If it's MOST, then I assume you're talking about support for the Russia-Ukraine war. Political party perhaps, ideology not so much.
I don't think many actually support the war, but they see supporting (no direct involvement) Ukraine in fighting as appropriate, while ignoring or largely discounting the long history leading up to the invasion.
I believe to some that there is a sense of resignation over this whole thing. We have kicked the can all the way to the end of the road. Now we have to pick it up and deal with it.
It is clear that Putin must be stopped, cold in his tracks. No appeasement or compromises anymore. We, as the so called civilized western world, have to draw a line in the sand and say no more. If not here, where ?
I don't want any full tilt nuclear annihilation scenario. I grew up with the threat of this once already. Biden / Putin is not the same as Kennedy / Khrushchev however. Two old and deranged men are in charge of this round.
Once again, we have another war that is ultimately about oil. The lack of it is causing grave weaknesses and vulnerabilities to the whole world. I see somewhere that it was posted that with ALL the efforts to implement green energy, we have only lowered oil's share from 82% to 81%.
Do I have a point ? I dunno. Perhaps green energy is not ready for prime time and won't be anytime soon. This premature push to it at the expense of using oil is destabilizing the world. Oil is much more than fuel for internal combustion engines, it is still the lifeblood of our civilization. The quickest way to peace as I see it is an abundance of oil. Deweaponize it with abundance.
I don't think many actually support the war, but they see supporting (no direct involvement) Ukraine in fighting as appropriate, while ignoring or largely discounting the long history leading up to the invasion.
Right, I guess that's one way of (narrowly) framing support.
If it's MOST, then I assume you're talking about support for the Russia-Ukraine war.
Political party perhaps, ideology not so much.
I don't think many actually support the war, but they see supporting (no direct involvement) Ukraine in fighting as appropriate, while ignoring or largely discounting the long history leading up to the invasion.
I dealt with many of these ideologues â David Petraeus, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland â as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. Once you strip away their chest full of medals or fancy degrees, you find shallow men and women, craven careerists who obsequiously serve the war industry that ensures their promotions, pays the budgets of their think tanks and showers them with money as board members of military contractors.
They are the pimps of war. If you reported on them, as I did, you would not sleep well at night. They are vain enough and stupid enough to blow up the world long before we go extinct because of the climate crisis, which they have also dutifully accelerated.
Sachs is good value. His op-ed piece reads a bit like "The Emperor has No Clothes".
I recall that a long time ago, Sachs promoted the idea that the former Soviet Union, in effect Russia, should move from a command and control economy to a freemarket economy by figuratively speaking "taking all the wheels off at once". I have often wondered after the fact if that was good advice and ultimately encouraged some of the looting of the Russian economy that took place. Hard to say.
Note that Sachs is using the term 'hegemony' as if it were a bad thing. I would argue the opposite. Hegemony is a good thing if it means getting things done and taking care of security at a very low cost. The problem with the way the USA acts as described by Sachs, effectively the 'Man of Great Stature' on the international stage schtick, is that divine moral intervention will blowback and ultimately reduce the hegemony of the USA at a faster clip than might have otherwise occurred.
The frequently heard charge that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine violates ostensibly sacred international “norms” holds no water. No such norms exist — at least none that a great power will recognize as inhibiting its own freedom of action. For proof, we need look no further than the recent behavior of the United States which has routinely demonstrated a willingness to write its own norms while employing violence on a scale far exceeding anything that Russia has done or is likely to do.
All very much true, unfortunately. The way the US managed to fall into the oh-so seductive post-WWII destructive logic - first with the red scare and then multiple international indiscretions/violations of its own values because "whatever we do is ok, because we are the good guys" is probably the biggest factor inhibiting real international progress to a rules-based order. The US has basically given Russia and China carte blanche to do whatever they want in their own (self-defined) sphere of influence. All three of them are a huge impediment to progress.
That said, I still believe in the inherent values of the Enlightenment on which the US constitution is founded. If only the US had lived by them in its foreign policy post WWII we would be in a lot better state to counter autocratic regimes right now.
Since WWII at the very latest, we should have been living with the understanding that we are a global village. The completely autark nation state has long been made redundant, except in the minds of its rulers, it seems.
