Pope Francis alluded to how the 80th anniversary of D-Day, provided a chance to renew international commitments to security and peace. The Pope was concerned that the horrors of World War 2 were being forgotten, and that leaders and nations had become complacent about geopolitical solutions.
From the 1960s to 1990s, the United States and Soviet Union – Russia, periodically had meetings with high-level leaders taking active roles. These meetings between global adversaries bore geopolitical fruit. As a result, treaties were hammered out that helped calm the nerves of a world that still remembered the worst war in human history. It’s believed that around 70 million people died in WW2.
In addition, when President Nixon normalized relations with China in the 1970s, another geopolitical thaw occurred.
When we fast-forward to today, we find a world embroiled in wars that on a geopolitical scale – offer high risk. In addition, global hotspots – not currently at war, require monitoring. Ironically, high-level discussions between adversaries seem more rare now. Therefore, instead of finding common ground in the nuclear era, the stakes seem raised globally. As a result, some analysts feel the world may be closer to nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
This political tension is reflected in the fact that the building of protective underground bunkers has come back into vogue. Sadly though…no one knows for sure what exactly will happen if even small-grade tactical nuclear weapons are used. Some fear that similar to the buildup to WW1, any nuclear exchange could reflexively lead to a triggering of tensions globally. If indeed nuclear weapons become used on any scale, the human and environmental consequences could be enormous. In addition…globally inspired political tensions could inspire a new proliferation of rival alliances between nations.
As current interest in the late atomic scientist Oppenheimer shows, many high-level leaders, thinkers, and scientists, were understandably alarmed at the destructive power of nuclear weapons after World War 2. To protect humanity, the globally connected economy, and the environment, it’s important to realize that modern use of nuclear weapons could reopen a Pandora’s box that may be harder now to control.
Although easy geopolitical answers to our current situation seem to elude us, it may be wise to heed the Pope’s warning.
Politics and Economics 
Definitely seems the most dangerous time since the Cuban missile crisis. Putin seems to be testing the Baltic NATO region in the event of a Trump presidency. The global implications of Israel-Hamas are playing out within the Western democracies. New Cold War alignments are solidifying, nuclear NATO, nuclear Russia-China-N Korea-Iran (soon nuclear), with both sides pushing the other, fearing that the risk of not pushing back outweighs the risk of pushing back assertively. I’m no expert, but the fault lines, the misperceptions, and the risk of quick and preemptive reaction does seem like WWI to me. I also agree with you too that there is no deep-seated peace mindset as in the 1960s. Today’s Western lefties seem more comfortable with violence if it serves the “correct” ideology. Not hopeful. I’m not a big fan of Democrats or lefties in the US, but I fear a Trump presidency could be the end of that 80-year structure of relative stability of which you and the Pope speak. (You might save that last phrase for the archives, as it might be the once in your blog’s history that someone ends a comment with “of which you and the Pope speak.”)
Thx so very much for taking the time and the wise words Daedalus! And yes…that may be the last time someone ends a comment with “of which you and the Pope speak.” 🙂
As you aptly point out, we’re in dangerous waters politically. Metaphorically speaking – if a random and high rogue wave of great magnitude strikes the global waters soon, there’s a chance the ship can sink. What that means is that so many safety valves for international relations have become disabled. When the power of deregulated media and social media is combined with the jockeying for power of new political alliances, we have an intense brew of ideas that don’t mix well globally. Like a modern Tower of Babel, it appears many nations and leaders are losing a common standard of communication. Although there are still many who truly listen to others, there are many who appear to be talking past each other.
Putin and NATO are an ongoing and seriously growing problem. For years before his death, Gorbachev and others globally tried to address the issue with little success. Tragically, the Ukraine has been the source of so much conflict over the centuries. WW2 was tragic for them also. The average citizen of the Ukraine has such a strong heritage of being over-run. A global powderkeg exists there and in the Mideast.as well. And instead of calmer voices of reason prevailing – we’re playing out at as you say – the alliance game. This is when countries team up in a way that they almost feel compelled to push back assertively. Unfortunately, these new alliances sometimes don’t have a long history and can be brittle.
And yes Daedalus – the left-wing, which for years was the source of a calm and reasoned approach to peace, has become more reactionary. The peace movement born in the 60s, is no longer quite the same. For a peace movement to truly have traction it needs to be combined with the Pope’s message for stability. As you allude to, Trump is a wildcard. For many, they just can’t get past his bombastic rhetoric. However…the fact that his administration’s Abraham Accords for Mid-East peace has won praise from intellectuals on the left, and the fact the Biden admin is looking at it as a model, gives hope to some if Trump gets in.
