How would you describe your foreign policy philosophy? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15183201
Patrickov wrote:Tell that to China, not the United States.

If anything, the voters of United States made a pretty big "compromise" by electing a team who probably have less willingness to stop China in the way I think necessary (to save the people in concern).

But as I have said elsewhere, I should not have been surprised or even bitter for this. I should, instead, really admit that fact that my life is just like any other lives -- disposable.


It is in the interest of the world that a state of peace exists between the United States and China.

Great power politics is simply not sustainable in a nuclear age. There must be multilateral cooperation and global multipolarity.


Politics_Observer wrote:I agree, the major powers need better lines of communication. The Biden administration here in the U.S. has been trying to open lines of communications with the Chinese much like we did with the Soviets during the Cold War. However, the Chinese haven't been as receptive as the Soviets were. I think part of this reason is because the Chinese never really came close to the reality of a nuclear confrontation like the U.S. and Soviets did during the Cold War with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It could also be "Asian pride" but this sort of pride is very dangerous when nuclear weapons become involved and could quite literally lead to the end of all of mankind globally.


Unfortunately the leadership of both countries is hawkish and aggressive. However tensions truly escalated after Donald Trump entered office. It was Trump who pushed the anti-China position to its maximum extent, not only in America but around the world. In Britain under David Cameron they were pursuing very close trade relations with Beijing and on the verge of undertaking a massive project with Huawei. Then suddenly Trump enters office and the West starts following his administration's China policy.

This is not to say Beijing aren't hawkish, they most certainly are. And China's internal policies are lamentable. As much as it is important to have a peaceful East Asia it is a cause of tremendous moral discomfort to be sat at the same table with the PRC sometimes.

Both sides need to start making compromises and overtures.

Politics_Observer wrote:I think the current Chinese political leadership might under-estimate this reality and how dangerous that really is. They should be willing to open lines of communication with the U.S. I think some political leaders under-estimate just how dangerous a war is and how it can quickly spiral out of control. The survivors would look back on it all, if we had any survivors, and ask "How could we have been SOOO STUPID!?" Another part of my foreign policy philosophy is also achieving your foreign policy goals all while preventing war and astronomical costs of wars. The Sun Tzu maxim of "To win without fighting is the acme of skill."


Unfortunately the people in charge view it all as a zero sum game. People are willing to blow each other to pieces over nothing in particular while the masses are brainwashed into thinking this is patriotism.
#15183203
Political Interest wrote:It is in the interest of the world that a state of peace exists between the United States and China.

Great power politics is simply not sustainable in a nuclear age. There must be multilateral cooperation and global multipolarity.


Again, tell that to China, not the United States.

As much as China claims multipolarity, in reality they seek dominance themselves. And their pole is one of oppression and arrogance.


Political Interest wrote:Unfortunately the leadership of both countries is hawkish and aggressive. However tensions truly escalated after Donald Trump entered office. It was Trump who pushed the anti-China position to its maximum extent, not only in America but around the world. In Britain under David Cameron they were pursuing very close trade relations with Beijing and on the verge of undertaking a massive project with Huawei. Then suddenly Trump enters office and the West starts following his administration's China policy.


Trump merely did what should have been done.


Political Interest wrote:This is not to say Beijing aren't hawkish, they most certainly are. And China's internal policies are lamentable. As much as it is important to have a peaceful East Asia it is a cause of tremendous moral discomfort to be sat at the same table with the PRC sometimes.


Then why is it not the case that China is the one starting all this debacle?


Political Interest wrote:Both sides need to start making compromises and overtures.

Unfortunately the people in charge view it all as a zero sum game. People are willing to blow each other to pieces over nothing in particular while the masses are brainwashed into thinking this is patriotism.


As usual, tell both of these to China, not the United States.
#15183215
Patrickov wrote:Again, tell that to China, not the United States.

As much as China claims multipolarity, in reality they seek dominance themselves. And their pole is one of oppression and arrogance.




Trump merely did what should have been done.




Then why is it not the case that China is the one starting all this debacle?




As usual, tell both of these to China, not the United States.


@Patrickov , are you a member of the Falun Gong group or affiliated with their media such as the ''Epoch Times'', by any chance?

I've always found your position on China interesting, but haven't asked really about it's origin.

My foreign policy philosophy is basically ''live and let live'', by the way. People have trouble enough handling their own domestic affairs without meddling in those of others. It doesn't really solve anything. So if you're hoping for war between another Great Power and China....
#15183217
annatar1914 wrote:Are you a member of the Falun Gong group or affiliated with their media such as the ''Epoch Times'', by any chance?

