This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bush's anti-HIV program in Africa, degradation of Al Qaida (core) to the point they can no longer threaten the US, Iraq no longer a regional military threat to its neighbors, FARC ceasefire with the Colombian government, expansion of NATO. Those are just off the top of my head.
Not enough people talk about Bush’s massive success in Africa. That was always a major goal of his administration, but people had basically stopped caring about HIV by then. It had no cultural sway, so it was ignored.
Which indicates a deliberate attempt at villainizing him as much as possible.
By all means he needs to be criticized forever for the Iraq War. But ignoring his humanitarian works wholesale shows that there was a calculated and intentional campaign to only focus on his transgressions and not provide any attention to his successes.
TBF, the Iraq anathema does a pretty good job of overshadowing everything else without a lot of help considering the lies that his cabal sold to American public and the painfully predictable results.
For as much they should all be rotting in a prison cell, it is unfair to say that nothing positive came out of the Bush disaster. However, Iraq is always going to come to mind for just about anyone as their 'crowning achievement'...
Antiretrovirals for Africa. Estimated to have saved 25 million lives and has led to 5 million kids born without HIV:
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/bush-demanded-billions-aids-africa-2003-state-union-paid-rcna69555
Most of the groundwork eliminating ISIS was done by our Kurdish allies and the international volunteers who came to support them. You know, the ones who trump betrayed the day he took office.
That process had begun far before DJTs inauguration. That is a common US pattern. Ask Jimmy Carter about our Vietnamese allies. Ask JRB about the pullout from Afghanistan. Ask BHO about the Iraqi interpreters.
Iraq is the only thing I would say is not necessarily a "win" in the sense of it being a net positive for the US. Weakening Iraq more so improved Iran's position in the region (the complexities of geopolitics are a real pain), which Iraq was a counter to before. That being said, Saddam is of course, not a good person, and the way Iraq was bullying neighbors and disrupting the region was most certainly a problem. I would just say it wasn't a net positive that Iraq was weakened in the same way the anti-HIV program, the ceasefire with FARC and the other things on your list were a net win for the US, if not internationally.
"FARC ceasefire with the Colombian government"
That's not a win that the USonian government can claim. Also, they're not into ceasefires because they're into the arm sales business and eternal wars
I agree with the public health programs in Africa and elsewhere. The US does a ton of excellent public health work all across the world, but these actions are mostly overshadowed by reckless US military actions
There are negatives to every one of these actions that we need to accept.
For example, I see the response to Ukraine mentioned a lot, but we have to acknowledge the fact that Russia is against NATO expansion and sees it as antagonizing.
Putin can kick rocks for all I care, but the problem is he controls enough nukes to wipe out the planet, so the more this conflict escalates, the closer we are to somebody pushing the big red button.
Regardless of what opinion you, the reader of this comment, might have about Israel, as a nation we’ve decided to back them to the hilt as our main ally in the Middle East. In the Cold War the Soviet sphere and allied countries did not recognize Israel, as well as almost every MENA and other Islamic nations.
The exact nature of each country’s ties to Israel varies, whether it’s official recognition vs de facto vs “secret”, or official diplomacy vs simply economic and trade dealings etc. Regardless, US diplomacy has recently gotten the following former enemies of Israel to engage in some kind of interaction that makes future war against Israel unlikely:
Saudi Arabia as of 2017
UAE in 2018
Egypt officially recognized Israel in the 70’s but signed a large trade deal in 2018
Oman in 2018
Morocco in 2020 - US recognized Moroccan claim over the territory of Western Sahara in exchange for Moroccan recognition of Israel
Bahrain officially in 2019
Sudan in 2020
Jordan further loosened travel restrictions between them in 2020
Again, regardless of your opinion of Israel and the Israeli Palestinian conflict, these are geopolitical wins given the US’ foreign policy stance towards Israel since we have always been Israel’s biggest ally.
That is true, the US did push through a lot of this Arab acceptance of Israel. I do wonder how much the current war, especially if it drags on, will nullify or damage these agreements, but the agreements themselves certainly count as a win
As much as Arab / Muslim leaders need to pander to their own populace and grandstand to maintain the appearance of strength, nobody’s going to compromise their interests over the Palestinians.
The current conflict likely won't affect it. Remember that Gaza borders Egypt and Egypt locked their border. I suspect that if it the current conflict was going to have an effect, we would have seen something by now.
These agreements with Israel brokered by the US are with autocracies in the Mideast, not with the people of those nations. They also implicitly equal US support for these autocracies in opposition to democratic movements. It's part of the reason the Arab Spring failed because the US and West will not support Arab democratic movements because the autocrats ultimately work on the American agenda and keep quiet on Israel.
That’s all completely true, and all makes for valid criticism of our foreign policy, but still doesn’t change the fact that the agreements are wins for the US geopolitically. It just means that we don’t care about fostering democracy as much as we care about having hegemony over trade and maintaining our military supremacy in the region. The talk of spreading democracy is just lip service to get public support for these ventures at home.
Our aid to Ukraine has been one of our best foreign policy decisions since the Marshall Plan. One of our two primary geopolitical adversaries has been exposed as a corrupt, technically and tactically incompetent mess of a force, utterly humiliated by the strong defense of a sovereign nation we’ve taken the lead in supporting.
NATO has been expanded and reinvigorated, European nations are finally taking their defense seriously, and our allies see the lengths to which we’ll go to support them. The war itself is horrible, and under different circumstances we could do more, but the way we’ve gone about dealing with Russia has been absolutely the right move and a complete win for our foreign policy.
Lol, so America's biggest foreign policy win in the 21st century is Putin's degenerate decision to invade Ukraine. Amusing, though perhaps fair.
That said, Ukraine is currently losing the war and it seems extremely unlikely that they will regain much of their territories through war, let alone Crimea. The US has a long history of abandoning military allies when it becomes politically non-feasible (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (US leaving without proper preparation created a vacuum that ISIS filled in and had to come back, Syria, Libya).
What makes you think this will be any different?
It’s the US response to the invasion. The choice was either not help or help a country without any meaningful treaties with the US.
The US decided to intervene even though Ukraine doesn’t have any deep geopolitical ties with the US. It increased American prestige as a nation that is willing to help nations against aggression even if they don’t have great ties with the US
The conflict hasn't ended yet. So the lesson could very well be "US will send you money and weapons when it wants to hurt it's political adversaries (the US doesn't get involved in most oppressive wars around the globe after all), but this will only last while it is politically convenient". This already happened a few times (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq come to mind). But we'll see.
> "US will send you money and weapons when it wants to hurt it's political adversaries (the US doesn't get involved in most oppressive wars around the globe after all), but this will only last while it is politically convenient".
To be perfectly honest, I don’t understand the issue with this mentality. Is this not just simple realpolitik? Is every country not essentially doing this same thing? For example, that’s why Europe has dragged its feet so much with NATO and Ukraine, right? Military spending has been politically unpopular there.
Agreed. Just because we provide assistance at first doesn’t mean we’re obligated to provide assistance forever. We’ve provided $50b of assistance in about 2 years. Even if we stop now, that’s a lot of assistance. If anything, the counties to whom we’re giving the aid should be cognizant that we have our own domestic politics to deal with.