However…no matter who wins the US election, we’ve become hopelessly polarized in an “Us vs Them” mindset. The 2024 election is looking like maybe the nastiest in history. As a result, we’ve moved so far beyond breaking down policy and have moved more into invective, insults, smearing, and power games politically. And globally, things have moved a bit in that direction also.
One of the best things we can do is what we’re doing here – breaking down issues to the point where politics becomes a bit less of “Us vs Them.” When this is done, we can truly move into Democracy’s best feature of combining ideas from across the spectrum so we can truly solve problems and improve the lives of – “All of Us!”
Thx again for taking time from your busy schedule! Your thoughts are powerful!
👍
Best of luck with your writing, teaching and world travels!
I appreciated your blog post about your travels in Turkey. It’s an amazing place where East meets West – The Silk Road, The Grand Bazaar of Istanbul, etc.
Thanks, Perry. After hitchhiking Istanbul down the west coast of Turkey, it was Berlin and then Tokyo, where I’m hunkered down with a job for now. By the end of the year, though, I’m hoping for a quick circuit of Shanghai, Bangkok, and Taipei, then New Orleans, then back to Mexico to add to my hitchhiking list there (9 of the 32 Mexican states hitchhiked so far).
Such amazing journeys. I look forward to reading about them on your blog!
Hey Perry,
It’s wise to be worried about the state we’re in.
Leadership has been a failure – just look at what’s happening in the US and across Europe, as well as practically everywhere else. Leaders are dismissed as unfavorable, snap elections are called as a means to shock the masses back to reality. And worse, an arrogant elite blames the mess on the people as being fickle and untrustworthy when in fact it’s they who have come to the end of their ideas. They are ideologically bankrupt. So they fall back on the one thing that has always mobilized nations – bellicose saber rattling and war mongering.
The average person wants none of what they have to offer if they even have anything. People everywhere are generally good, they want only a bit of comfort for their families and purposeful work. The rot is elsewhere – we must absolutely rid ourselves of these empty suits. Francis is spot on. Advocate for peace, demand it actually. Vote for peace, seek out the best leaders and elevate them. Stop supporting the ‘least worse’, rather, require excellence once again.
The times require it, and it is only us who can make this happen.
Take Courage, PJ
Nice to hear from you again PJ and thx for the deep thoughts!
I agree with you that we need to find and support leaders who take seriously the call that Francis makes for stability and peace. And yes PJ…so many average people are good folks who are trying to build a legacy for themselves with their families and particular subculture.
It honestly seems that some leaders don’t have carefully thought-out ideas. While a minority of leaders still try to make reasoned appeals to the average citizen, there are many leaders who make declarations that aren’t clear and are very cagey. Therefore – as you say, the voter is often stuck in the choice of making what they feel is the “least worse” choice. And unfortunately…when people sometimes have logical questions of some leaders, these leaders are sometimes dismissive of the average person and insult their intelligence and claim – as you say, that the average citizen is fickle. This is unfortunate since many people are just trying to reconcile the contradictions that they see and are looking for transparency and accountability.
Sadly…saber-rattling sometimes can lead to mistakes made on the global stage that results in a war that could’ve been avoided. I thought it was great that Pope Francis mentioned stability in addition to peace. If we look to the human need for stability in addition to peace, we may start to create the pre-conditions for more of a lasting and productive peace.
Best of luck with everything PJ and thx for stopping by with your fine insights!
Think locally and act globally.
That is a deliberate juxtaposition of the social responsibility phrase,
Think globally act locally.
To understand this inversion we need only consider one undeniable fact, the exponential growth of human populations.
All economics are founded on one simple ratio, supply and demand. No politics, no beliefs systems, no cultural or religious precepts will change, you either have something or you don’t.
How do you get what you don’t have?
Beg, barrow or steal, there is no such thing as free ice cream. Use of commerce is the peaceful equivalent of use of force. But either way, you have to give up something to get something. Kinda goes with the laws of physics that govern this little ball of dirt we call home.
So, if you plan on stealing what you don’t have and you don’t want your victems coming after you it would be best it they were fighting someone else, say, their neighbor, thinking locally, that gives you time to load your plunder on to a ship or caravan and make off with the loot, acting globally. Smart.