I've always found your position on China interesting, but haven't asked really about it's origin.


No. I am not in favour of Falun Gong either. Had they won they would have been another CCP.

EDIT: On "wishing a war", let it be known that I see the thing as inevitable, although admittedly I see it as the only way to have the wrongdoers punished, which is my main concern. The current events quite resemble what happened to Germany in the first half of 20th Century.

EDIT 2: If you think I am just a fanatic of Falun Gong you are gravely mistaken. China does not stop cracking down in Hong Kong. They have today announced a termination of cooperation with the biggest teachers' union in Hong Kong, which has some 95,000 members, including at least one of my close family and one from my extended family. I expect a mass arrest (of the high orders in that union) and another confiscation of assets soon.
#15183238
I agree with @Political Interest that we want peace between the great powers. However, that is not possible if one side (western powers) give all (in this case willingly give all) of their leverage to the other (China). Which is what has been a known issue for at least the last 20 years. The mistake with Trump is that he could have pushed to deleverage from China (bring supply chains to the US and US allies) without the inflaming rhetoric. Obviously though, the reason Trump went that route is to stoke up fear in conservatives to try and win votes for re-election.

Though, i feel like it would be near impossible to even have a chance at a meaningful deleverage without the rhetoric and fear mongering. The way to get enough people behind doing something meaningful/swift/significant is to get buy in from more and more voters. Thus, you have to play up the various angles and reasons to do it. From national security, to a new axis of evil fear mongering (if you want to call it that) lead by China, to human rights, to environmentalism, etc. etc. Give a reason to each of the different demographics within the US, so that they all get behind some kind of economic decoupling action. You need an aggregate of voters, and you need to appeal to their different sensibilities, basically.

Arguably, this was necessary, and could very well avoid war and greater conflict. The key lever China has on the west, is that the west is obsessed with money and profits over all else. Perhaps this is what's needed to change that western obsession which can then no longer be weaponized against the west. We also understand from history, that appeasement does not work either. Which I think is what many people want to try because it feels/sounds more diplomatic and peaceful. IN the long wrong, history shows, it does not result in more peaceful results.

In a really odd way, although I hate Trump, wish for him to die so that he can't run in 2024, etc. etc. This might actually be the seed that finally puts the fire under the west to stop caring so fucking much about money and the GDP. To finally start thinking about the well being of people, national security, and relative freedom (compared to China and other authoritarian states). It's going to take becoming uncomfortable, and unfortunately, tension.
#15183255
Politics_Observer wrote:Yeah, well that brainwashing goes away really fast once it's you that's on the battlefield. It's all about survival then and there is no guarantee you are going to come home alive.


I expect myself or those I care to die horribly should a war arise. But if it is the only way wrongdoers can be punished (with death no less) then maybe I need to accept it.

I know all that "easier said than done" issue though.
#15183330
Rancid wrote:I agree with @Political Interest that we want peace between the great powers. However, that is not possible if one side (western powers) give all (in this case willingly give all) of their leverage to the other (China). Which is what has been a known issue for at least the last 20 years. The mistake with Trump is that he could have pushed to deleverage from China (bring supply chains to the US and US allies) without the inflaming rhetoric. Obviously though, the reason Trump went that route is to stoke up fear in conservatives to try and win votes for re-election.

Though, i feel like it would be near impossible to even have a chance at a meaningful deleverage without the rhetoric and fear mongering. The way to get enough people behind doing something meaningful/swift/significant is to get buy in from more and more voters. Thus, you have to play up the various angles and reasons to do it. From national security, to a new axis of evil fear mongering (if you want to call it that) lead by China, to human rights, to environmentalism, etc. etc. Give a reason to each of the different demographics within the US, so that they all get behind some kind of economic decoupling action. You need an aggregate of voters, and you need to appeal to their different sensibilities, basically.

Arguably, this was necessary, and could very well avoid war and greater conflict. The key lever China has on the west, is that the west is obsessed with money and profits over all else. Perhaps this is what's needed to change that western obsession which can then no longer be weaponized against the west. We also understand from history, that appeasement does not work either. Which I think is what many people want to try because it feels/sounds more diplomatic and peaceful. IN the long wrong, history shows, it does not result in more peaceful results.

In a really odd way, although I hate Trump, wish for him to die so that he can't run in 2024, etc. etc. This might actually be the seed that finally puts the fire under the west to stop caring so fucking much about money and the GDP. To finally start thinking about the well being of people, national security, and relative freedom (compared to China and other authoritarian states). It's going to take becoming uncomfortable, and unfortunately, tension.


