Danny and Derek talk about the war in Ukraine (1:02); the Global South's reaction to the war (4:57); Russian war aims and Moldova (11:39); food insecurity in the Horn of Africa (14:57); and the elections in France (17:04) and Slovenia (20:51). They are then joined by Emma Ashford (24:34), senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, for an update on where the DC foreign policy establishment stands today. They talk about the future of US grand strategy, analyze Ukraine in a realist framework, look at inter-generational and party stances on liberal internationalism, and more in a wide-ranging discussion.
"realist" is the politically correct term for "brainwashed American imperialist", and nothing more. The abstract hypothetical discussions on definitions of such terms is pointless, as it always just devolves into imperialists (of different shades and flavors! diversity! yet all of the same basic socioeconomic class, somehow) trying to justify and rationalize US criminality. "Realists" generally are the most detached from reality...the most "idealist" actually. The irony is hilarious. I'd love to see a tally of the self-identified "realists" who support/supported each and every US operation around the world in the 21st century, from Ukraine to Libya and beyond. Spreading freedom and democracy and defending Murica via literal Nazis and ISIS. Very cool and smart! So realist!
While I get the attempt to get inside the mind of the Blob, I don't really need that. It's mindless, first of all. And hasn't really changed all that much over the years. It's always just a discussion between: 1. Bomb everyone all the time, and now, or 2. Bomb some of them after waiting a bit longer. Blob-mind speak is all we ever hear, everywhere. No need to "find out" with a guest. Fuck the Democrats and their fascist friends in the GOP.
On Slovenia: "Svoboda" is not an environmental coalition, it's a 4th iteration of the liberal party after the 90s and 00s dominant Liberal Democratic Party went under in internal fights. What Golob did was take some minor party and used it as a vehicle to make a new party, which may be able reunite the whole liberal side into one party.
On speaking one's mind, and it getting drummed out of foreign service professionals over the years, well a rich source of "mind speaking" can be the Oral History Interviews over at the American Diplomatic Studies and Training site. Seems that in some cases it was not drummed out of them so much as it built up within them over the years, LOL.
One can also traces the changes within the foreign policy establishment itself - In the 60's, 70's, we had a wealth of labor attachés, now they are few and far between. Anyway, it can be rather obvious from the readings over there that there was lively internal dissent. I am not so sure how well such a thing is received in today's environment.
If the goal is to constrain military spending, one way to do it might be to transform the weapons industry into public sector enterprises. e.g. similar to the way that the British NHS has tended to constrain public health spending in the UK. I'm serious about this too -- no joke. In terms of lobbying, political spending, the revolving door, media propaganda, this alternative would likely have some positive benefits. In the specific case of Ukraine-Russia, I tend to fall into the NATO is great-o camp at this point. Before Feb 24th of this year I probably shared at least some of the NATO-skepticism. If we are going back to the 1990s too, the U.S. position contributed to where we are today -- neoliberal economic "reforms" and state privatizations have turned victory into a kind of defeat. However, we are currently in a triage situation, where NATO's existence provides at least some structure and organization to this crisis. Germany is in no position to provide a security guaranty to anyone by itself. The EU security architecture, which is clearly Macron's preference, is a joke. I suspect if you talked to people in Eastern Europe (minus Serbia and Hungary), the Baltic States, and the Nordics, most people in those states are probably happy that NATO exists. We still may end up with a larger war. However, in the near term, I tend to think that an organized, credible deterrence is more likely to prevent an expanded war than a power vacuum.
Given that the US is basically Europe 2.0, it should bankroll Europe forever for giving it the idea for existing. Also the UK should never have had to pay all that $$ back for operation Market Garden when the liberation of Europe was in the interest of all continents involved. I grew up eating baked beans in Birmingham while Americans ate juicy steaks in the 60s!
E42 - State of the Blob w/ Emma Ashford
"Is NATO still great-o?" is going down as my favorite AP quote so far.
"realist" is the politically correct term for "brainwashed American imperialist", and nothing more. The abstract hypothetical discussions on definitions of such terms is pointless, as it always just devolves into imperialists (of different shades and flavors! diversity! yet all of the same basic socioeconomic class, somehow) trying to justify and rationalize US criminality. "Realists" generally are the most detached from reality...the most "idealist" actually. The irony is hilarious. I'd love to see a tally of the self-identified "realists" who support/supported each and every US operation around the world in the 21st century, from Ukraine to Libya and beyond. Spreading freedom and democracy and defending Murica via literal Nazis and ISIS. Very cool and smart! So realist!
While I get the attempt to get inside the mind of the Blob, I don't really need that. It's mindless, first of all. And hasn't really changed all that much over the years. It's always just a discussion between: 1. Bomb everyone all the time, and now, or 2. Bomb some of them after waiting a bit longer. Blob-mind speak is all we ever hear, everywhere. No need to "find out" with a guest. Fuck the Democrats and their fascist friends in the GOP.
At 52:21 and passed OMFG quite some time ago. Very interesting discussion.
On Slovenia: "Svoboda" is not an environmental coalition, it's a 4th iteration of the liberal party after the 90s and 00s dominant Liberal Democratic Party went under in internal fights. What Golob did was take some minor party and used it as a vehicle to make a new party, which may be able reunite the whole liberal side into one party.
On speaking one's mind, and it getting drummed out of foreign service professionals over the years, well a rich source of "mind speaking" can be the Oral History Interviews over at the American Diplomatic Studies and Training site. Seems that in some cases it was not drummed out of them so much as it built up within them over the years, LOL.
One can also traces the changes within the foreign policy establishment itself - In the 60's, 70's, we had a wealth of labor attachés, now they are few and far between. Anyway, it can be rather obvious from the readings over there that there was lively internal dissent. I am not so sure how well such a thing is received in today's environment.
https://adst.org/oral-history/oral-history-interviews/
If the goal is to constrain military spending, one way to do it might be to transform the weapons industry into public sector enterprises. e.g. similar to the way that the British NHS has tended to constrain public health spending in the UK. I'm serious about this too -- no joke. In terms of lobbying, political spending, the revolving door, media propaganda, this alternative would likely have some positive benefits. In the specific case of Ukraine-Russia, I tend to fall into the NATO is great-o camp at this point. Before Feb 24th of this year I probably shared at least some of the NATO-skepticism. If we are going back to the 1990s too, the U.S. position contributed to where we are today -- neoliberal economic "reforms" and state privatizations have turned victory into a kind of defeat. However, we are currently in a triage situation, where NATO's existence provides at least some structure and organization to this crisis. Germany is in no position to provide a security guaranty to anyone by itself. The EU security architecture, which is clearly Macron's preference, is a joke. I suspect if you talked to people in Eastern Europe (minus Serbia and Hungary), the Baltic States, and the Nordics, most people in those states are probably happy that NATO exists. We still may end up with a larger war. However, in the near term, I tend to think that an organized, credible deterrence is more likely to prevent an expanded war than a power vacuum.
Given that the US is basically Europe 2.0, it should bankroll Europe forever for giving it the idea for existing. Also the UK should never have had to pay all that $$ back for operation Market Garden when the liberation of Europe was in the interest of all continents involved. I grew up eating baked beans in Birmingham while Americans ate juicy steaks in the 60s!