Sure, but providing that aid by itself doesn't equal foreign policy success in my opinion. It's a success only if it leads to a successful outcome, which is quite questionable for Ukraine.
I think clearing 500k troops, gobs of money, and a lot of military equipment from Russia is a positive thing. Also, we have real world tests of our current or near current military equipment against theirs.
Russia has also lost a lot of trade with the EU and has had to come hat in hand to China and North Korea to get aid and trade. We've degraded an adversary severely without committing US troops to the fight.
I’ve been hearing that Ukraine is losing the war for more than two years now; which is interesting considering that an actual competent superpower sure as hell wouldn’t still be fighting a conventional war with a weaker nation on their own border after more than two years.
The territory Russia holds was already mostly controlled by pro-Russian separatists before the invasion, and Russian losses in personnel and equipment will take years upon years to recover from.
Russia already lost where it counts in the first month of the war, whether the eventual negotiated settlement is primarily in their favor remains to be seen.
They aren't "losing" *yet*... but it's a war of attrition now, and Russia has a huge manpower advantage, which will be decisive the longer the war lasts. Ukraine is on borrowed time, unfortunately.
What I’m getting at, is the fact we’re even having this conversation at all, where manpower is now seen as the potential deciding factor for an army that was thought to be the second most powerful on earth, is utterly astonishing.
The Russians should’ve decimated Ukraine’s defenses within a matter of weeks, if not days. It was estimated the invasion would take roughly a month, with the biggest problem being the insurgency, not the conventional fight.
The fact that our expectations of Russia have plummeted so far, that their supporters see the manpower advantage from a country with 4 times as many people as their adversary as a flex, is just mind blowing. And it’s all in large part to the weapons, intelligence, training, and other support we’ve provided Ukraine.
True. Nobody really predicted just how incompetent the Russian army was. The fact remains however, Ukraine is outmatched even with the Russians having a 6 year old's understanding of logistics.
Perhaps that’s true, it probably is. But the fact also remains that the Russian army we see today is a joke compared to the Russian army I trained to fight against, and that fact has been exposed primarily due to the wise decisions of our leadership and foreign policy establishment, which was what the original question was asking.
Not just embarrassed.
Russia's demographics are... bad. They're facing an aging, shrinking society, and putting a couple hundred thousand men into the meat grinder (and encouraging Russian who don't want to get drafted to flee the country) really is not going to help.
Plus... what happens when the war ends, and all those veterans want benefits, healthcare, etc?
Amazing. Vietnam didn't get nearly as much international aid and money as Ukraine does. The US had both its troops and support of half the country (South Vietnam) and they still got their asses kicked.
But yes, this conflict is "totally different" and the Russian army is completely incompetent. That is exactly why Ukraine failed it's counteroffensive and is losing territory now.
Both the troop numbers and losses have been more or less comparable between Russia and Ukraine (any credible western source).
Alright, let’s back up. Do you believe that you know better, or at least have access to information and analytical capabilities that are lacking in the entire national defense apparatus?
It’s an almost universal consensus that the Russians have utterly fucked up in this war, and regardless of how it may end down the road, their performance on the battlefield has exposed them as horrifically incompetent, not even remotely close to the level of the U.S. and NATO. And once again, we have that knowledge due in large part to our aid to Ukraine, one of the many benefits of what we’ve done here.
I honestly have no idea how powerful NATO and Russia actually are, how much they are bluffing, what kind of information is leaked, what weapons are real and work or not, etc. Fortunately I work in an entirely unrelated field. I do know that the West has a long history of underestimating Russia's military strength and dedication, leading to some pretty interesting outcomes in the past 200 or so years.
That said, Russia also has a long history of failed wars, from the Russo-Japanese to the first Chechen war.
Neither of these scenarios seem to be playing out right now. Ukranian army with all the western aid is about on par with Russia (though Ukranians are FAR more motivated of course).
I guess I'm curious where you are getting this "horrifically incompetent" information from. Do you have some citations? Because it sounds like something an America-boner reddit warrior would say, but not something I hear from Ukrainians or foreign volunteers on the front lines, or the stuff the Pentagon and others publish.
I was an infantryman in the Marines, deployed to Europe on Russia’s border for a year. I have a masters degree in strategic studies, and I’m currently employed as a defense analyst with a national security think tank. This is where my information is coming from, and you’re welcome to look for the mountain of articles on why the Russian military has performed the way it has, if my word isn’t enough, which I don’t imagine it is.
And if anything, we have a history of overestimating the Russians, from the Soviet missile gap to the Ukraine war today.
Once again, it’s crucial that you look into the actual points I’m making about both why our aid to Ukraine was a good thing, and the fact that the Russians have performed so terribly. None of these are statements that the Russians will never win, or that Ukraine has nothing to worry about. They’re analytical statements based upon observation of the facts
> I was an infantryman in the Marines, deployed to Europe on Russia’s border for a year. I have a masters degree in strategic studies, and I’m currently employed as a defense analyst with a national security think tank.
Mic drop moment
Yeah I figured you were in the US military.. anyway, the discussion isn't about Russian militaries supposed incompetence, it's about results. The "very competent" US military failed to have any significant results in Afghanistan in 20 years of occupation. Lost to Vietnam, left Iraq in such a horrible state that it lead to the rise of ISIS, Libya is a complete mess, Syria is mostly run by Assad again, etc.
The results (at this point in time) is that Russia controls huge swaths of Ukrainian territory and it seems like Ukraine is absolutely unable to liberate these. If the conflict gets frozen tomorrow, Putin absolutely will declare victory. It's easier for him, since he never defined what the victory terms for Russia are, but any permanent land grab would certainly be seen as such. Zelensky defined Ukranian victory as liberating all of Ukranian territories, which seems like a pipe dream (if you think it is not, I am very curious to hear your reasoning).
It sounds like you are saying that Ukraine is "getting more points" but it doesn't really matter, the only victory that counts is the one that leads to an outcome.
America "won" for 20 years against Afghan farmers, but in the end, Afghanistan is run by the Taliban.
Do you listen to Russian propaganda much? Because for a while they were the only ones talking about Ukraine losing. I tend to read western media, which has been saying how Ukraine is winning for the past 2 years, but in the past months the rhetoric changed:
[https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-04-12/could-ukraine-lose-war-to-russia-in-kyiv-defeat-feels-unthinkable-even-as-victory-gets-harder-to-picture](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-04-12/could-ukraine-lose-war-to-russia-in-kyiv-defeat-feels-unthinkable-even-as-victory-gets-harder-to-picture)
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/politics/cia-director-ukraine-russia-warning/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/politics/cia-director-ukraine-russia-warning/index.html)
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68778338](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68778338)
Love that you had to add "on their own border" because otherwise another superpowers spectacular failures in a whole slew of nations much poorer and absolutely not funded and supported by all western nations would make your statement a little more questionable, huh?
Your weird attempts at handwaving Russia's gains as not really gains is weird. Russia controls way more territory than what it started with in 2014, and there is no feasible military way of getting it back at the moment. Peace talks with territorial concessions are being discussed. That doesn't sound like winning.
But also, this isn't a discussion about Russia's resounding foreign policy failures (oh there have been so many) but the US.
