[shubhamjain]

You might expect events like this to fundamentally change the global order or bring some sanity to U.S. policymaking. But nothing is going to change. It will be chaotic few years, but soon enough, everything will be conveniently forgotten. Iranian/Syrian/Afganian threat will reappear, the war-mongers and Israel-lobby will once more push for pre-emptive strikes, assassinations of leaders or generals. Rinse and repeat.

At its core, the problem is a militarized, propaganda-driven state masquareding itself as a necessary guarantor of global order, while its sole objective is nothing more than letting no other nation threaten its supremacy. And much of the world continuing to accept that narrative either because of lack of alternatives or out of necessity.

[YZF]

The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order. The world needs policing and deterrence is the sad reality otherwise everything goes to hell.

Why did Russia attack Ukraine? Why is China threatening to attack Taiwan? Without the US (and the west more generally) Russia would retake half of Europe and China would have taken Taiwan. If you think there would be world peace you are so very much mistaken (speaking of propaganda). If you goal is to speak Russian and Chinese and live in those sorts of regimes then that's very much aligned with the US and the West just stepping back and not using force ever.

[tpm]

> The core of the problem is that the US stepped back under Obama from being the guarantor of global order.

That is not the core of the problem. We can go a bit further:

- Obama was a reaction to overstepping under Bush. As a 'guarantor of global order' the US created a lot of disorder with Iraq and Afganistan. That is actually more in line with what historically the US understands under 'the global order': the US does what it wants to do and calls it the global order.

- also the relative standing of the US since the end of the 90s is falling, because of the rise of other countries. That was widely expected and forecasted. What was also expected is that empires on their way out don't act rationally, because there is ample historical precendent to that. And so here we are.

[YZF]

You're not wrong but neither am I. Both of these factors are relevant as is the break up of the USSR. And maybe even climate change. And globalization?

I'm not sure I would use the term "empire" to refer to the USA. It was for some time the world's only "super power" and it is still by far the strongest and most able to project power conventional military.

Whether or not it's "on its way out" - history will tell. Maybe? If it is I would claim this is more about internal forces than geopolitical ones (or internal forces influenced by geopolitics). Maybe that's also typical.

I would still say that when there is no policing the world goes to hell and there's not going to magically be "peace" by the USA not intervening. And yes, Iraq and Afghanistan were not great examples of how interventions can be followed by political gains. But- those interventions may have acted as deterrence anyways. Iraq took Kuwait by force. With no intervention why wouldn't they take all the Gulf states? It's easy to critique what happened but we also don't know what alternatives existed.

Keeping the world a peaceful place seems to require at least the threat of violence. Definitely given the composition of the world today. A threat that's never acted upon loses credibility. Too many Putins in this world who would invade and murder others at the blink of an eye if they feel that can gain them something.

[tpm]

> I'm not sure I would use the term "empire" to refer to the USA.

the UN was created in New York mostly by the US, the dollar is the world's reserve and international trade currency, the main distinguishing point of other countries foreign politics is their relationship with the US, there are US army bases all over the world, english is the lingua franca (yes, partly carried over from the British empire, but still) etc.

> I would still say that when there is no policing the world goes to hell

and with the current policing it's going to hell too.

> there's not going to magically be "peace" by the USA not intervening

yes of course

> Iraq took Kuwait by force.

That was in 1991 and it was indeed the right reaction at the time but as the realists say it is quite doubtful we would see the same reaction in an oilless region.

> But- those interventions may have acted as deterrence anyways.

No. By the US ignoring the rules they helped to establish (2nd Iraq war) they helped to codify 'might makes right' as the only real rule and as a consequence both Israel and Russia knew they won't be stopped by the international rule based order. So we got Russia bombing and annexing parts of Georgia in 2008 (no reaction), annexing parts of Ukraine in 2014 (no reaction) and starting an all-out war in 2022 (finally some reaction but too little too late and now the US is more a friend of Russia anyway), and Israel genociding and expanding their lebensraum without any consequences whatsoever.

[YZF]

Israel is very much a different story. Hamas initiated the last war like Russia initiated their war on Ukraine.

Israel, as a country, ignoring the fringe right, has had no desire to either have war or expand its borders. Israel simply wants to live in peace. Something the Palestinians and the Arab countries have been unwilling to accept.

You're also conveniently forgetting that pretty much the entire western world joined in post 9/11, that there was a large coalition against Iraq, and against ISIS in Syria. All those countries that were fine with using force against something that ranges from low threat to little threat to their citizenry are quick to lynch Israel when it does the same.

Attacks on Israel are also ignoring those supposed rule based world (from 1948 and onwards) and are universally recognized as war crimes (e.g. Hamas and Hezbollah firing rockets into Israeli population centers).

Maybe in your circles (obviously) there's a different story. But it's false. It's at the very least a simplistic narrative that ignores facts that don't fit in it. That's not to say Israel has necessarily always been 100% right but to equate it with Russia being 100% the aggressor is completely wrong.

[rdevilla]

> Something the Palestinians and the Arab countries have been unwilling to accept.

Seems to be a common trait amongst Palestinians: fighting losing wars and blowing up shit in the process because they are unable to accept reality.

The entire Middle East should just be glassed. Encase the holy lands in concrete and sink them into the Mediterranean.

[tpm]

> Israel, as a country, ignoring the fringe right, has had no desire to either have war or expand its borders.

Oh please, this is a straight lie. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with Area C, for example.

> Hamas initiated the last war like Russia initiated their war on Ukraine.

It was Israeli Army that bombed unknown tens of thousands of civilian to death and destroyed the vital infrastructure for millions. It's for a reason we call it a genocide (while of course you called it war, because Palestinians lives don't matter). But anyway that's a nice example of how the rules don't apply to you if you don't like them and about the very selective enforcement by the international community, especially the US.

[Sabinus]

>Obama was a reaction to overstepping under Bush

A great example of this was Obama asking Congress permission to bomb Syria after Assad used chemical weapons. A permission they delayed voting on until Russia ended up resolving the issue.

Quite the difference to how Trump's foreign adventures occur.

[davidw]

Things don't change... until they do.