|Giving Peace A Chance
||[Jul. 17th, 2018|09:37 am]
Is it such a bad thing when the leaders of two powerful nations that have been at loggerheads for generations sit down together for friendly talks? The media seem to think so. Opposition to the Trump/Putin summit has been overwhelming. A headline in the Guardian (not untypical) speaks of "a slippery slope to a violent, darker world." Really? It doesn't seem that way to me.|
Over here, media seemed to run around wildly like scared chicken too. Like - are they afraid there will be no war??
On the other hand, what drives them nervous is Trump's talking about "I could leave you all alone with the NATO and then you'll have to take care of yourselves alone". The vision of "no big brother to back you up, if you do mischief in the world".
Well, how can you say? It speaks for itself, those fears that they voice.
I lived through the Cold War. I really don't want to go back to it- though, apparently, some people do.
People which are so indoctrinated that they don't know what they're doing - or what their task would be if it didn't exist (people just living from provoking and writing about Cold War needed to get themselves a new job, if they were needed no more)...
And then, on the other hand - what was it called? -, the "military industrial complex" which only earns money if they sell guns and war material. (Seemingly American enterprises have no strategy what products to sell on the market during peace times.)
You think they were discussing peace? You think they would need to speak about that alone? Perhaps they would, as peace for Putin means being leaving Syria to Assad and curbing the power of China. Internal peace for both of them seems to be predicated on the abuse of minorities and control of women.
You don't think the Russian interventions in American (and UK) electionsor the fact that Trump denies the findings of his own security services are causes for concern?
All nations that have the power to do so interfere in the internal affairs of others. President Obama intervened directly in the Brexit debate. Russia's interventions are no worse than anyone else's.
I don't see any "good" outcome for the Syrian civil war- not in the short term. The choice seems to be between a westernised dictatorship and an Islamist one. Russia has supported one option, the West has supported the other. Between them they've intensified and prolonged the conflict.
The Trump and Putin regimes are both socially conservative- which doesn't mean it's a bad thing that they're dialling down the hostility.
China is looking to be the superpower of the 21st century. It's understandable that the superpowers of the 20th century might want to slow down its progress. Provided they pursue peaceful means I don't really see a problem.
I don't trust the security services of any nation.
Nor do I trust the mainstream media- which has been going all out to revive Cold War hysteria.
Edited at 2018-07-17 10:52 am (UTC)
Of course Russia's interferences are worse than things we can see - they are covert, and flatly denied!
Obama 'interfered' in Brexit by making an on-the-record quote (which had the opposite effect to that which was intended) ...
The USA also does undercover stuff- not to mention military interventions...
I've no doubt that it does - but those things are regularly exposed, discussed and debated in a free press.
Until those things include meddling in free elections (which is entirely different from 'sponsoring' the preferred candidates of puppet regimes... ) or murdering political opponents/civilians by poisoning them on foreign soil... I still feel pretty confident in saying that Obama has the moral high ground over Putin when it comes to subterfuge!
It's not what goes on... it's whether there is a trail for what goes on.
It depends at what cost such a 'peace' is achieved... but it's not automatically bad, no.