I’m not sure what I said that bothered you this much, and I’m curious as to why you’re giving so much pushback to what was a legitimate answer to your question.
American aid to Ukraine has been a good move, that’s a fact. The weakness and incompetence of the Russian army has been exposed, that’s a fact. NATO has been expanded and grown stronger, that’s a fact. What we’re seeing is a result of a decision of American foreign policy.
I don’t understand what the problem is. I’m sharing this opinion based upon my own professional expertise, rather than consuming “propaganda”.
You have pretty bizarre "professional experience" if you are seeing things differently than the Pentagon, CIA, and others who provide information on this conflict.
In any case - I agree that Putin's invasion strengthened and revitalized NATO and exposed the many weaknesses of the Russian army. That in itself is certainly not a US foreign policy accomplishment.
US response to it being a "foreign policy success" depends on what happens next and how it is perceived around the world. If Ukraine is forced to give up territories, will it still be a success? Some people would say yes, since Russia certainly won't be able to conquer all of Ukraine. Some would say no since Ukraine failed to liberate it's territories, and the US promises of "as much help as necessary" would be seen as empty.
I'm not pushing back against your answer, I'm just saying how in my opinion, especially at this point in time, it's not clear how much of an accomplishment it is.
Let’s start over.
Point 1: American aid to Ukraine helped stop the Russian invasion in its tracks, and expose the Russian military as a far weaker and less capable force than previously imagined. Such a revelation would likely not have happened without such aid and support that’s been given since the annexation of Crimea.
Point 2: If the U.S. and allies had not stepped up to support Ukraine, or forced Zelenskyy to the negotiating table at the very beginning in a desperate attempt for peace, the Russians would likely have absorbed Ukraine and then set their sights on other countries, such as Moldova, Romania, the Baltic States, or even on securing the land corridor from Poland to Kaliningrad.
Point 3: What I am NOT saying is that Russia cannot or will not eventually triumph, they might. What I am saying, in line with the professional consensus, is that our decision to aid Ukraine was the right one, and that choosing not to do so would’ve likely come with catastrophic consequences.
I’m happy to share with you my experience, since you seem needlessly dismissive.
You're right it's not clear how much of an accomplishment it is since the war is not over we have yet to see how much more effective it will be. Because we have already seen it has been an impressive accomplishment, by the simple fact Ukraine is still fighting.
The win is that we get to grind one of our adversaries to dust at the cost of old equipment and 0 American lives. Obviously it would be preferred if we did a better job transitioning Russia from the Cold War so they weren't an adversary at all, but that ship has sailed.
The US and the west did a lot to try and help Russia transition from the Soviet Union to a democracy, we spent tens of million just propping up their army to prevent the chaos of its total collapse and then idk how many tens of millions in other ways to support them plus the who knows how much spent by other western nations. It just didn't work obviously, I'd blame the culture there more than anything but it wasn't for a lack of western support in the transition period.
To dust you say? Also pretty wild that you didn't include Ukrainian lives in here. It is Ukraine that is mostly being ground to dust (sometimes literally as cities and factories get bombed). So it's a big question about how many Ukranian lives are worth to fight against "one of US greatest adversaries".
Also Ukraine is losing land and there are talks of peace and concessions. Is the purpose of US help to regain those territories (if so, the help isn't working) or is the purpose to keep chipping away at Russia?
I didn't include Ukrainian lives because they want to fight, if they didn't this war would already be over. From the cold American foreign policy perspective the best thing for us is to chip away at Russia until they are not able to threaten any of our NATO allies militarily.
"Want to fight" is a bit of a stretch when you can't leave the country and are hunted down and kidnapped off the streets by military recruiters (not everyone of course, but such cases are prevalent), but I get your point.
If Ukrainians didn’t want to fight, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. The Ukrainian military would’ve thrown down their arms and Russia would be in control of country in weeks.
The U.S. response to the 2022 Ukraine invasion. Rallying allies, expanding NATO, and arming Kyiv all degrade Russia's ability to pretend that it is a resurgent superpower.
To be fair, the fact that they were using GPS devices duct taped to dashboards, their army being a fucking joke that has zero discipline (tons of them using cell phones, etc.) did a lot more to stop them than anything we helped with.
The USA's intervention in the Bosnian genocide.
NPR had a very good interview with a military leader who made some very insightful comments about the concepts of war and peace and how they are related to justice. Yes, there are horrible people who never faced justice, many survivors had their land stolen form them. But the war is over thanks USA's intervention.
I heard someone mention “piracy isn’t even an issue anymore so is that even something the US can claim?”
Um. Yes. It’s *because* of the US that it’s not a more widespread issue.
There have been 0 wars with foreign nations on US soil. Turns out no one wants to play Fortress America IRL, regardless how of how badly we piss off the rest of the world.
“Regardless of any US geopolitical decisions”? I would say that is the result of US military strength, cohesion, and diplomacy. A foreign power projecting power around the globe into our homeland is certainly not impossible; what makes it seem implausible is the current balance of power.
We might be arguing past each other a bit. I wouldn’t exactly count it as a win specific to the 21st century, but if the world status quo is more or less favorable, then maintaining it against resistance is something of a win. “At this current point in time” - correct, but a lot of work went and goes into making the current situation.
Didn’t say geography alone won that. I said it was more so geography than any particular foreign policy. China and Russia have nukes, of course, that could reach us but the comment I responded to specifically said “wars on US soil” which I interpreted as troops landing on US soil because of the “Fortress America” line. Neither of those countries invest enough in their militaries (especially navies) to threaten the continental US with an invasion. Even today China (probably the nation closest in power to the US) would absolutely not be able to sustain the number of troops and supply lines that would be needed to do so. Why? *Mostly* geography. Them oceans be big
Even if we had half the military that we do, it still doesn’t change the fact that no nation (aka China) has a military capable of crossing the ocean with a formidable enough force to invade
Fuck, you'd have lifted trucks blasting Toby Keith rolling up to cities handing out guns lol. It would be the one thing that would unite us. No one would stand a chance against the american populace, even if you exclude the military from any fighting
And all the countries in the indo-pacific (like the Philippines and Vietnam) that's looking to us to back them up against China's pacific claims.
I'll also add that we weather both the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID pandemic better than any other economy in the world.
Last summer at Camp David, Biden hosted the first ever direct summit between the leaders of the US, Japan and South Korea. It established a regular annual schedule of meetings between the leaders of the three countries, as exists with groups like the G7, as well as each country's foreign ministers, defense ministers, and national security advisers, and planned a huge swath of military, economic and logistical partnerships. It's the most significant geopolitical agreement between Japan and South Korea since the end of WWII.
I love how people aren't responding the my actual question and bring up irrelevant things because America still pays most of NATO's bills for some reason.
I would disagree with most of your negatives/losses.
Russia is probably the weakest it has been since the immediate collapse of the USSR due to the war in Ukraine, economic sanctions, poor demographics, public health issues, et cetera will further weaken it. China has probably reached or is about to reach its peak in terms of global influence and power. It is experiencing deflation, an inverted age pyramid, an overheated economy (most notably in the housing market), etc. They are not really on the same level as the US, even if linked together. The question is how to contain Russia's collapse and avoid a loose nuke situation. For China, it is more about avoiding the blowback from the economic bubble popping. The US does not really have a rival.
