What can be done to make imperialism and Britain great again? Commercially looting and sacking Russian natural resources might be a place to start. The world has run out of easy continents to loot and sack, so apparently Russia is about the only place with a plausible possibility. Margaret Thatcher helped end a cold war; Theresa May fuels getting it restarted.
Is Britain up to the task? If only Winston Churchill were still around to stand up to the bully. Fortunately British leadership again may draw upon the U.S.A. as the enforcer of its stranglehold on the Russians. When two Russians were poisoned by nerve agent in England recently, and Britain, who invented the nerve agent GB positively identified the poison as nerve agent, the west fell in line behind Britain in containing Russian so the looting and sacking might become closer to fruition. The phrase ‘win one for the Footsie’ took hold.
American foreign policy makers should have quality strategic goals rather than reactionary donkey replies in Stimulus-Response (SR) mode to any phenomenal political event or false flag operation abroad designed to manipulate gullible or disingenuous U.S. political leaders. Making Russia and China solid friends and moderate defense associates ought to be strategic goals of U.S. foreign policy. That would enable better global allocation of finite government resources from defense spending to ecospheric recovery and removal of vestigial elite, aristocratic crimes upon the poor. The nation’s political leadership has squarely bungled the peace dividend that should have followed the end of the cold war and transition of the Soviet Union to a market economy. There really isn’t any excuse for that, and it has harmed American economic national interests.
It would be wrong to give credit to U.S. Government leadership for political wisdom when it is perennially lacking. Stages in evolving national history occur; now’ists have symbiotically upsurged into being dialectically concentrated corruption with two corrupt parties conjugating as one under judicial oversight pissin on principles of the founders. Corporatism has ended democracy.
The cost of failing to develop a mutually prosperous and secure military relationship with Russia after the cold war is high for each respective nation. The United States had all of the advantages at Cold War’s end and should have been the dance leader in a dialectical reformation of capitalism for Russia as it related to the U.S.A. The U.S. instead choose to develop an antagonistic relationship because it could so long is it could find opportunities to dispute with Russian President Vladimir Putin. American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War seemed to require perennial military conflict in some form in order to keep the Defense budget as high as at Cold War levels.
If one considers the real military situation of the U.S.A. today it can be difficult to find large scale enemies or enemy relationships that could not be fairly readily transformed into non-belligerent conditions. Fundamentally China and Russia are the sole enemies that comprise potential survival threats militarily, and each of those probably have no interest in war or the old idea of conquest.
China does have a communist party corps that distrusts the most rich and aristocracy well-founded on its own imperial past. Richard Nixon began the process of normalizing U.S.-Chinese relations and that has continued so far as to bring China and the U.S. into reasonably amicable trade relations. America buys lots of stuff from China; no one needs war.
That leaves Russia as the best potential enemy to justify a large defense budget. Yet the only real Russian military threat is nuclear and maybe some secret trick weapons. Yet the vast Pentagon budget has a huge number of military personnel taking home too-high salaries. Before the volunteer army E-1s might take home 62 dollars to 350 dollars I recall. Now it’s something like $24,000. Cutting the Defense budget by half would be a good idea if we were on-good-commercial with Russia as with China. If that were the case there would no large standing military threat of world war scale on Earth challenging the U.S.A., Russia, China, Europe or Latin America and that would be a good thing.
U.S. leadership cannot bring themselves to comprehend the importance of saving the nation a half a trillion dollars annual from the Defense budget. A tacit agreement with China and Russia could create an agreement for them to freeze their own defense budgets and even roll them back toward new, lower U.S. levels. Realistically the greatest threats to U.S. national security are not conventional war these days. It is instead terrorism from a number of organizations globally some of which are state organizations. There are dangers of surprise nuclear and biological war. I suppose there are even dangers of kinetic weapons launched from space. Defense spending might want to adjust to the new military reality instead of prepping to fight old wars that require nothing more than simplistic Hatfield-McCoy role playing.
Russia, China and the United States face the mutual threat of global ecospheric degradation and perhaps eventual collapse in the greatest mass extinction underway in millions of years. They face similar challenges of terrorism and like all nations require security from global organizational imperialism subverting national interests.
U.S. leadership should choose to use logic as well as myopia in prioritizing foreign and domestic policy. A free world with a security and ecologically recovering Russia as a business and military partner is better than with Russia as an isolated foe. Leadership in peace is requisite for logic and political progress as well as the ability to resist invaders or return to hostile relationship as the normal condition.
The incipient trade war with China might have gone in many directions. China might have begun trying to grow its own apples in Inner Mongolia or some better place. Washington State apple growers might have found a way to make apple energy bars replete with vitamin B, C and D in shiny foil wrappers that were loosely based on applet and cotlets; the translucent, sweet apple and apricot candy bars famous from Cashmere. Chinese selection of Washington State apples for possible tariffs may have supported a communist party bias against the exploitation of labor. The Washington State apple growing industry exploits vast numbers of poorly-paid migrant farm workers. It is such businesses that demand cheap foreign labor. The West Coast of the U.S.A. and the South are an archipelago of illegal alien workers laboring far below minimum wage. The Federal Government does nothing to eliminate that serfdom as it easily could be attaching felony penalties for paying anyone in the U.S.A. anything less than minimum wage for work-even if they are illegal workers. The United States cannot have a vast evil serf labor empire benefiting the most corrupt powers of concentrated wealth and pretend to be a good moral force on the world; especially if it tries to force a Sodom and Gomorrah social ethic of homosexual marriage on the rest of the world. A billion Muslims, a billion Chinese an a billion Latin Americans might resist. Tolerance for the life choices of others is important. The Middle East might have experienced the goodness of apples without an expiration date. Wars lead sometimes to places that none expected to go. One should tolerate heterodox forms of political systems rather than exterminate them.
Mass movements of populations in a world with nine billion people is itself dangerous in a number of respects. U.S. leadership is however Britain’s bête noir easy to exploit as an enforcer of British imperial interests. Europe too seems to prefer belligerence with Russia rather than neighborliness on a positive basis. Russia’s vast lands have always attracted the interests of foreign invaders and now that mind-set again comprises an element in the inability of Europe and the United States to move beyond the old paradigm to something new; a planet restoring its ecosphere, developing renewable and sustainable economics with liberty justice and security for all.