There are 3 main schools of thinking how peace can be achieved:

1) Realists (They believe that peace can be achieved when balance of power is maintained or basically Strong vs Strong sort of way. If it is strong vs weak country then peace can not be possible since weakness allows for war)
2) Moralists/Liberals (They believe that peace can be achieved only when countries follow the same ideal. Basically if all countries in the world are of x ideology then there will be no war)
3) Marxists ( They believe that war and conflict rises from class struggle and underdeveloped social situation within the country. So if everyone lives a good life then there will not be a war)

All 3 are valid by the way at the same time and just depends on the situation. There are obviously morphed versions of the 3 but that is a weird topic. So the ideal world without war is:
1) Everyone is Strong or at least in a Strong camp.
2) All follow the same ideology.
3) All needs of the people are met.
#15183333
JohnRawls wrote:There are 3 main schools of thinking how peace can be achieved:

1) Realists (They believe that peace can be achieved when balance of power is maintained or basically Strong vs Strong sort of way. If it is strong vs weak country then peace can not be possible since weakness allows for war)
2) Moralists/Liberals (They believe that peace can be achieved only when countries follow the same ideal. Basically if all countries in the world are of x ideology then there will be no war)
3) Marxists ( They believe that war and conflict rises from class struggle and underdeveloped social situation within the country. So if everyone lives a good life then there will not be a war)

All 3 are valid by the way at the same time and just depends on the situation. There are obviously morphed versions of the 3 but that is a weird topic. So the ideal world without war is:
1) Everyone is Strong or at least in a Strong camp.
2) All follow the same ideology.
3) All needs of the people are met.


This sounds similar to the video I shared on PoFo (in a new thread) earlier. (this is a positive comment)
#15183419
Potemkin wrote:Make a very large donation to the Tory Party.


JohnRawls wrote:There are 3 main schools of thinking how peace can be achieved:

1) Realists (They believe that peace can be achieved when balance of power is maintained or basically Strong vs Strong sort of way. If it is strong vs weak country then peace can not be possible since weakness allows for war)
2) Moralists/Liberals (They believe that peace can be achieved only when countries follow the same ideal. Basically if all countries in the world are of x ideology then there will be no war)
3) Marxists ( They believe that war and conflict rises from class struggle and underdeveloped social situation within the country. So if everyone lives a good life then there will not be a war)

All 3 are valid by the way at the same time and just depends on the situation. There are obviously morphed versions of the 3 but that is a weird topic. So the ideal world without war is:
1) Everyone is Strong or at least in a Strong camp.
2) All follow the same ideology.
3) All needs of the people are met.



This is worth thinking about. thanks for sharing.
#15183513
If you want peace, prepare for war (Si vis pacem, para bellum), which is also the title track of the new album by the legendary Swedish guitarist. A strong country is less likely to be attacked by enemies. President Reagan was committed to the idea of “peace through strength”: "We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted" (Ronald Reagan, Republican National Convention, July 17 1980).

#15183514
@ThirdTerm

I agree with you ThridTerm. If you want peace then prepare for war. Credible deterrence is part of keeping the peace. However, don't start wars and only use force only when your vital interests are at stake and only as an absolute last resort. Wars can quickly spiral out of control and can very well lead to the complete destruction of all of mankind and civilization. One should never underestimate the astronomical far reaching costs and senselessness of war. All too often, politicians who have never tasted war and don't understand what that means are too quick to start wars un-necessarily rather work to prevent them.
#15183516
@ThirdTerm

Credible deterrence is based on three elements and all three elements must exist at the same time combined:


  • Punishment is certain.
  • Punishment is swift.
  • Punishment is severe.

Having those three elements combined all at the same time creates credible deterrence. When an adversary sees those three elements, they are less likely to take actions against your nation. This also includes for example, if a nuclear armed nation strikes another nuclear armed nation first, the nuclear armed nation that was struck first will still retain credible deterrence in that regardless of being hit by a first strike, that nation will still be able to launch a counter nuclear strike that inflicts severe and unacceptable destruction upon the aggressor that launched the initial first nuclear strike. So, when nations know that other nations will still retain credible deterrence even if they are struck by a first strike, they will refrain from attacking in the first place because they know the costs of the counter strike inflicted upon them will be severe and cause unacceptable damage in return.
#15185380
Politics_Observer wrote:Having those three elements combined all at the same time creates credible deterrence. When an adversary sees those three elements, they are less likely to take actions against your nation. This also includes for example, if a nuclear armed nation strikes another nuclear armed nation first, the nuclear armed nation that was struck first will still retain credible deterrence in that regardless of being hit by a first strike, that nation will still be able to launch a counter nuclear strike that inflicts severe and unacceptable destruction upon the aggressor that launched the initial first nuclear strike. So, when nations know that other nations will still retain credible deterrence even if they are struck by a first strike, they will refrain from attacking in the first place because they know the costs of the counter strike inflicted upon them will be severe and cause unacceptable damage in return.


