Surely they ought to sell the jets to Greece instead…
In all seriousness though, this is what really bugs me about the foreign policy “strategy” these days. It’s quite obvious that many of the countries that the US (and the UK) deal with aren’t “friends” in the sense of possessing goodwill and willingness to work together to achieve whatever the aims of the US or the UK are. Yet, instead of thinking in a more strategic, longer-term manner, the instinct is to immediately pander to whatever they want.
That the whole Russian war crimes situation isn’t pushing more countries to develop energy independence, especially in renewables, is just mind-boggling.
Let’s not forget who Biden’s main clients are (or any other US president’s for that matter). I for one don’t see any strategy anymore in what they do, apart from selling as much arms and military equipment as possible. No matter to whom or for which purpose.
And of course, they are also among the main actors in hindering a quick and effective development of renewable energies around the world (also first and foremost in their own country). Alongside the weapon industry, there is still the almighty oil and gas industry telling Biden what to do.
I think this is tipping over into conspiracy theory.
For me, it’s just a matter of democracy capture. Economic power has been allowed to concentrate too much within a few hands, which leads directly to actual power, given the ability to literally purchase minds. This also means that access to political power and representatives is harder for most people to get, for myriad reasons. What we are left is then people with power, the self-interest to maintain that power, having the most access. Being able to perpetuate policy-making in their own self-interest means that they reinforce this power, and the arenas of policy-making become almost like an echo chamber, particularly in what makes good policy goals.
I’m guessing, in this case, the idea is to try to keep what is seen as a valuable NATO member and ally onside, because of the situation, when it’s precisely for those reasons that they have to be kept onside through pointing out that they would be vulnerable should they pick the wrong side.
I don’t think so. You’ve just said the same in a longer sentence, and I fully agree with it.
To be fair, maybe I should have said ‘Biden’s most influent clients’. He responds of course to other influences in society, but as you say yourself, a few people hold a disproportionate amount of power and capture the essence of what a genuine democracy should be. We are made to believe that a US president defends the interests of a majority of Americans, but it’s simply not true.
That of course applies to a lot of other countries calling themselves democracies.
Superficially, it looks like a solid plan. The problem is that in reality, there is nothing to keep. Turkey is a partner and an ally in name only, at least while the current regime is in power. Erdogan has far more in common with Putin than he has with the West. The US will be strengthening a known troublemaker who has repeatedly displayed that the only thing that matters to him is the neo-ottoman agenda. New jets and new weapons won’t make Erdogan change his stance and his long-term goals. On the contrary, the US will embolden him to cause further rifts and problems in the future.
And the thing is that this amazingly shortsighted policy follows a pattern. They undermined their own war effort in Afghanistan by pandering to Pakistan. It’s as if history has taught them nothing.
Totally agree with your view on Erdogan. Contemporary Turkey is something different than Ataturk’s at the time. He’s of the same ilk as Putin. He plays with the religious extremism button, but basically, he’s just another oligarch-type of ruler. Not interested in the least to create a better society for his folks, just to have his big ego satisfied. There are so many around these days…
Regarding the US, their governments aren’t dumber than other ones. So, why do they keep doing this? My theory: to stir unrest, to help creating a world in which everyone feels unsafe, and thus, to incite national states to invest heavily in (US-made) weaponry. It works. They’ve just cracked the perennial bullwark which was resisting their attempts over the last decades. The usually sober Germany in terms of armament, will invest 100 billions in weaponry this year only. Thousands will follow over the next decades. A majority of this money, instead of going towards improving the living standard of German people, will go to the big US armament firms. Well done.
Some might say that this is conspiracy theory stuff, but really, who are the greatest profiteers of the current mess, and will continue to do so for a long time, both on the US and on the Russian side? Answers on a postcard please.
I don’t think that you can blame the Americans for Germany’s rearmament. That’s on Putin. Plus they wouldn’t even profit from it as Germany has an excellent defence industry that’s producing from assault rifles to top of the line tanks and submarines. They’ll just funnel those billions towards procuring more armament of their own making.
Of course, Putin is the first responsible for the current situation, I don’t deny this. And yes, Germany can produce a part of what they need. However, in Russia and Germany, the main profiteers will be the same as in the US: those who produce and sell weapons. The losers will be us, the common people.
See the problem is, there’s a difference between competing and coexisting interests lining up to produce a particular outcome, and a deliberate effort to produce that outcome. That is where the difference lies for me. Just because this particular outcome happens to benefit the arms manufacturers (tangentially, at that), doesn’t mean that there was a conspiracy to foment this unrest.
By your logic, do you then believe that Pfizer and Moderna are the ones who engineered the COVID crisis? They are the ones who stand to benefit the most from it after all, especially Moderna.
