Yes, I’m simply re-using Simplicius’ title—but for a reason. Simplicius is discussing Ben Rhodes’ article in Foreign Affairs. We referred to this yesterday in Thinking About China. Here is the link to the Rhodes article: A Foreign Policy for the World as It Is
It could be that Ben is angling for a job in the new Hillary administration. Lord preserve us. Rhodes had only to look towards the realist school of foreign policy, such as we evoked recently with commenter Dissonant: Ambassador Freeman talked about an “analytical framework” based on 3 types of competition, the first being healthy rivalry (an oxymoron for the Neocretins), second, a Nancy Kerrigan-like approach (sanctions and other goodies used to cheat and unfairly win; and three, zero-sum, we’re No.1, either you’re w us or against us…Freeman chooses door no. 1, as someone who actually knows Chinese history and culture. But no, at this late hour, we get this very restrained and too-clever-by-half screed that Simplicius beautifully decodes. I doubt Ben ran his draft by the ruling Neos who are still hell bent on choosing door no.3: if we don’t win, nobody does.
Does this mean the U.S. can't accuse anyone of violating the "rules based order" anymore? That would be refreshing since it seems they were throwing around that accusation left and right over the last couple years. I guess the construct they constructed isn't constructive anymore. Time for a new paradigm.
To some extent our 'adversary' can be anyone convenient who can be sufficiently demonized to justify 'endless war' and trillions of 'dollars' in defense spending.
Diplomacy is built on trust. A rules based order is built on rationality, consistency, respect and a mutual trust that all players will abide by the rules, and that the institutions that act as referee will be honest and impartial. I don’t see the US or the collective west signing up for anything that looks like that, and western leaders of governments and their institutions seem mostly stupid and venal and incapable of change. The old order cannot be reformed. It will have to be destroyed and replaced by something entirely different.
Putin regularly cites specific laws and principles of law which Russia is complying with and invites third party investigation. The US cites 'rules' which are nowhere written down and which in any event the US reserves the sole right to articulate and interpret. There is a mountain of difference.
For some reason most of us Americans don't seem to be able to understand the difference.
Managed Decline. That’s what “The One” was all about. How very nice of Ben to lay it all out for us. We will decline, they will mange the decline, and they will still be handsomely compensated for their “public services.” More of the ten percent for the Big Guy stuff. Ben is calling for the Elite to lower their expectations, but that they will still live comfortably off of the ruins for years to come.
Yep, the reckoning will be memorable to say the least.
The forces that will be unleashed won’t be anything that these fools expect. The economic, military, political, societal and geopolitical consequences will shake the pillars of the republic to their foundations and I don’t see any politician anywhere who is up to the task of handling a calamity of this magnitude.
Sorta highlights the upcoming debate for what it is, a meaningless bit of political theater meant to appease the masses, but ultimately signifying nothing but empty spectacle.
I’m saddened and infuriated at the same time. Didn’t think that I would live to see this national tragedy.
It could be that Ben is angling for a job in the new Hillary administration. Lord preserve us. Rhodes had only to look towards the realist school of foreign policy, such as we evoked recently with commenter Dissonant: Ambassador Freeman talked about an “analytical framework” based on 3 types of competition, the first being healthy rivalry (an oxymoron for the Neocretins), second, a Nancy Kerrigan-like approach (sanctions and other goodies used to cheat and unfairly win; and three, zero-sum, we’re No.1, either you’re w us or against us…Freeman chooses door no. 1, as someone who actually knows Chinese history and culture. But no, at this late hour, we get this very restrained and too-clever-by-half screed that Simplicius beautifully decodes. I doubt Ben ran his draft by the ruling Neos who are still hell bent on choosing door no.3: if we don’t win, nobody does.
I give Rhodes credit for sticking his neck out like this BUT obviously he doesn’t recognize Putin’s motivation. Nor does he acknowledge this.
Does this mean the U.S. can't accuse anyone of violating the "rules based order" anymore? That would be refreshing since it seems they were throwing around that accusation left and right over the last couple years. I guess the construct they constructed isn't constructive anymore. Time for a new paradigm.
Not a chance.
I never understood this “rules based order” nonsense before. Thanks for the explanation
It’s like the movie Stripes. Bill Murrays character says WE are THE United States. We’re 10 and 1.
"unreliable adversaries."
VS "reliable" adversaries OR "unreliable" allies?
Which is Israel?
What makes an adversary an adversary; specifically, what necessity compels an adversarial relationship between US and Iran? US and Russia?
To some extent our 'adversary' can be anyone convenient who can be sufficiently demonized to justify 'endless war' and trillions of 'dollars' in defense spending.
Ideology. And economic resources.
I saw that too. It put me in mind of this 2022 article at TAC by Dreher (love him or hate him),
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/matt-taibbi-putin-onetime-bastard-russia-ukraine/
which quotes extensively from a paywalled piece by Taibbi, "Putin the Apostate: We thought he would be our bastard. Then, he became his own bastard."
Diplomacy is built on trust. A rules based order is built on rationality, consistency, respect and a mutual trust that all players will abide by the rules, and that the institutions that act as referee will be honest and impartial. I don’t see the US or the collective west signing up for anything that looks like that, and western leaders of governments and their institutions seem mostly stupid and venal and incapable of change. The old order cannot be reformed. It will have to be destroyed and replaced by something entirely different.
Putin regularly cites specific laws and principles of law which Russia is complying with and invites third party investigation. The US cites 'rules' which are nowhere written down and which in any event the US reserves the sole right to articulate and interpret. There is a mountain of difference.
For some reason most of us Americans don't seem to be able to understand the difference.
Our diplomacy with our 5 eyes allies is built on trust yet we spy on them too.
Managed Decline. That’s what “The One” was all about. How very nice of Ben to lay it all out for us. We will decline, they will mange the decline, and they will still be handsomely compensated for their “public services.” More of the ten percent for the Big Guy stuff. Ben is calling for the Elite to lower their expectations, but that they will still live comfortably off of the ruins for years to come.
Rules based order
Follow our economic, environmental, energy, political, and social decrees
Or suffer the consequences…
Social decrees assumes DEI.
The blowback that is coming our way will be real and spectacular.
Only if we stick our nose where it doesn’t belong.
But that's what the US does.
Yep, the reckoning will be memorable to say the least.
The forces that will be unleashed won’t be anything that these fools expect. The economic, military, political, societal and geopolitical consequences will shake the pillars of the republic to their foundations and I don’t see any politician anywhere who is up to the task of handling a calamity of this magnitude.
Sorta highlights the upcoming debate for what it is, a meaningless bit of political theater meant to appease the masses, but ultimately signifying nothing but empty spectacle.
I’m saddened and infuriated at the same time. Didn’t think that I would live to see this national tragedy.
Nah. We have nukes.
Yeh, AC, there is that and it’s a good thing that nobody else has’em!
Oh, wait.
Or we'll bring you "democracy".
Rules-based democracy?
LOL.