Back in the good old days, marauding bands of mercenary merchants came and went, taking what they wanted and leaving snake oil behind. Tired of this, locals appealed to their reigning lords or banded together to form coalitions, aka governments, that were strong enough to oppose this brute force of market economics and demand some equity and standards. You can hear the rallying cries, “Get rid of big government”, “Let the markets decide”.
Sadly, truly free markets don’t correct themselves, they crash. You don’t put out a wild fire, it burns itself out. Markets consume resources in much the same way.
There is currently more demand for any desired commodity than there is supply.
That is a fact. Not politics, not religious or cultural, and for heavens sake, it’s not inflation, it is just raw numbers. The price goes up with demand forming the classic k shaped curve. As demand outstrips supply, the linear downward arc, the price continually goes up, forming the liner upward arc.
Population increases demand.
The reason no one has seriously addressed global population is not a conspiracy, it is simple math.
More people buy products, more people to make products, more people to tax and generate revenue. No politician, no corporate leader will ever say they want to make less money in the future. So there is no practical curb to this unsustainable cycle.
In 2014 the current Vatican headed by Pope Francis released Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. In it he noted the religious and moral reasoning for equity, inclusion and sustainable economics. In a huge departure for a religious leader he pointed to scientific fact that there is only one little dirt ball with a habitable atmosphere that we know of and we are currently blowing up, burning and otherwise squandering large portions of it over petty differences and arrogance.
Think only of yourself. Self preservation is an undeniable consequence of population pressure. Scarcity breeds an unwillingness to share.
Not our highest nature?
I heard a social psychologist say, “You can’t shame people into making better choices” whereas use of force is acceptable because it something people respect.
“That’s the way of the world. A moral argument never wins.”
But I applaud the Pope for using his platform to raise awareness. But will he end up like Jacques Cousteau, Jane Goodall, Greta Thunberg and Taylor Swift? Right side of history, wrong side of people with money and power?
Are humans smart enough to know when they are being manipulated by billionaires to keep supporting a dying economic paradigm?
Can humans sacrifice a little to secure a future for all?
A moral argument feels like the right thing to do. A scientific argument makes sense. And an economic argument can be made for sustainability.
I’m gonna go with the Pope and his eco-liberal friends on this one, give peace a chance.
Thx so much for stopping by and the in-depth comment!
Yes…population growth’s a concern. In line with that, it appears you’re making a connection between resources, population growth, and global discord? Through history, resources play an important role in the development of nations. If population growth’s too strong to meet demand for resources, problems occur. And yes, you’re right – nations have gone to war for resources.
Luckily, with modern economics – the urge to war for resources has been tempered with free trade and regional trade pacts. Also, the complexity of modern global economics can act as a disincentive for war. Unfortunately though, the destabilizing forces and wars occurring now could tip the world back into the cataclysm of frequent wars – or even global war.
Regarding population growth creating problems, its apparent current levels of global population are high. One of the best ways to reduce population is for countries to develop to industrial and post-industrial economies. Thailand’s a country that moved from agrarian status – with large families, to industrial status with smaller families. Ironically, economic progress in developed countries – when combined with policies, have actually now resulted in depopulation in countries like South Korea, China, Japan, Poland, and Italy.
A problem with advanced countries in depopulation mode is tax revenues shrink due to less people working. Therefore, the social safety net for elderly can be cut. Modern economies provide services with deficit spending and taxes. Even if taxes are raised exorbitantly, it’s hard for governments to pay for everything without resorting to deficit spending. As we see now though, high levels of government debt globally – can become destabilizing. To truly address reducing global population it seems best to taper it down by helping develop economies of poor nations.
I agree with you and the Pope – let’s give peace a chance. In line with that – the Pope’s call for stability to create peace is wise. Unfortunately – peace, when talked of by itself, can confuse people. However, when one talks of stability with peace, or even peace through strength, the concept of peace and security grows. After all, since wars can be quite devastating to the environment, in addition to humans – it’d be wise to heed the advice of the Pope.
Thx so much for stopping by!
Thanks for another thoughtful prompt.
I’m already thinking,
The economics of scale and the perils there in.
Things look different at a large scale
Europe has recorded a record number of negative energy prices as a result of green energy infrastructure development begging them question, how are investors going to recoup their investments?
