[flagged]
You dislike that but we were successful.
The US did try to bring China and Russia into the fold but that was a failure and has been abandoned.
The assertion that "the US did try to bring China and Russia into the fold" is also quite acutely wrong. Remember when Yeltsin tried to join NATO after the end of the cold war, or how even Putin tried to integrate into NATO and the Western system? Who was it, that was vehemently opposed to that?
Even more so is the possible Eurasian integration which US grand strategy has always seen as one of the worst case scenarios for US hegemony.
You could call that a failure but you should assess on why it is one.
The US China strategy was also always very obvious, open up their huge population for capitalist globalization and keep the sleeping dragon in a perpetual state of democratic dysfunction and underdevelopment (just look at India). What the US didn't expect was the iron grip of the CPC on power and economy, fully rejecting US planned shock therapy. The moment China became a state that could even think about challenging US hegemony was the moment the US completely pivoted to an aggressive containment strategy.
I don't, because that never happened. It is a baseless myth manufactured to fool western audiences into seeing Russia as a victim and blaming themselves for Russia's actions and not responding adequately. You will not find a single adopted foreign policy doctrine document, law or other official step towards NATO membership, unlike in countries that have joined or are in the process of joining.
This was very apparent during Trumps tenure in which the foundations of NATO were being questioned. Even at this moment, during the current election cycle, we have a number of candidates who are talking about a more isolationist, laissez faire response to things, including the current conflicts.
The US, being a country with democratically elected leader, has on many occasions through its history pivoted significantly in its foreign policy as certain parties and ideologies gain and lose traction.
This is in clear and direct contrast to countries like Russia and China with governments run by small groups over many continuous decades directing specific foreign policy strategies.
I make these arguments here to clarify how this account’s propaganda attempts to function, using emotional arguments and other logical fallacies to obfuscate facts. See other comments here, that this account is the type of account talked about in the CNN article.
China in Tibet is an example of military occupation and hegemonic vassalisation.
1. China profits from Tibet: YES
2. China selects Tibetan leaders: YES
3. China subjugates Tibet: YES
Not true. In a military occupation, the occupier gets resources from the occupied net/net. Not the other way around.
If not for the US, most of Europe would be speaking German or Russian.
A divided Europe ruined the world with two world wars and global colonialism. Imagine what would happen if Nazi Germany had survived. The terrors of colonial Belgium would pale in comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium#Exploita...