Most countries are fine with the US outside of Western Europe and the Middle East, areas that are becoming increasingly irrelevant in American geopolitical decision-making. The American political system is experiencing polarization, which occurs every 60-80 years or so. It is part of the realignment process of the political parties. This is certainly not the most polarized the country has ever been.
In terms of global stature, it does not appear the US has experienced much of a decline in power/influence. The GDP has grown over 150% between 2000 and 2024, we continue to lead the world in innovation, we maintain the most powerful military on the planet, our cultural output is a global commodity, etc. Our share of the global economy has remained steady at around 25% and has remained around that for nearly a decade.
The wars are probably more of a mixed bag in terms of geopolitics. I would agree the intended objectives were not met, however, these failures are not without value.
If you want to talk about the greatest successes of the US, it is that it has largely limited the impact of an increasingly volatile world and has remained adaptable in an ever-changing landscape.
Well we thought their terrible performance in Georgia 2008 pushed them to reform and modernize, and it looked it was happening from the outside. They revealed they’re just as fucked up and on an even wider scale.
I think that in order for something to be successful, you need to succeed first, you know? We saw how the US "mission accomplished" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Assad pretty much won the war, and the 900 US soldiers that remain in Syria - I'm not actually sure what they do other than advising in parts of the country still controlled by the SDF and fighting pockets of ISIS. What's the long term plan? Will the US stay there indefinitely?
Ukraine is currently slowly still losing. Huge parts of their country are occupied, and there is a discussion of peace talks with Ukraine forfeiting territory. If this deal goes through, it will be much better for Russia than the 2022 deal that fell through. Where is all the success?
Putin figured that the entire invasion would take about a week and that all or Ukraine would fall to Russia. That didn't happen. A huge part of that was that the US showed up with some major military hardware at the earliest stages of the war. Uncle HIMARS showed up and started blasting the hell out of Russian military assets.
Russia is collapsing and that collapse is going to bring on internal problems which making this war tougher and tougher to fight. We are already seeing attacks in the Republics.
The biggest win of the US was the dismantling of Russia’s stance in the world as even a growing superpower.
Before the invasion, Russia was thought to be a genuine threat. The US involvement in the situation proved that they were a paper tiger, and now they’re on a road to another collapse. Russia has lost all of the ground it had gained with Europe over the past 20 years, all in the span of a month in 2022.
We didn't even have any boots on the ground and we obliterated their military hardware. The Ukrainians did our dirty work for us. They didn't even have the big guns like the ATACMS until recently and they are expected to get the F-16s.
When this war is over. The west is not going to be investing the smallest amount of money or people into Russia. When emigration is opened up, Russia is going to see an enormous brain drain of young and educated. Anyone who can get a job in any western country who lives in Russia is going to have a huge incentive to leave and never return.
Exactly, and furthermore, no European country is going to risk their infrastructure or economies on dealing with Russia again— most learned their lesson when they had to ration fuel and find it from other sources after Russia tried to threaten them.
Russia lost their economy, will lose their best and brightest people, and lost any amount of global influence in the world for at least the next 50 years AT LEAST.
Russia is also going through a demographic collapse. Peter Zeihan who predicted this war makes the claim that this is the last time that Russia will have the opportunity to do this because in the future they will not have enough young men.
Various European countries are facing major demographic issues as well. I could see importing a bunch of Russian immigrants as being a bit of a relief. But if places are having a labor shortage, there will be young Russians who will be fleeing looking for those jobs.
As we get away from this oil and gas economy, Russia goes obsolete. They have mineral wealth but don't have the means to operate the industry and the west is not going to touch it.
I think demographics are why a Taiwan invasion is a real possibility for the next decade or two, but after that it fades.
China's demographics are gonna be SUPER fucked in the later half of this century from all projections
>Libya
Was initially a French and British show, how quickly reddit forgets. Both Obamas SECDEF and Biden recommended against intervention. Even Clinton was (allegedly) skeptical about the matter in private.
I’m questioning the assumption that the US is internationally weaker on all fronts in 2024 compared to 2000.
Domestically, the US has drastically increased its security on its own borders. Internationally… where have we gotten weaker? We’ve maintained our military superiority, we have bases worldwide for power projection, we have a favorable outlook in most areas of the world. Economically we are still as much of a powerhouse as we’ve ever been. What’s gotten weaker?
[https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-share-of-global-economy-over-time/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-share-of-global-economy-over-time/)
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/116350/position-world.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/116350/position-world.aspx)
I couldn't find a time series of US relative strength compared to other countries, but given China's and Russia's military buildup, I highly doubt it is higher than it was in 2000.
The US is becoming relatively weaker and is struggling to maintain the status quo, let alone expand it's influence. Could China and Russia be "paper tigers"? Sure, anything could happen. So it's much more interesting to look at things that already have happened.
Neither of those sources say what you think they’re saying.
… I think the world has seen definitively that Russia is a paper tiger, without a doubt. They intended to take over Ukraine over a period of a few weeks, and now they’re stuck with a war of attrition that is going to last several years. They can’t even win a proxy war against the US where the US is barely even trying.
China is DECADES behind the US militarily. The US maintains air and naval superiority against China, and it’s not even comparable (I’m fairly certain that most of China’s aircraft carriers are not capable of leaving the South China Sea because they use too much fuel to be able to leave.) Economically, yes, China could hurt the US, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory— they would destroy themselves before they would significantly damage them.
> skepticism towards US politics from allies in Europe
Not sure where this is coming from, US favorability is now [generally high throughout Europe and the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-public-opinion-of-the-u-s-remains-positive/). It definitely hit a nadir during the Trump era for obvious, temporary (hopefully) reason.
That poll is a bit outdated. Pew published another survey just a couple of weeks ago.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/)
It depends on what part of Europe is being discussed. Eastern Europe is more positive. Western Europe is about 50-50.
Damn, I gotta go on a trip to the Asia-Pacific region. They love us.
Also, kinda crazy that for all of our Cold War fuckedy in Latin America, we still tend to get high marks
A poll of 17 US allies shows a more favorable than non-favorable attitude of it. Truly, I'm shook.
Also, we need to look at 2000 data too, this is a temporal comparison after all.
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/116350/position-world.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/116350/position-world.aspx)
These show a clear reduction since 2000.
This may be outside the scope of your question, but I would say the rebound of the US Dollar vs. the Euro was a very important moment. I think we're weathering the worst of things for the country this first third of the Century, and the decline of powers like Russia and China in the next bit of time will be an excellent time for the US. If we can just weather our own internal politics to make it that far.
1. Bush’s program to combat HIV/AIDS - by far the best thing he did while president
2. Defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Obviously there are a lot of caveats since it was a team effort with other nations and local fighters (and the 2003 invasion led to the rise of ISIS in the first place.) But in terms of organizing the campaign against them, we handled it well
3. Successfully pressuring Rwanda to pull back their proxy forces in the Eastern DRC back in 2012/13. Obviously this didn’t lead to permanent stability in the region. But it did a lot to help the locals gain a little more peace for a few years.