Population growth does NOT equate to increased GDP and it quite logically reduces per capita wealth.
In the U.S. (the nation with the highest percentage of immigrants per capita) the number of immigrants to native born population is still lower as a percentage than it has been over most of our countries history with its low point being the mid 1970’s .
But that doesn’t stop bellicose agi-prop politicians from saying immigrants are “Poisoning the blood of our nation” ignoring the actual ratio.
In populations, of any living thing, as population increases, gender becomes less important for survival and thus somewhat amorphous.
As the earth is burdened with nearly 9 billion humans, this amorphous population, generally around 2% of the total, is increasing, estimates differ but not more than around 4% in total, but that doesn’t stop demagogs from whipping up Xenophobia.
The world is changing. Do we like all of it? Not necessarily but wanting to go back to the good old days is really ignoring reality.
This is tantamount to Robin Williams saying “Ever since we came out of the womb, we only want one thing, to get right back in there”.
We have to deal with the realities as they are.
Hi! And thx for sharing your thoughts on the blog!
I hear what you’re saying about negative comments regarding immigration. Yes…immigration is the lifeblood of a country like America. And its too bad that negative comments occur on both sides of the political aisle. It seems like many people are almost talking past – instead of with, each other on this topic.
Politics aside, many average Americans are in favor of immigration that has more of a vetting process. For instance – my Italian Grandparents came through Ellis Island and its vetting process about 100 years ago. The problem with the current immigration process now – according to many on both sides of the political aisle, is that many people are just walking across the border without too much of a vetting process at the border. To those that live in those areas, it can sometimes be unsettling to see this.
Obviously, in some countries around the world, it’s difficult to just walk across a border into a neighboring country. To become a citizen in some countries is often a long and drawn-out process that’s sometimes not successful.
To question current immigration policies doesn’t necessarily make someone xenophobic. Many people are just seeking a smoother system. However, I agree with you that harsh language about this topic compounds things and seems xenophobic.
Thx again for the deep thoughts and stop by anytime!
Perry, your topics are always timely and important.
NATO will meet this week after Russian bombing of the largest children’s hospital in Ukraine while China, North Korea and Iran have all recommitted their pledges to the Russian leader and his cause.
Also this week, the GOP released their party’s 2024 election platform that is alarmingly isolationist. The scant 16 0age document lists in bullet points, nothing but slogans uttered previously by their dear leader. Many in all caps font.
Guess the GOP doesn’t read your blog.
Cordially, TE
Hey Tom…nice to hear from ya and glad to hear my blog topics are timely!
As you said, the NATO meeting comes after the tragic bombing of the children’s hospital in Ukraine. This is a sad time in history and a tragic time for Ukraine. Due to it’s strategic location next to the Black Sea, the Ukraine has suffered so many wars through the years. In WW2, there was much destruction there also.
In today’s hi-tech world, isolationism in foreign policy is difficult. It’s hard for any country – let alone a major power, to be totally isolationist. As you mentioned Tom, new alliances are springing up that challenge the balance of power. Although Trump’s bombastic nature causes concern, some have noted that Putin didn’t invade either Crimea or Ukraine during Trump’s administration. During the Obama administration Putin invaded Crimea, and during the Biden administration, Putin launched the current Ukraine war. Although this factor is noteworthy, it remains to be seen whether Trump could bring about a lasting peace and just peace for Ukraine.
Let us all hope and pray that cooler heads globally can bring about more stability, security, and a just peace in the coming years.
Thx so much for stopping by Tom!
PC,
Interesting. Where have I heard, “Putin didn’t invade either Crimea or Ukraine during Trump’s administration”? But I take your point.
“It remains to be seen whether Trump could bring about a lasting peace”. A true statement given the much lauded (by a few people anyway), Abraham accords, did not prevent the October 7th invasion nor has it lowered the temperature between orthodox settlers and Palestinians on the West Bank. Least we forget the 2 billion dollar investment made by the Saudis to the architect of those accords, Jarrid Kushner. Quite the success.
I do sincerely appreciate the effort you go through to open dialogue on salient and interesting topics. But (There is always a big harry butt about to expose its self after a sincere expression of gratitude like this one and this ugly ass is mine) where reasonable people can disagree is, what constitutes firmly held beliefs and what is cult level fidelity?
Judging by your comments you are quite clearly misconstruing the Pope’s commemoration of to mean that the Allied countries should have just surrendered to the Nazis in order to preserve the peace.