One of the reasons why we currently have such an intense relationship with the Russians is because they perceive that their vital interests are threatened. They really think this and feel threatened by NATO expansion.

You must understand that even by conservative estimates they lost 15, million soldiers defending their homeland in WWII, and that includes the lands of Belarus and Ukraine. Those two countries they consider to be their brothers and one blood, the same nation, Kievan Rus. It is for them both a question of threat perception and national honour. They also don't want to become a small European country but want to remain a great power. I believe there is a diplomatic solution to our tensions with Russia. I am extremely concerned by the prospect of war, I really do think it could happen within our lifetime. It must be avoided at all costs.
#15185391
It's correct that human should avoid unnecessary war at all costs, but I have to say that it is probably a bit wishful to believe we can actually make it.

This, IMHO, is the message by member ThirdTerm -- prepare for the worst.


Side Note:
Humanity is really nothing compared with even the biosphere on Earth. It could just sit for another 1000 or even just 100 million years before another sapient species rises.

Besides it's highly probable somewhere in the Milky Way that sapient lives exist somewhere. It's just that it's highly improbable that any of them would have contact of one another.
#15185394
JohnRawls wrote:1) Realists (They believe that peace can be achieved when balance of power is maintained or basically Strong vs Strong sort of way. If it is strong vs weak country then peace can not be possible since weakness allows for war)
2) Moralists/Liberals (They believe that peace can be achieved only when countries follow the same ideal. Basically if all countries in the world are of x ideology then there will be no war)
3) Marxists ( They believe that war and conflict rises from class struggle and underdeveloped social situation within the country. So if everyone lives a good life then there will not be a war)


When I go my IR degree, one problem I always had with realism in particular, and some strains of liberalism, is the tunnel vision focus on state actors or state organizations when discussing 'peace' and even 'great power conflict'. The influence of non-state actors and institutions (domestic, foreign, and multinational) can force states to act in "irrational" ways quite easily, I feel.
#15185396
@Political Interest

Political Interest wrote:One of the reasons why we currently have such an intense relationship with the Russians is because they perceive that their vital interests are threatened. They really think this and feel threatened by NATO expansion.

You must understand that even by conservative estimates they lost 15, million soldiers defending their homeland in WWII, and that includes the lands of Belarus and Ukraine. Those two countries they consider to be their brothers and one blood, the same nation, Kievan Rus. It is for them both a question of threat perception and national honour. They also don't want to become a small European country but want to remain a great power. I believe there is a diplomatic solution to our tensions with Russia. I am extremely concerned by the prospect of war, I really do think it could happen within our lifetime. It must be avoided at all costs.


I am not buying that rationale completely. I think the reason why we have a tense relationship with Russia currently is because you have some NATO states on his borders that are becoming more successful, developing stronger economies and the Russian people can easily just cross some of those borders and see how life is better in those countries and that gives them dangerous ideas (dangerous to Putin) such as "why can't we have this kind of good life too like they do?" And that is just not acceptable to Putin. That could threaten his power.

It is therefore necessary for NATO to implement a policy of deterrence in that if Russia attacks any of those NATO border states they will be starting World War III which could very well turn into a global thermonuclear war. NATO has to draw the line and mean it and back it up with credible deterrence. Part of credible deterrence is to mean what you say and being prepared to fight. On the same token, that also means, not threatening to attack Russia either. It is a mistake for any country to invade or attack Russia. But Russia isn't 10 feet tall either (nobody is 10 feet tall). The country can be deterred from attacking it's neighbors that are NATO members. NATO has to remain firm in it's commitment to it's member states that border Russia in order to keep the world safe for freedom and democracy.
#15185453
Fasces wrote:When I go my IR degree, one problem I always had with realism in particular, and some strains of liberalism, is the tunnel vision focus on state actors or state organizations when discussing 'peace' and even 'great power conflict'. The influence of non-state actors and institutions (domestic, foreign, and multinational) can force states to act in "irrational" ways quite easily, I feel.


Sure, realists approach has a lot of laws but disputing things like MAD is not possible. The core of their idea is right and wrong at the same time.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

@ThirdTerm Здравствуйте! Kak Ваши дела? Как жи[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

@Igor Antunov @colliric It is good that you […]

Infotainment seems to be nothing more than turnin[…]

In any case, it is a sad fact of this world that '[…]