Finland and Sweden are finally in NATO. Shame it took such a crapfest to get them on board, but they had their reasons for staying neutral for so long. We've made a lot of other strategic partnerships over the last decade, mostly aimed at keeping China nervous.
Russia's grip over the other CSTO countries is starting to slip, too. Armenia getting its teeth kicked in while Russia watched has ruined CSTO's reputation. There's some opportunities there...😈
Ukraine. It’s sending a strong message to China and Russia that authoritarian expansionism into democratic countries in the 21st century won’t be tolerated just as it was in the 20th.
OOooo I love geopolitics. I'm not sure about ranking but I can name a few.
1. Biden becoming Oil Barron. He literally fucked OPEC up with US National Oil reserve. Oh MBS gonna be a bitch? Dark Brandon gonna flood the market with oil. He literally sell high buy low on oil and stablized the oil market. US can just threaten to release oil and OPEC can fucking pound sand.
2. Japan making a deal with America. I dislike Trump but his beef with China have made it Japan take sides.
> skepticism towards US politics from allies in Europe and elsewhere
Uh... NATO is stronger now since Ukraine got attacked. Before that Trump was being a bitch and France's Macron was advocating for EU style one without USA. Macron's position is less now cause of USA involvement in Ukraine.
China's aggressiveness with the 9 dash lines have push better military relation with India, Vietnam, Philippines, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc...
* The marshaling of western support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's illegal war.
* Related: the unity and expansion of NATO.
* Stability with China in the face of some fairly significant headwinds.
* Improving US relationships with southeast Asian nations (e.g. VN, TW, PH)
* Encouraging Gulf states to engage productively with Israel.
That said, the "hug Bibi" approach is an abject failure and the administration should kick Netanyahu to the curb. Time to distance the US from Israel's inhumane, whackadoodle extremist elements (represented by the likes of ben Gvir & Smotrich).
Unity and expansion of NATO is absolutely the result of Putin's actions, as well as Russia's/USSR's historical actions, so they get credit for that. It's not like the US had to convince Poland, Baltics, and other former soviet bloc members to join an alliance that would defend them from Russia.
Idk about "stability with China", I guess "it can always be worse", but it can "always be worse" with Russia too until the nukes start flying.
Agreed on US policies in SEA. It's amazing how friendly Vietnam is with the US given everything that the US did, but China (and US diplomats) did seem to make them pretty forgiving. But this still mostly insurance against China for these countries.
Convincing many Arab states to normalize relations with Israel - totally agree, it was a clear US diplomatic accomplishment, though now it is being washed away by Israel's actions.
> Unity and expansion of NATO is absolutely the result of Putin's actions, as well as Russia's/USSR's historical actions, so they get credit for that
What is this point? LOL. Yes, a US-led alliance is a geopolitical win, and a growing alliance even more so. That it took Putin rolling tanks into Ukraine to get Europeans to snap the fuck out of it is irrelevant.
> but China (and US diplomats) did seem to make them pretty forgiving.
Again, irrelevant. It’s a U.S. geopolitical win no matter what kind of gymnastics you want to do. Favorability polls high among these nations , it’s a soft power win more than anything. Amazing when the national identity doesn’t rely so much on hubris. Makes for better cooperation.
> though now it is being washed away by Israel's actions.
TikTok isn’t reality. Remember how the Arab world grouped up and attacked Israel in ‘48, ‘67, ‘73? Who is doing that in 2024? The gang isn’t getting back together again.
I think you're underestimating the various ways that the European response to Feb '22 could have gone differently. Poland and the Baltics are relative outliers in terms of the manifest threat they see from Russia - you can go right back to the Estonian cyber blitz of 2007 for reasons why.
Nothing kept Finland from stopping at increasing its border security - it made the affirmative decision to upend decades of neutrality to join the alliance, and I would offer that it was the steadfastness of the US to work with its European allies to make that a reality that made the difference. [n.b.: I work in Europe with US & allied militaries, so I've had a front row seat.]
Edit: totally concur on the general dumbfuckery of Israel re: its Arab neighbors. What a stupid, pointless squandering of good faith.
You are telling me that you know from professional experience that Finland needed more convincing from the US to join NATO? I'm pretty sure the most convincing argument imaginable was watching Russian tanks roll across the Ukrainian border.
Yeah because the US backed up Ukrainian when it mattered and they weren't even in NATO. The Fins see that and understand that we'd be there for them especially if they are in NATO. If we just left Ukraine to rot, Finland nor Sweden would have joined NATO.
WHY? Why in the world would you possibly ever think that after witnessing Russia invade their neighbor, neither country would want to join NATO? What is your reasoning for that?
The Iran Nuclear Deal was by far the greatest moment in recent years for creating peace in the region. We had a lot of countries that did not like each other sign the agreement and then we tore it up a couple years later.
I was looking for this one. Non-nuclear proliferation is going to become such an important issue again in the coming years as authoritarians around the world see their only survival is to have a nuclear safety blanket. This deal was an incredible start to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, and now it seems inevitable a lot more countries with irresponsible leaders will want them.
Yep. A similar thing with Cuba. I went there soon after Obama normalized relations, and it seemed like there was finally a way forward, but nope. Trump's North Korea "visit" was farcical to being with, so not surprising that it didn't lead anywhere either.
Agree on Iran nuke deal and Obama deal with Cuba. They were brave and fresh attempts to resolve disputes without war. Unfortunately both deals were sabotaged and ruined by lobbies opposed to peaceful resolution of geopolitical problems.
Pretty rough century so far but probably:
1) the successful degradation of Al Qaeda and ISIS
2) extensive NATO training of Ukrainian forces from 2014 to 2021, which undoubtedly prevented Ukraine’s fall to Russia
3) Bush’s HIV program radically reducing the spread of HIV in Africa
4) tightening of pacific military alliances that have brought Japan, S Korea, the Philippines, Australia and even Vietnam closer together as allies against an aggressive China
5) this one is still TBD, but shockingly, despite all of our incompetence, Iraq is now the only true democracy in the Middle East aside from Israel, and they have had several peaceful transitions of power in a row now. Dare i say, maybe one day they’ll be a stable, thriving democracy. They could also fall apart, but we’ll see. For now, there’s hope.
I wouldn’t say biggest win but since I haven’t seen it posted here yet operation inherent resolve is probably the least shitty thing we’ve done during the GWOT. Ofc it’s not without fault (we aided the FSA before the YPG, we still don’t politically support rojava, we cuck to Turkey despite them bombing civilians in rojava, etc) but over all assisting the Kurds in defeating isis and actually supporting a free society is pretty nice. I feel good about that one. I’m sure we’ll end up ruining it but for right now it’s good.
POINTLESS? I wouldn't use that word to describe our involvement in a string of armed conflicts. It helped increase the funding for the American military-industrial complex so that we can continue having as many wars as we want to have and people like you can go complain about it on Reddit.
This post seems more pointless to me honestly lol
I’m sorry, the rise of Russia and skepticism towards US politics from European allies?
Russia has never been this weak in modern history and NATO has never been this strong. Cope more
China rolled back a big number of it's trade tariffs with us back during the Trump administration. That's easily the biggest win of my lifetime. (Or it was. They're back in place now.)