Indeed, the Pope does say, “It requires the greatest courage, the courage to know how to give up something. Even if the judgement of men is sometimes harsh and unjust towards them, “the peacemakers … will be called children of God”.
Out of context, this does seem to fit the narrative, give up Ukraine, Hong Kong, Tiwan, Armenia and your personal freedoms, for the sake of maintaining peace with tyrants. But that is NOT what the Pope said.
“The memory of the errors of the past supported the steadfast determination to do everything possible to avoid a new open world conflict, I note with sadness that this is no longer the case today and that men have a short memory. May this commemoration help us to recover it!”
Here the Pope is clearly referring to the hand wringing before the outbreak of war and those dithering attempts to keep the peace that ironically led to Germany’s advances and the outbreak of global conflict. In context, the NATO alliance is just the sort of, peace through strength, agreement that is intended, “To do everything possible to avoid a new open world conflict”.
The Pope also said, “People want peace! They want conditions of stability, security and prosperity in which everyone can fulfil their duties and destinies in peace.” This is not a peace at all costs statement. He follows that sentence with, “Destroying this noble order of things for ideological, nationalistic or economic ambitions is a serious mistake before mankind and before history, a sin before God.”
What is the justification for forcibly taking territory in Ukraine, Hong Kong, Tiwan, the West Bank or Gaza? Hint, “Give us what we want and we can all live in peace”, is not the right answer.
The Pope’s rather cryptic statements on that anniversary point out our global interdependency. Just as you have said here on your blog, our interconnected economies should, we hope, keep a lid on some of this profit taking.
The Pope clearly does not say, ‘peace at any cost’. Only one wanna be leader says that. And judging by that man’s standards, $2 billion or so should cover it.
Thanks Perry, I don’t know how you read into my post that the 45th president deserves blame for the war in Ukraine? He was, as you said a nepo-baby reality tv personality when Putin took Crimea. The man you dismiss as simply bombastic, said Putin’s invasion was “Genius” for the way he invaded a neighboring country.
Blaming the timing of world events on who is on duty, is pretty silly and that’s why I called out your reiteration of that partisan talking point. I try very hard not to dwell on the failures of presidents past or present as it is not good for our country’s image. I do like to promote successes as it elevates our particular brand of democracy as a greater good for all people.
The desire for peace could be as simple as wanting an end to harassment and to be left alone. Hence the popularity of the isolationist view point. That is not a bad thing in its self, but for anyone with responsibility, it could be seen as neglect of one’s duties.
I thought the topic of your post was the inherent difficulties of making this call, when and how to intervene.
The Pope’s letter, addressed to Bishop Jacques Habert of Bayeux and shared on the eve of the anniversary, was a point in your post. Perhaps I was thin skinned in my reaction to your requoting some conservative talking points about that. But please be clear, I disagree with the world view these talking points portray, because they are dishonest.
I disagree because with these narratives, not who said them.
Although, I could, take issue with learned people who intentionally peddle deception in an attempt defraud (I think even the Pope would have something to say about that).
I do not have anger toward any one person and their faults. We are all human. I do have great anxiety, as Pope points out quite clearly, “ I note with sadness that this is no longer the case today and that men have a short memory.”
As you yourself pointed out in your article “Policy vs. personality”, It is in the amnesia of short sighted goals that our problems begin. One personality may do a lot, good or bad, with their influence. They can tap into the belief systems of the masses to do lasting good or harm. In the end, they will be validated or convicted, lionized or villainized based on the impacts of their actions; leaving behind the question, what will happen to their followers?
Kindly, TE
Hey Tom!
Interesting comment you make here. I’ll do my best to follow your logic.
First off…I never said the Allies should’ve given in to the Axis powers in WW2. I don’t know where that came from when you mentioned that? WW2 was the type of war that needed to be fought due to the overwhelmingly dictatorial trend at the time with the Axis Powers. Democracy is the best system and needed to be preserved. Hands down. Some wars are very necessary to fight. WW2 was one of them. Likewise, the Ukraine situation requires us to try to stay the course for the near term. However, many foreign policy experts realize it’s a challenging situation.
