[MountDoom]

I find it weird that you single out Bush. After 9/11, a military conflict was pretty much politically inevitable. The decision to expand to Iraq was stupid, but did it really shake up the post-1991 neoliberal consensus? Or was it just its final flex - "with this one trick, we can finally fix the Middle East"?

I think Russia deserves a lot of credit. It started long before Crimea. They had a military incursion into Georgia, secured a pro-Kremlin dictator in Belarus, nearly got away with the same in Ukraine and some other neighboring republics - all while buttering up the EU with energy deals. I think the European and American (non-)response to that was the death knell of that "rules-based" worldview.

While Russia acted belligerently, China played the long game to cement its geopolitical influence and make itself "too big to fail".

If there was a domestic inflection point in the US and in the EU, I think that was actually the housing crisis / the sovereign debt crisis around 2007-2009. That really undermined the optimism about supranational institutions.

[jltsiren]

Putin has repeatedly used the Iraq War as a justification for his actions. As a formal excuse ("a major power is allowed to invade other countries according to its own judgment") and likely also as a personal belief. The NATO intervention in the Kosovo War probably had a bigger impact on Putin on a personal level, but it was less useful as an excuse for starting wars.

As for Belarus, the country only had free and fair elections once: in 1994, when Lukashenko became the president. Lukashenko was already a dictator when Putin was still a civil servant in Saint Petersburg.

[JumpCrisscross]

> decision to expand to Iraq was stupid, but did it really shake up the post-1991 neoliberal consensus?

Afghanistan was endorsed by the UN Security Council [1]. Iraq was not [2]. That set a loud precedent that wars of conquest were back on the table. (To be clear, they were never really off. China invaded and annexed Tibet without much of a fuss during the Cold War.)

> China played the long game to cement its geopolitical influence and make itself "too big to fail"

Nobody was ever bailing out China if it fails. It’s unclear it would be bailed out today. Too big to fail doesn’t apply.

What China has done is become too big to ignore. (Though Xi, being a dictator, seems unable to not squander goodwill every time China earns it. First with the Wolf Warrior nonsense. Now with these rare earth export restrictions on everyone.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

[mmooss]

I agree completely about Iraq. The Bush II administration sought to undermine the rules-based international order, particularly its leading authority the UN Security Council. That dovetailed with their desire to invade Iraq.

The blow was significant - the US fabricated and misinterpreted evidence to justify the invasion, not only conducting an effectively illegal international war and violating that most fundamental of international laws, but also undermining the integrity of the international order's leader, the US itself. The rest of the West was so happy when Obama took over, he got the Nobel Peace Prize before he did anything - I think just for supporting the liberal order.

But like all recent Democratic leaders, he didn't fight much for it or for its values. Then Biden particularly was egregious, abandoning the cause of freedom (in Afghanistan, west Africa, India, China, etc.). His support for Ukraine and Taiwan appeared, to me, strictly geopolitical. In fact, I remember hearing that US officials had a policy to argue not for Ukraine's freedom and democracy, but for its sovereignty - and they seemed to observe that policy.

Without values, you have no direction, no force, no way to lead or organize. Biden's enemies have clear values - nationalism, ethnic nationalism, power (as value in itself). What were Biden's? What are the Democrats'? They've shut down the government over no value, only healthcare funding.

[mikkupikku]

Incidentally, with respect to the lies used to start America's war with Iraq:

> On 12 September 2002, Netanyahu lobbied for the invasion of Iraq, testifying under oath as a private citizen before the U.S. House of Representatives Government Reform Committee regarding the alleged nuclear threat posed by the Iraqi régime: "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons…"[74][75] He also testified, "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."[75]

[mmooss]

What do you conclude from that?

[mikkupikku]

It's a bad relationship for America. If we take the term "MAGA" at face value, we should be cutting Israel lose, not continuing to do their dirty work (e.g. shielding their politicians from legal responsibility for their war crimes.)

[mullingitover]

> They've shut down the government over no value, only healthcare funding.

I must’ve missed something: when was the GOP federal power trifecta broken?

In their own words, during the last shutdown: if you control Congress you own the shutdown. Period.

[mmooss]

I'm not pointing fingers; the GOP has its own aims. The Dems' aim is healthcare funding, ostensibly.