-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hard Power and Soft Power
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
And I’m not saying he didn’t look dumb. But with these past data points of similar occurrences in mind, the idea that these recent occurrences since January 20th are uniquely bad, are unprecedented, or are worthy of higher levels of scrutiny or disdain doesn’t really pass the sniff test to me.
I think DJT and his administration could really benefit from polishing up their PR presence and communication skills. His desires to appeal to his base and follow up on campaign promises through arguably questionable EOs, and a brand that appears to be too unfiltered at times, doesn’t always play well in politics.
Maybe it's how deep in the bottle you are with how you stand on hard and soft power?
I honestly don't know what he's talking about.
I’m 100% not for giving Ukraine nukes directly.
That said, I do think we too conveniently forget that nukes were a BIG part of deterring the USSR in the Cold War.
Our noble unwillingness to go there was one thing in the unipolar hyper power era. We don’t quite have that luxury any more. If we had nukes in the Pacific among our allies the way we had established agreements in NATO, we’d be in a much much better place as far as deterring China.
That said, if every nation that is nuke adjacent isn’t now working on completing their projects to go nuclear, they’re fucking idiots. Non proliferation doesn’t work without a superpower guarantee, and some nations might decide they’d rather pay the cost of making their own rather than relying on an unpredictable ally. And once that seal begins to crack, others will increasingly follow, making the impacts of sanctions less credible. I’m sure we will live in increasingly interesting times.
Therein lies my biggest issue Politics be dammed. We should be laser focused on what is or is not good for our country, not what is good for the political environment. We used to talk about Statesmen, who were concerned with matters of State. Now we have Politicians, concerned with matters of Politics. We've lost our way in a dark and dreary swamp, and our focus has wavered from our country and our citizens. Time will tell if that pendulum has truly begun to swing back.
Quick and interesting read. Facts that were not offered to the public to discuss and express opinion on as the events were unfolding. Daily I am reminded of an old Soviet saying that "in truth there is no news, and in news there is no truth."
The history of 2014 has largely been suppressed by the MSM.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
The problem with 'whataboutism' is it's usually about a tangentially related topic that misses the core issue with the current discussion at hand, drawing heavily upon false equivalencies.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Miscues happen, but this is part of a broader trend in the way that Trump runs his administration.
You have to think that America's policy on Ukraine's entry into NATO had to be a significant talking point between the President and the Secretary of Defense before the Secretary of Defense travels to a NATO summit to negotiate on the administration's behalf.
Trump flip-flopping on policies, refusing to listen to his SMEs, and claiming everything as his own bright idea is why we had a revolving door of cabinet members in his first term. This is not unique to Donald Trump, but historically this happens in administrations that populate the bottom of the 'rank the best US presidents' list.
There are many former cabinet members who have written about it, given interviews about it, and campaigned against it. The fact that so many people were willing to break their loyalty to the sanctity of the office of the President during Trump's second campaign is historically significant, but that was lost on anyone who forgot their American history courses.
Last edited:
As I said earlier on this page, that was indefensible.
He is what used to be called a 'fellow traveler' of Russia, not an explicit agent but one who agrees and facilitates their point of view. The suggestion that we or our European allies are somehow at fault in any significant way for Russia's invasion of Ukraine is nothing more than excusing an abuser of their responsibility, "They deserved the beating because they were...too mouthy/wore the wrong clothes/looked at me funny, etc".
It often seems that way to people today, but it is important to remember that our past was not one of wonderful statesmanship either. The Founding Fathers got into it with each other, such as John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson in the first presidential election---they were at each other's throats. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton also didn't like each other. Then during the 1800s you had fist fights on the House and Senate floor.
I think he oversimplifies the issue and also misleads. Part of the reason the pro-Russian government got toppled in Ukraine was because it engaged in violence against the Ukrainian people who were protesting it. The way he makes it sound, you'd think it was a peaceful government that just happened to be pro-Russia but then got violently overthrown, when the reality is the Ukrainian people started engaging in massive protests against it and Viktor Yunakovych engaged in violence against the protesters, with 88 people being killed.
As for NATO, part of the reason for NATO's supposed expansion is because of Russia's actions during the Cold War. During Soviet times, the Russians were very brutal oppressors of their Soviet bloc nations and Warsaw Pact countries. After the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact broke apart, the attitude of those countries was that they wanted absolutely nothing ever again to do with the Russians. They also wanted a security guarantee because they knew that as soon as the Russians were able, they would start trying to rebuild their empire. So perhaps if the Russians hadn't treated these countries so terribly, they'd have been much more open to just being neutral.
The other thing is that the Russians probably view Westernized, liberal democracies that even if not officially part of NATO are still friendly with NATO, as close to the same thing. A liberal democracy usually means friendliness to the West, and hence Western military relations and training and equipping to be interoperable with NATO forces, and by being a democracy, a government where potentially another Hitler could take power. So any such nations are a threat and need to have a pro-Russian authoritarian government installed. As such, any liberal democracy former Soviet or Warsaw Pact countries that were not part of NATO it would only be a matter of time until the Russians would attack again.
True, but at the end of the day they did what was right for the Country. They didn't use words like partisan or bipartisan. They spoke to the strength of a free people over tyranny. They admitted they were not perfect; but holding the county together, forging the colonies into a single "more perfect union" and not allowing a civil war to fracture that union, was what mattered.