Through history its important to try and understand cause and effect. Just as the Versailles Treaty and the Great Depression are seen as factors that impacted the Geo-Politics of the 30s, there are historical factors that have occurred the past 30 yrs that have maybe led us to where we are now. In a sense, given the fact the stakes are so high in the nuclear era, the Pope’s comments were good insofar as they spark dialogue that can hopefully lead to solutions that are more win-win for most nations. Peace at all costs – being totally passive, is a hard sell – even for a peace-loving person like you. This is why the Pope wisely emphasized stability and security also. Peace can sound weak to some.
I think you questioned why I – and many others, have pointed out the obvious that Putin never invaded the Ukraine or the Crimea under the Trump administration. However…that’s a fact. Why ignore it? Matter of fact, this is a point many Trump supporters are making. Trump and his supporters are saying that Trump’s stance with Putin reflected – “Peace Through Strength,” and that this kept Putin at bay during his administration. After all…isn’t it a good thing that Putin didn’t invade anyone during Trump’s administration?
If you wish to blame Trump for the Ukraine war – that’s your choice. However, it may be hard to blame Trump for Putin invading Crimea during the Obama administration. After all, during that time Trump was a reality TV star with little true political power.
In relation to the Abraham Accords – I understand your frustration with Trump. After all, if the Abraham Accords were stronger they could’ve maybe prevented October 7th? However…although your frustration with Trump is palpable, please try to understand that many Liberals look at Trump’s Abraham Accords as a template for Mid-East peace. As the article below shows, they’re trying to modify the Accords and build on them. Many prominent Liberals see hope there.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/09/1110109088/biden-is-building-on-the-abraham-accords-part-of-trumps-legacy-in-the-middle-eas
I understand your frustration with Trump and as I’ve told you – I’m totally fine with that. He’s obviously bombastic. I have no problem with you questioning Trump. However, since I’m an old-school Liberal, I get a little concerned about the intensity of anger people have with Trump. I’d rather try to carefully debate policy than talk about personality so much. Like a friend of mine, who’s also an old-school Liberal says – he finds that people get upset with him that he doesn’t sufficiently hate Trump enough. And my friend is not a Trump supporter. However, my friend is a big fan of civil debate that breaks issues down.
Anyways Tom, thx for the dialogue! You make some valid points. After all…creating stability and security through a “Peace Through Strength” mindset seems to work when it comes to Geo-Politics.
Thx for your wise words Tom! Your statement about what will happen to the followers of a particular leader or movement is poignant. Hopefully, a leader or movement that lasts will have some positive impact for all of society and democracy.
As you well know, these are challenging times for all of us. I appreciate your ideas and input my friend!
I agree that people are getting way too complacent with the idea of World War III or a nuclear war. During the Cold War, both sides seemed to understand that war between the United States and Russia, even without nukes, was too dangerous for the world to contemplate.
Now we hear ideas like tactical nuclear warheads, or strategic nukes being thrown around. They want to say they are feasible under certain conditions.
All one needs to become alarmed is to understand the damage two (much smaller than anything we have now), atomic bombs did in Japan. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, the rest of the world looked on in horror. That was despite the use was justified. It saved 1 million American lives by not having to invade Japan. Yet, after that, the world seemed to come to an understanding that nukes could never be used again.
The idea of a limited nuclear war is like having just one Pringle. It doesn’t work. You still end up eating the whole can. And the can is planet Earth.
In the Cold War of the fifties, sixties, and seventies, competition for world power was understandable. People had to worry about the domino theory. The theory only looks excessive in hindsight.
Compare it with what’s happening today. What’s taking place in the Ukraine is similar to Viet Nam. During the war in Viet Nam, America had boots on the ground while China and the Soviet Union kept the war going by supplying North Viet Nam with weapons and money. Today, in the Ukraine, Russia has boots on the ground while America is funding Ukraine’s continued ability to fight the war.
In both cases, the two superpowers fought wars by proxy.
So what’s the difference? The supposed justification for the wars is not the fate of the world. My hypothesis it is because of pride on the part of a few old men who care more about how they look to other countries as well as their legacies. The members of the planet are the pawns of these leaders.
Putin is such an obvious leader. He made the mistake in thinking Russia could defeat Ukraine in a quick and easy war. He is now too proud to admit he was wrong. If he weren’t so proud, he could negotiate with the Ukraine. Part of the Ukraine is loyal to Russia. There is the possibility of settling for annexing that part of Ukraine and leaving the rest alone.
Zelensky is also too proud. He refuses to negotiate a treaty on his side. America is writing a blank check to him to pay for the war, and he has no motivation to negotiate with Putin.
