Listen to us now: Putin unveils new Russian nuclear arsenal

. Whilst they and us could have helped contain the menace in the east that is Beijing we have instead alienated (perhaps permanently) one of the most important and powerful countries in the world and made Beijing the sole beneficiary in this zero sum global contest.

https://www.rt.com/news/420206-russia-strategic-weapons-putin/

It was one sided, Russia did nothing and we picked on them, we alienated them with no provocation; oh really, is that not a somewhat skewed view?

Whilst there is certainly truth in the arguments against Western world interference there is also truth that Russia has done its own share of dodgy overseas excursions.

And really, the menace in the East, Beijing; of course China stretches its sphere of influence and flexes its muscles, all great powers do, but the idea of Russia and the West containing this, what would you suggest that would be proportionate and why would they be justified?

You posit that the USA and the West ought not to have interfered around the globe so frankly suggesting interference in China's playground seems at odds with the original isolationist stance proposed.

The fact is larger powers are damned if they do act and damned if they don't, being large ,like being an oldest sibling, means your "parents" (the public at large around the world) expect you to take charge of the others but will invariably take issue with how you did it.

Frankly for anyone living in Western Europe an isolationist stance from the USA would be very worrying- it would certainly at the least impact the standard of living of every individual as resources were reallocated into building a Western European defence strategy ex the USA ,at the worst it would be a green light for Moscow; be careful what you wish for.

No one ever said that?

Somewhat implied re context, the USA attitude to Russia partially stems from Russian (and before that Soviet) activities.

Indeed it has,2 of them... compared to western invasions across the africa, Yugoslavia, the middle east. On a question of scale the US led world is orders of magnitude worse than Russia.

Ukraine , Georgia and of course Afghanistan- one also cannot ignore the spin off effect re Russian action in Chechnya and they are certainly currently busy in Syria. The eventual results re the former Yugoslavia possibly justify the intervention there, the catch is it is only post event one can determine whether such actions are for good or evil.

In reigning in Chinas global ambitions? Surely you can answer that yourself? To retain the European world order mainly and not see it torn down by a resurgent China.
The idea that Chinas rise will be peaceful and there wont be an clash be it big or small with the west, namely America or Japan is fallacious in my view.
As for Russia in that regard I more meant them selling high tech weaponry to Beijing which they otherwise would not have gotten.

One cannot really with any moral authority castigate the USA for interfering in the Middle East whilst suggesting that the USA should interfere to hold back China.

Reigning in a country and bombing it into the stone age are two very different things.

Syria, Eastern Ghouta?

I'm sorry i didnt get your point on this one?

World powers get blamed for intervening and blamed if they do not, it is their lot in life, the catch is interventions are a lottery.

I think you've misinterpreted my post.
I have no been aiming for an isolationist America, more I was lamenting [and damning] their foolish decision to push Russia into China's embrace and turn it back into an enemy - a move which i consider far more dangerous than an isolationist America.
Equally what is wrong with critising them for their *illegal* rapacious invasions of countries like Iraq which in turn engulfed the entire middle east in flames? Few countries have done such damn fool hardy mistakes before.

Not so, history is littered with ineptitude.

..
Somewhat implied re context, the USA attitude to Russia partially stems from Russian (and before that Soviet) activities.

Ukraine , Georgia and of course Afghanistan- one also cannot ignore the spin off effect re Russian action in Chechnya and they are certainly currently busy in Syria. The eventual results re the former Yugoslavia possibly justify the intervention there, the catch is it is only post event one can determine whether such actions are for good or evil.

One cannot really with any moral authority castigate the USA for interfering in the Middle East whilst suggesting that the USA should interfere to hold back China.

Syria, Eastern Ghouta?

World powers get blamed for intervening and blamed if they do not, it is their lot in life, the catch is interventions are a lottery.

Not so, history is littered with ineptitude.

That was not my intent however it is a simple fact that the West seriously botched reintegrating Russia into the international system - not to mention it was western advisers who destroyed their economy under Yeltsin.
Some would call it a little crass to judge the son by the sins of the father, not to mention it does nothing to stop the cycle.

What is it always about the oil, are the USA stealing it and taking it home with them? If they wanted total control of all the oil they would have left boots on the ground, the fact they did not (which was half the problem re Iraq post conflict) suggests that it was not the prime mover, despite the hype.

Yes, I accept the US has large boots and is very, very, clumsy, yes they have the attention span of a gnat, yes they do not plan much beyond the day after tomorrow, however you cannot cherry pick the interventions/global activities.

The Russians (and given recent behaviour I see little problem gathering Russia under the Czars, Russia under the Soviet and Putin's Russia as similar entities) are not the world's good guys or bad guys and the USA are not the world's bad guys or good guys, they are both just larger powers (Russia being currently a little clipped) who as larger powers have always done flex their muscles and get things right and wrong- if the US curtailed its spheres of influence and say withdrew from NATO I would not be feeling that comfortable, the fact is the West gets the use of their umbrella if it rains and has to put up with the fact that they keep prodding people with the tip when it is not open.

And if we are judging as a beauty parade re least foreign excursions over recent years, well actually China has been the least offensive (internationally as against internally) of the lot.

Shall we start with almost all of the subsequent oil contrats went to American firms like Haliburton and the man put in charge of 'safe guarding' the IRaqi oil was also American? I feel we should next move on to the slight issue with that they did leave boots on the ground, for many years in fact.
As for the given reasons each one has been proved to be categorically false; there were no WMDs and Saddam was not aiding and abetting AQ

The contracts may have gone to US firms but to some extent that is expected if they are at the time the occupying power, may not be right but even though this may happen being comfortable doing the deal, keeping it local, is often seen as easier. The boots on the ground were actually too few and not effectively used. I fully accept the point re WMD et al, but once you have burned down someone's fence (which you ought not to have done) you ought to stick around with all the needed materials long enough until it is properly rebuilt


Might I ask why not? The list of heinous acts perpetrated by them from toppling democracies to boarderline genocide is rather long.

Depends, the first Gulf war assisted Kuwait post invasion by Iraq, Somalia intervention to act as peacekeepers, Grenada invasion to give support to democracy and given what was happening in Yugoslavia intervention was possibly justified. It is a very tough call re which (before the event) have a justification and which do not- given USA had really no political interest re say Yugoslavia their intervention there can likely be stripped of ulterior motive beyond trying to end the conflict and murder that was going on.


To be perfectly frank I do rather agree with this statement.

Indeed it has but I would say thats more because its 'big bang' in economic terms has been rather recent and its upgrading of its military capabilities has been very recent - the fact is that it now has the ability to project power into its near abroad and will very soon be happily able to project power wherever it so pleases. To assume that China will be a happy and non-interventionist global player would seem dreadfully unlikely to me.

Are you suggesting nobody should be permitted to exert power/influence over areas/spheres, or only The West ex USA should, or only Russia should and the US should not as they are not very good at it? I am sure China does intervene/ will intervene. But from a moral standpoint if that position is taken there should never be a humanitarian intervention which has a possibility of conflict, which is virtually all of them except natural disasters, and that does not sit well with my conscience; omission is also a sin as can be action.

The real answer is an effective UN with its own forces but that is just not happening and likely will not for a very long time, in an age of reassertion of sovereignty, (Brexit et al) nations are not going to subsume manpower and money so the UN can become a peacekeeper, so larger nations will continue to blunder into areas they ought to avoid, execute things badly, but life is not perfect and neither are politicians; discerning motive can be the trickiest thing .

See above responses

What above responses?

Just to alert that they were in the "see more" click .

If its the one i think it is i've already replied to that havent I ?