Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1294899 | Hacker News Reader

Why is this downvoted? This is exactly how US foreign policy works. The only difference with Trump is that he says things out loud.

This is 100% what is going to happen. US foreign policy relies on deception and decade long plans. The big plans are ruling the Middle East and squash opposition (Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq done, Iran pending).

To that end Russia had to be kept busy, therefore the Ukraine proxy war, which has the additional benefit of tying up the EU and cut it off from Russian natural resources.

It makes the EU dependent on the US as an energy exporter. These plans are old and both parties have diligently executed them.

Even with the Greenland annexation threats there are Democrats who think it wouldn't be a bad idea, but you should not say it out loud.

View on HN

  Russia had to be kept busy, therefore Ukraine proxy war

No one made Russia invade Ukraine, this is simply the centuries old russian imperialism against Ukraine.

Also, Syria being in that list is silly. The Syrian opposition aren't vassals of the US. The US was never too keen to help them.

your statements are wildly misinformed, you can't make claims about geopoltics because you've read a few delusional reddit threads. The US was extremely active in supporting the Syrian opposition, we literally funded the entire operation, like what reality are you living in.

Your opinion on Russia/Ukraine is clearly skewed by NATO propaganda, which I wouldn't blame you for, most people have had their minds colonized by NATO propaganda, after all, NATO has a literal newsletter called "Cognitive Warfare" where they candidly brag about it.

https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare/

/s Right, cause it's not like there's any Russian propaganda out there competing with it... /s

It doesn't matter how much you go on about 'NATO propaganda', the simple truth is that Russia invaded Ukraine, illegally and without reasonable cause, and did so for its own interests.

What's more, Ukraine was nowhere near joining NATO, and in any case Russia's invasion would still have been illegal and reprehensible even if it was.

Most people assume the post-WW2 consensus is a permanent baseline. Historically, there's no evidence to support that expectation, but it's easy to see why the illusion persists. Acknowledging that the current order is temporary is terrifying, particularly for those who thrive under it.

   > Even with the Greenland annexation threats there are Democrats who think it wouldn't be a bad idea, but you should not say it out loud.

If you were talking about like, Iraq in 2003 you'd be correct to point out that majority being opposed doesn't mean the entire party was blameless.

This is probably the worst example you could have used to make this point about aggressive US foreign policy having support across party lines. There is absolutely no constituency within the Democrats that have ever wanted this because it came entirely from the fevered mind of Trump and the parody edition of Bush's neocons in the current admin.

The combo of 1. negative polarization and 2. being completely pointless and accomplishing nothing makes this about as unpopular of an idea you could find among Democrats, in public or private.

Iran is also a bad choice to include in your list considering Obama was responsible for the JCPOA.

> The only difference with Trump is that he says things out loud.

The only problem with Flat Earthers is that they say things out loud. Also, grabbing other people by their **ies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com