Then, there’s Netanyahu. Whether it’s genocide or whatever you want to call it, he has gone too far. He has killed thirty thousand Palestinians and we’re still counting. He is killing innocent women and children.
On the other hand, Hamas isn’t making it easy for him. They won’t compromise on any solution that protects the welfare of Israel. Instead, they let their own people die, mostly women and children. To Hamas, it’s worth it just to justify a PR campaign against Israel. They won’t allow Israel the right to exist, trying to hang on to the unrealistic goal that Israel will just die and go away.
Then there’s China and Taiwan. Yes, we have a treaty to protect Taiwan, but is it worth it to start World War III over? America existed in a completely different time and different place when we made that commitment. Things have changed.
China stubbornly sees Taiwan as part of its country. They refuse to accept that Taiwan is enjoying its freedom and wants their independence from China. China is like the English during the American Revolution – opposing America’s independence. Yet, on the same time, what would our position be if Alaska or Hawaii tried to declare independence from the mainland?
We can’t let Biden off easy either. Biden is trying to juggle a tight rope where on one hand, he supplies all the weapons for Israel to conduct its war, while on the other trying to appease American Palestinians while controlling Israel in its war against Hamas. He is making America look like hypocrites.
Much of Biden’s military machismo also comes from a case of pride: He doesn’t want to be seen as a weak president; which he is.
Many people fear what Trump will do if he is reelected. Despite his temperament and big mouth, he may be the only one mature enough and gutsy enough to handle the foreign affairs of our country.
I like the imagery of juggling a tightrope.
On the one hand, there’s this rope flopping around, and the other hand is probably up trying to protect your face.
To describe the former miss teen USA pageant owner and friend of Jeffrey Epstein as being the only one mature enough to find a solution to complex and historic geo-political problems is like, well, juggling type rope.
Does anyone honestly listen to his speeches and think, there is a cultured and educated man. He is always complaining about wind mills, water conserving appliances, and talking about Hannibal Lecter. He admires dictators and strong men. To call him a foreign policy genius is, like juggling a tightrope, probably gonna end up in your face.
Thanks for playing, Who wants to be deported?
Correction, like the imaginary line in math, always straight and possesses no width, a tightrope by definition can always be tight and in theory, could be juggled? You can play with the imagery and jiggle the rope perhaps. Any rope jigglers, or jugglers want to apply for Project 2025? I hear they are still taking applications. Only one requirement and you can jiggle ropes to your hearts desire.
See ya in the funny papers!
https://www.wsj.com/video/in-deposition-trump-says-historically-stars-can-grab-women-by-genitals/9925F3D8-9B68-45F9-9DC1-83467D65F42C
Thx so very much for stopping by! Your strong knowledge of Geo-Politics and history adds much to the dialogue!
And yes, during the Cold War – especially from the 60s to the 90s, there was a strong attempt to have active dialogue between high-level leaders. These talks were meant to not only set the stage for treaties, but also to bring the temperature down between enemies and establish enough of a rapport so that some form of global stability was maintained. Obviously, the rivalries between the United States, Soviet Union, and China still existed. However, in retrospect, many felt that these meetings helped take the edge off of the harshness of the rivalries.
After the near tragedy of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and due to the fact weaponry was so advanced, Cold-War leaders felt that it was in everyone’s interest to pursue what was then called détente – an easing of hostilities. Many meetings – such as between Reagan and Gorbachev, Carter and Brezhnev, Nixon and Mao, and Kennedy and Khrushchev, had the net effect of not only avoiding major wars between superpowers, but also of allowing for the average citizen to feel more secure in their day to day lives.
And yes…you’re correct about proxy wars. Although proxy wars between super-powers existed then, there was recognition that there needed to be some prudence in how those wars were conducted. As a result – the global rhetoric between super-powers – in attempt to stay calm, tended to be a bit more diplomatic then.
Although there were still some very tense times and close calls between super-powers between the 60s and the 90s, there was a general sense then that the use of nuclear weapons was not wise.
In fast-forwarding to today – you wisely point out how diplomacy seems to be taking a backseat on the global stage. As a result, major tragic wars are occurring. In addition, many global hotspots need constant careful monitoring. And yes…although Trump’s rhetoric is questionable to some, there are those who feel that the global stage was calmer four years ago.Thx again for stopping by. Your knowledge and wisdom add much to the dialogue!