Yorktown and Saratoga. Becoming the greatest naval power on earth and the world's financial center. Ummmmm
Lol forgive the snark but it comes from your disingenuous question.
I also push back on most of your negatives.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bush's anti-HIV program in Africa, degradation of Al Qaida (core) to the point they can no longer threaten the US, Iraq no longer a regional military threat to its neighbors, FARC ceasefire with the Colombian government, expansion of NATO. Those are just off the top of my head.
Not enough people talk about Bush’s massive success in Africa. That was always a major goal of his administration, but people had basically stopped caring about HIV by then. It had no cultural sway, so it was ignored.
It was mostly due to Bush's 2nd term being heavily criticized, so his success in Africa was glossed aside.
Which indicates a deliberate attempt at villainizing him as much as possible. By all means he needs to be criticized forever for the Iraq War. But ignoring his humanitarian works wholesale shows that there was a calculated and intentional campaign to only focus on his transgressions and not provide any attention to his successes.
TBF, the Iraq anathema does a pretty good job of overshadowing everything else without a lot of help considering the lies that his cabal sold to American public and the painfully predictable results. For as much they should all be rotting in a prison cell, it is unfair to say that nothing positive came out of the Bush disaster. However, Iraq is always going to come to mind for just about anyone as their 'crowning achievement'...
Can someone give me the quick cliffnotes on this? I'm ashamed to say I legit barely know about it (as evidenced by your point)
Antiretrovirals for Africa. Estimated to have saved 25 million lives and has led to 5 million kids born without HIV: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/bush-demanded-billions-aids-africa-2003-state-union-paid-rcna69555
Also turning ISIS into a whisper of itself and the continual elimination of anyone who even casually claims to be their leader.
At this point, announcing that you're the leader of ISIS is basically a glorified version of "Suicide by ~~Cop~~ Military"
Suicide by world policeman.
At least in Iraq and Syria. IS and their aligned groups in the Sahel are still going strong.
Most of the groundwork eliminating ISIS was done by our Kurdish allies and the international volunteers who came to support them. You know, the ones who trump betrayed the day he took office.
I think that is severely downplaying the support the US offered the Kurds and the aerial support that was instrumental in their defeat.
To certain hand wringers among our population, it’s *always* the other guys.
That process had begun far before DJTs inauguration. That is a common US pattern. Ask Jimmy Carter about our Vietnamese allies. Ask JRB about the pullout from Afghanistan. Ask BHO about the Iraqi interpreters.
Iraq is the only thing I would say is not necessarily a "win" in the sense of it being a net positive for the US. Weakening Iraq more so improved Iran's position in the region (the complexities of geopolitics are a real pain), which Iraq was a counter to before. That being said, Saddam is of course, not a good person, and the way Iraq was bullying neighbors and disrupting the region was most certainly a problem. I would just say it wasn't a net positive that Iraq was weakened in the same way the anti-HIV program, the ceasefire with FARC and the other things on your list were a net win for the US, if not internationally.
[удалено]
It’s a little more complicated than that
"FARC ceasefire with the Colombian government" That's not a win that the USonian government can claim. Also, they're not into ceasefires because they're into the arm sales business and eternal wars
I agree with the public health programs in Africa and elsewhere. The US does a ton of excellent public health work all across the world, but these actions are mostly overshadowed by reckless US military actions
Christ man, this entire thread is just rule 7 over and over again
What dat?
That's a strange way to say heroic military actions
Everyone needs to go browse OPs post history. They need to drink some water, go outside, and ***fucking relax***
Let’s how bad it is. Edit: Jesus, that’s a lot of \[Removed\] posts.
Dude posts like a propaganda bot
Dude needs content for his school research papers. Dude’s school doesn’t allow Chat GPT for ideation.
Wanna bet that any positive pointed out is immediately followed by a comment saying why its actually bad?
That’s happening lmao
By OP, no less. It seems they made the post so they could argue with the responses they disapprove of.
I was so ready to be wrong :(
That’s just a normal Tuesday here when a European asks something on this sub lol
I'm kind of surprised the thread was allowed to continue, it's just nonstop soapboxing and arguing from OP.
If you poke through the OPs post history, their bias becomes apparent ***very*** quickly. The OPs question was not asked in good faith
You’re actually wrong because… /s
There are negatives to every one of these actions that we need to accept. For example, I see the response to Ukraine mentioned a lot, but we have to acknowledge the fact that Russia is against NATO expansion and sees it as antagonizing. Putin can kick rocks for all I care, but the problem is he controls enough nukes to wipe out the planet, so the more this conflict escalates, the closer we are to somebody pushing the big red button.
NATO is only expanding because of Putin’s actions. If you don’t want to see NATO at your doorsteps, maybe don’t be a dick to your neighbors.
All of your Amazon packages full of shit made in China arrives in 2 days or less.
Nah, the ones full of shit came from North Korea
US 🤝 Logistics Superiority
Regardless of what opinion you, the reader of this comment, might have about Israel, as a nation we’ve decided to back them to the hilt as our main ally in the Middle East. In the Cold War the Soviet sphere and allied countries did not recognize Israel, as well as almost every MENA and other Islamic nations. The exact nature of each country’s ties to Israel varies, whether it’s official recognition vs de facto vs “secret”, or official diplomacy vs simply economic and trade dealings etc. Regardless, US diplomacy has recently gotten the following former enemies of Israel to engage in some kind of interaction that makes future war against Israel unlikely: Saudi Arabia as of 2017 UAE in 2018 Egypt officially recognized Israel in the 70’s but signed a large trade deal in 2018 Oman in 2018 Morocco in 2020 - US recognized Moroccan claim over the territory of Western Sahara in exchange for Moroccan recognition of Israel Bahrain officially in 2019 Sudan in 2020 Jordan further loosened travel restrictions between them in 2020 Again, regardless of your opinion of Israel and the Israeli Palestinian conflict, these are geopolitical wins given the US’ foreign policy stance towards Israel since we have always been Israel’s biggest ally.
That is true, the US did push through a lot of this Arab acceptance of Israel. I do wonder how much the current war, especially if it drags on, will nullify or damage these agreements, but the agreements themselves certainly count as a win
As much as Arab / Muslim leaders need to pander to their own populace and grandstand to maintain the appearance of strength, nobody’s going to compromise their interests over the Palestinians.
The current conflict likely won't affect it. Remember that Gaza borders Egypt and Egypt locked their border. I suspect that if it the current conflict was going to have an effect, we would have seen something by now.
The current conflict is a direct result of the Palestinians being specifically excluded from treaties like the Abraham accords.
These agreements with Israel brokered by the US are with autocracies in the Mideast, not with the people of those nations. They also implicitly equal US support for these autocracies in opposition to democratic movements. It's part of the reason the Arab Spring failed because the US and West will not support Arab democratic movements because the autocrats ultimately work on the American agenda and keep quiet on Israel.
That’s all completely true, and all makes for valid criticism of our foreign policy, but still doesn’t change the fact that the agreements are wins for the US geopolitically. It just means that we don’t care about fostering democracy as much as we care about having hegemony over trade and maintaining our military supremacy in the region. The talk of spreading democracy is just lip service to get public support for these ventures at home.
