If the future world order is one of lopsided multipolarity and if such orders are more war-prone, then there is some reason to worry. But multipolarity might not be that bad for the United States, provided it recognizes the implications and adjusts its foreign policy appropriately.
For starters, letâs recognize that unipolarity wasnât that great for the United States, and especially not for those unfortunate countries that got the brunt of U.S. attention in recent decades. The unipolar era included the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, two expensive and ultimately unsuccessful U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some ill-advised regime changes that led to failed states, a financial crisis that altered U.S. domestic politics dramatically, and the emergence of an increasingly ambitious China whose rise was partly facilitated by the United Statesâ own actions. But the United States hasnât learned much from the experience, given that it is still listening to the strategic geniuses whose actions squandered Washingtonâs Cold War triumph and hastened unipolarityâs end. The only restraint on a unipolar powerâs actions is self-restraint, and self-restraint is not something a crusader nation such as the United States does very well.
Have you heard this yet?
What happens when communism breaks out in Russia? - Nothing for a long time, and then corpses run out.
No, really!
Turns out:
In Russia, you can't donate your corpse to science so easily. Physicians are trained on imported bodies, often from the United States. But now there are trade sanctions and imported bodies are in short supply.
You can't make this up!
For those who don't know the reference, iIt's an old joke from the Cold War.
What happens when communism breaks out in the Sahara? Nothing for a long time, then the sand becomes scarce. *tush*
At what point does it dawn on Putin that his unbelievably inept military is getting an ass-whupping for the ages? At what point does he get forcibly removed from office because of the damage he is doing to his country?
I guarantee you he's hesitant to take in the view from any upper-floor window.
At what point does it dawn on Putin that his unbelievably inept military is getting an ass-whupping for the ages? At what point does he get forcibly removed from office because of the damage he is doing to his country?
Synder's contribution here is absolutely marvellous.
Also worthy to note China's complete deafness to Synder's main point.
The concluding remarks (from about 2:00:00 onwards) are fantastic. The Russian delegation basically has no response, mumbling, we'll find a way to get back to you later.
In the grammar of Russian violence, the subject, the perpetrator of violence, can never stand without an object, without a "terpila," tolerator. Whoever wants to talk about peace with Russian violence must not be deaf to it. With tolerators who tell Russia about its "legitimate interests" is only possible to deal , see above. When Putin utters âSurrender, my beauty.." in the video, some life comes into his gaze, his eyes narrow, one corner of his mouth pulls up, Putin seems satisfied by the speech act alone.
Even under the tsar, countries that Russia subdued were said to have been "pacified. In the Soviet Union it was called peace struggle, and we learned in peace lessons how the Western peace movement helped our country to fight for peace all over the world. Today, it is helping Putin.
Every time the word "peace" is mentioned, even if it is only in an Internet comment, it is registered in Russian open-plan offices and it is echoed back, amplified. Every post means one more bullet in someone's flesh, every flyer with Picasso's dove makes more people hide in the basement of their house, because uniforms move into their apartment, come to them in the basement, beat them up, rape them, shoot them until everything "surrenders".