Also, do you honestly think there’s a rational reason for Putin to be doing what he is? Buying into the whole NATO bullshit is nothing short of propaganda shilling for Putin’s criminal regime at this point. They have shown their true colours a long time ago, the very same imperial ambitions they accuse others of.
EDIT: I can’t believe you’ve actually gone and made me write a post defending horrendous companies which should not really exist…
I’m not sure your reading of 2016 works. There was definitely significant skepticism of Hillary, but it wasn’t about her being all talk and no action. It was far more about what direction her actions would be in…whose interests she was going to look out for. There has been a growing appreciation in many of the Western countries that the standard economic metrics used to evaluate the strength of an economy don’t actually reflect the conditions of the workers propping up that economy. Reasonable people have responded to this by discrediting establishment politicians…ones who are seen as favoring the stock market (traditional economic metric) over workers’ conditions. As a long time member of the establishment, Hillary was very much handicapped by that perception, both within her party and without.
Once this happens outsiders become more viable. They often don’t need a coherent argument, they just need to speak to the problem in a way the establishment refuses to or cannot, or does so only belatedly and seemingly inauthentically. History has shown time and again, that under these conditions right wing demagogues tend to rise in popularity (as do legit socialists). It is not because there is this general appreciation that they have the right answer, but a more visceral sense that they are at least seeing the problem.
For how this applies to Macron, I’d say it is mostly an issue of incumbency. People often dont do a great evaluation of which of two options would be better moving forward, they are simply more inclined to want to punish an incumbent who they feel hasnt done enough to fix their problem, even when a sober consideration of the considerations would paint the alternative as being worse.
Not a conspiracy. But there are a few very powerful people who haven’t the same interests as us. That is a fact.
You might want to read up the biography of this gentleman here, an outstanding example from pre-and post-ww1:
Absolute filth. And of course, there are similar types today. Not that they pull all strings, nor exert total control over everything. But it would be naive to dismiss the role of weapons merchants whenever a war pops up, seemingly out of nowhere. Putin has ‘clients’, just like Biden, Johnson, Macron and all the others.
(For the record, I don’t believe that Pfizer and Moderna made up Covid-19 in order to sell us their vaccines. But they made the most of it, that’s for sure.)
This is not the first time you’ve pointed out this person, are you a little obsessed with this? Reading the Wikipedia article, he had a direct hand in just one conflict (the Greek invasion of Turkey, which he did for non-commercial reasons), and was mainly involved in supplying arms.
Which is what I was saying, but I think you’ve connected a few dots too many here. There is a huge leap from convincing governments that they need to buy more arms, and deliberating fomenting tensions to sell these arms.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think it’s very likely. The more likely explanation is the internal parties stoking tensions because it benefits them politically, e.g. the rise of nationalist tensions in the old Yugoslavia, or in more modern cases, Fidesz in Hungary.
Gasband’s analogy isn’t really fitting, but I think he’s seeing HC/EM as the establishment candidates who represent the perceived ‘liberal urban elites’ while DT/MLP represent the disgruntled provincial working class.
However, France and the US are poles apart culturally and politically, and such comparisons aren’t very useful. I’m surprised to see our French correspondent so relaxed about the situation though. The FN have been strong for decades now, and can no longer be dismissed as a fad, or a protest vote.
With Russia and China total autocracies, India on the fence and the US sleepwalking in the same direction, Europe, whatever your reservations, is the last hope for those of us who believe in democratic values. If France falls to the far right, the future for all of us looks grim indeed.
I think the all talk and no action points to something else - the politicians who act like the job is to get attention rather than do work. I think there are enough of these people that I understand viewing it through this lens (see Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio…a guy famously once voted against his own bill after getting months of press on how work advocating for the bill he was writing). It doesnt take too cynical a view to extrapolate that any establishment politician, meaning the vast majority of incumbents. I think this is the framing that saw someone like AOC actually win her seat…a young outsider with a stated vision for doing something different up against an establishment guy who had become complacent and in the end didn’t have much to run on other than name recognition.
I dont think that can be applied to the Trump-Hillary situation, because the concerns with Hillary were far more along the lines of the fact that she would actually get stuff done, but in a way that benefited the establishment and solidified the status quo. However, I do think it’s a reasonable framework to use to look at a lot of elections where an establishment politician is being challenged by someone more normal.
Wasn’t that mainly based around the general impression of her rather than her words and actions? I seem to remember her platform (and speeches) being a lot more liberal-leaning than was made out back then, just as Biden’s was.
Yes, her platform was very liberal in relative terms, but no one cared because policy was not covered in that election, and no one believed her anyway.