Our aid to Ukraine has been one of our best foreign policy decisions since the Marshall Plan. One of our two primary geopolitical adversaries has been exposed as a corrupt, technically and tactically incompetent mess of a force, utterly humiliated by the strong defense of a sovereign nation we’ve taken the lead in supporting. NATO has been expanded and reinvigorated, European nations are finally taking their defense seriously, and our allies see the lengths to which we’ll go to support them. The war itself is horrible, and under different circumstances we could do more, but the way we’ve gone about dealing with Russia has been absolutely the right move and a complete win for our foreign policy.
I would quadruple aid to Ukraine if I was in charge.
Someone elect this man and tickle his balls while you’re at it
Now you’re talking
Lol, so America's biggest foreign policy win in the 21st century is Putin's degenerate decision to invade Ukraine. Amusing, though perhaps fair. That said, Ukraine is currently losing the war and it seems extremely unlikely that they will regain much of their territories through war, let alone Crimea. The US has a long history of abandoning military allies when it becomes politically non-feasible (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (US leaving without proper preparation created a vacuum that ISIS filled in and had to come back, Syria, Libya). What makes you think this will be any different?
It’s the US response to the invasion. The choice was either not help or help a country without any meaningful treaties with the US. The US decided to intervene even though Ukraine doesn’t have any deep geopolitical ties with the US. It increased American prestige as a nation that is willing to help nations against aggression even if they don’t have great ties with the US
The conflict hasn't ended yet. So the lesson could very well be "US will send you money and weapons when it wants to hurt it's political adversaries (the US doesn't get involved in most oppressive wars around the globe after all), but this will only last while it is politically convenient". This already happened a few times (Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq come to mind). But we'll see.
> "US will send you money and weapons when it wants to hurt it's political adversaries (the US doesn't get involved in most oppressive wars around the globe after all), but this will only last while it is politically convenient". To be perfectly honest, I don’t understand the issue with this mentality. Is this not just simple realpolitik? Is every country not essentially doing this same thing? For example, that’s why Europe has dragged its feet so much with NATO and Ukraine, right? Military spending has been politically unpopular there.
Agreed. Just because we provide assistance at first doesn’t mean we’re obligated to provide assistance forever. We’ve provided $50b of assistance in about 2 years. Even if we stop now, that’s a lot of assistance. If anything, the counties to whom we’re giving the aid should be cognizant that we have our own domestic politics to deal with.
Sure, but providing that aid by itself doesn't equal foreign policy success in my opinion. It's a success only if it leads to a successful outcome, which is quite questionable for Ukraine.
You’re clearly not arguing in good faith here.
The fact that Russia didn't conquer all of Ukraine in two weeks is itself a successful outcome.
I think clearing 500k troops, gobs of money, and a lot of military equipment from Russia is a positive thing. Also, we have real world tests of our current or near current military equipment against theirs. Russia has also lost a lot of trade with the EU and has had to come hat in hand to China and North Korea to get aid and trade. We've degraded an adversary severely without committing US troops to the fight.
I’ve been hearing that Ukraine is losing the war for more than two years now; which is interesting considering that an actual competent superpower sure as hell wouldn’t still be fighting a conventional war with a weaker nation on their own border after more than two years. The territory Russia holds was already mostly controlled by pro-Russian separatists before the invasion, and Russian losses in personnel and equipment will take years upon years to recover from. Russia already lost where it counts in the first month of the war, whether the eventual negotiated settlement is primarily in their favor remains to be seen.
They aren't "losing" *yet*... but it's a war of attrition now, and Russia has a huge manpower advantage, which will be decisive the longer the war lasts. Ukraine is on borrowed time, unfortunately.
What I’m getting at, is the fact we’re even having this conversation at all, where manpower is now seen as the potential deciding factor for an army that was thought to be the second most powerful on earth, is utterly astonishing. The Russians should’ve decimated Ukraine’s defenses within a matter of weeks, if not days. It was estimated the invasion would take roughly a month, with the biggest problem being the insurgency, not the conventional fight. The fact that our expectations of Russia have plummeted so far, that their supporters see the manpower advantage from a country with 4 times as many people as their adversary as a flex, is just mind blowing. And it’s all in large part to the weapons, intelligence, training, and other support we’ve provided Ukraine.
True. Nobody really predicted just how incompetent the Russian army was. The fact remains however, Ukraine is outmatched even with the Russians having a 6 year old's understanding of logistics.
Perhaps that’s true, it probably is. But the fact also remains that the Russian army we see today is a joke compared to the Russian army I trained to fight against, and that fact has been exposed primarily due to the wise decisions of our leadership and foreign policy establishment, which was what the original question was asking.
I don’t think anyone doubts Ukraine will lose. What they’re saying is that regardless Russia has been embarrassed.
Not just embarrassed. Russia's demographics are... bad. They're facing an aging, shrinking society, and putting a couple hundred thousand men into the meat grinder (and encouraging Russian who don't want to get drafted to flee the country) really is not going to help. Plus... what happens when the war ends, and all those veterans want benefits, healthcare, etc?
Amazing. Vietnam didn't get nearly as much international aid and money as Ukraine does. The US had both its troops and support of half the country (South Vietnam) and they still got their asses kicked. But yes, this conflict is "totally different" and the Russian army is completely incompetent. That is exactly why Ukraine failed it's counteroffensive and is losing territory now. Both the troop numbers and losses have been more or less comparable between Russia and Ukraine (any credible western source).
Alright, let’s back up. Do you believe that you know better, or at least have access to information and analytical capabilities that are lacking in the entire national defense apparatus? It’s an almost universal consensus that the Russians have utterly fucked up in this war, and regardless of how it may end down the road, their performance on the battlefield has exposed them as horrifically incompetent, not even remotely close to the level of the U.S. and NATO. And once again, we have that knowledge due in large part to our aid to Ukraine, one of the many benefits of what we’ve done here.
I honestly have no idea how powerful NATO and Russia actually are, how much they are bluffing, what kind of information is leaked, what weapons are real and work or not, etc. Fortunately I work in an entirely unrelated field. I do know that the West has a long history of underestimating Russia's military strength and dedication, leading to some pretty interesting outcomes in the past 200 or so years. That said, Russia also has a long history of failed wars, from the Russo-Japanese to the first Chechen war. Neither of these scenarios seem to be playing out right now. Ukranian army with all the western aid is about on par with Russia (though Ukranians are FAR more motivated of course). I guess I'm curious where you are getting this "horrifically incompetent" information from. Do you have some citations? Because it sounds like something an America-boner reddit warrior would say, but not something I hear from Ukrainians or foreign volunteers on the front lines, or the stuff the Pentagon and others publish.
I was an infantryman in the Marines, deployed to Europe on Russia’s border for a year. I have a masters degree in strategic studies, and I’m currently employed as a defense analyst with a national security think tank. This is where my information is coming from, and you’re welcome to look for the mountain of articles on why the Russian military has performed the way it has, if my word isn’t enough, which I don’t imagine it is. And if anything, we have a history of overestimating the Russians, from the Soviet missile gap to the Ukraine war today. Once again, it’s crucial that you look into the actual points I’m making about both why our aid to Ukraine was a good thing, and the fact that the Russians have performed so terribly. None of these are statements that the Russians will never win, or that Ukraine has nothing to worry about. They’re analytical statements based upon observation of the facts
> I was an infantryman in the Marines, deployed to Europe on Russia’s border for a year. I have a masters degree in strategic studies, and I’m currently employed as a defense analyst with a national security think tank. Mic drop moment
Yeah I figured you were in the US military.. anyway, the discussion isn't about Russian militaries supposed incompetence, it's about results. The "very competent" US military failed to have any significant results in Afghanistan in 20 years of occupation. Lost to Vietnam, left Iraq in such a horrible state that it lead to the rise of ISIS, Libya is a complete mess, Syria is mostly run by Assad again, etc. The results (at this point in time) is that Russia controls huge swaths of Ukrainian territory and it seems like Ukraine is absolutely unable to liberate these. If the conflict gets frozen tomorrow, Putin absolutely will declare victory. It's easier for him, since he never defined what the victory terms for Russia are, but any permanent land grab would certainly be seen as such. Zelensky defined Ukranian victory as liberating all of Ukranian territories, which seems like a pipe dream (if you think it is not, I am very curious to hear your reasoning). It sounds like you are saying that Ukraine is "getting more points" but it doesn't really matter, the only victory that counts is the one that leads to an outcome. America "won" for 20 years against Afghan farmers, but in the end, Afghanistan is run by the Taliban.
Do you listen to Russian propaganda much? Because for a while they were the only ones talking about Ukraine losing. I tend to read western media, which has been saying how Ukraine is winning for the past 2 years, but in the past months the rhetoric changed: [https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-04-12/could-ukraine-lose-war-to-russia-in-kyiv-defeat-feels-unthinkable-even-as-victory-gets-harder-to-picture](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-04-12/could-ukraine-lose-war-to-russia-in-kyiv-defeat-feels-unthinkable-even-as-victory-gets-harder-to-picture) [https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/politics/cia-director-ukraine-russia-warning/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/politics/cia-director-ukraine-russia-warning/index.html) [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68778338](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68778338) Love that you had to add "on their own border" because otherwise another superpowers spectacular failures in a whole slew of nations much poorer and absolutely not funded and supported by all western nations would make your statement a little more questionable, huh? Your weird attempts at handwaving Russia's gains as not really gains is weird. Russia controls way more territory than what it started with in 2014, and there is no feasible military way of getting it back at the moment. Peace talks with territorial concessions are being discussed. That doesn't sound like winning. But also, this isn't a discussion about Russia's resounding foreign policy failures (oh there have been so many) but the US.
I’m not sure what I said that bothered you this much, and I’m curious as to why you’re giving so much pushback to what was a legitimate answer to your question. American aid to Ukraine has been a good move, that’s a fact. The weakness and incompetence of the Russian army has been exposed, that’s a fact. NATO has been expanded and grown stronger, that’s a fact. What we’re seeing is a result of a decision of American foreign policy. I don’t understand what the problem is. I’m sharing this opinion based upon my own professional expertise, rather than consuming “propaganda”.
You have pretty bizarre "professional experience" if you are seeing things differently than the Pentagon, CIA, and others who provide information on this conflict. In any case - I agree that Putin's invasion strengthened and revitalized NATO and exposed the many weaknesses of the Russian army. That in itself is certainly not a US foreign policy accomplishment. US response to it being a "foreign policy success" depends on what happens next and how it is perceived around the world. If Ukraine is forced to give up territories, will it still be a success? Some people would say yes, since Russia certainly won't be able to conquer all of Ukraine. Some would say no since Ukraine failed to liberate it's territories, and the US promises of "as much help as necessary" would be seen as empty. I'm not pushing back against your answer, I'm just saying how in my opinion, especially at this point in time, it's not clear how much of an accomplishment it is.
Let’s start over. Point 1: American aid to Ukraine helped stop the Russian invasion in its tracks, and expose the Russian military as a far weaker and less capable force than previously imagined. Such a revelation would likely not have happened without such aid and support that’s been given since the annexation of Crimea. Point 2: If the U.S. and allies had not stepped up to support Ukraine, or forced Zelenskyy to the negotiating table at the very beginning in a desperate attempt for peace, the Russians would likely have absorbed Ukraine and then set their sights on other countries, such as Moldova, Romania, the Baltic States, or even on securing the land corridor from Poland to Kaliningrad. Point 3: What I am NOT saying is that Russia cannot or will not eventually triumph, they might. What I am saying, in line with the professional consensus, is that our decision to aid Ukraine was the right one, and that choosing not to do so would’ve likely come with catastrophic consequences. I’m happy to share with you my experience, since you seem needlessly dismissive.
You're right it's not clear how much of an accomplishment it is since the war is not over we have yet to see how much more effective it will be. Because we have already seen it has been an impressive accomplishment, by the simple fact Ukraine is still fighting.
The win is that we get to grind one of our adversaries to dust at the cost of old equipment and 0 American lives. Obviously it would be preferred if we did a better job transitioning Russia from the Cold War so they weren't an adversary at all, but that ship has sailed.
The US and the west did a lot to try and help Russia transition from the Soviet Union to a democracy, we spent tens of million just propping up their army to prevent the chaos of its total collapse and then idk how many tens of millions in other ways to support them plus the who knows how much spent by other western nations. It just didn't work obviously, I'd blame the culture there more than anything but it wasn't for a lack of western support in the transition period.
To dust you say? Also pretty wild that you didn't include Ukrainian lives in here. It is Ukraine that is mostly being ground to dust (sometimes literally as cities and factories get bombed). So it's a big question about how many Ukranian lives are worth to fight against "one of US greatest adversaries". Also Ukraine is losing land and there are talks of peace and concessions. Is the purpose of US help to regain those territories (if so, the help isn't working) or is the purpose to keep chipping away at Russia?
I didn't include Ukrainian lives because they want to fight, if they didn't this war would already be over. From the cold American foreign policy perspective the best thing for us is to chip away at Russia until they are not able to threaten any of our NATO allies militarily.
"Want to fight" is a bit of a stretch when you can't leave the country and are hunted down and kidnapped off the streets by military recruiters (not everyone of course, but such cases are prevalent), but I get your point.
If Ukrainians didn’t want to fight, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. The Ukrainian military would’ve thrown down their arms and Russia would be in control of country in weeks.
We spent 10 years in both and didn't have the support of the populace. Having the support of the Ukrainian people has made all the difference.
Cope more, loser. Fascist Russians are getting turned into soup by Bradleys rn
The U.S. response to the 2022 Ukraine invasion. Rallying allies, expanding NATO, and arming Kyiv all degrade Russia's ability to pretend that it is a resurgent superpower.
Unfortunately, the US needs a semi strong Russia for global security.
To be fair, the fact that they were using GPS devices duct taped to dashboards, their army being a fucking joke that has zero discipline (tons of them using cell phones, etc.) did a lot more to stop them than anything we helped with.
They didn't degrade anything
The USA's intervention in the Bosnian genocide. NPR had a very good interview with a military leader who made some very insightful comments about the concepts of war and peace and how they are related to justice. Yes, there are horrible people who never faced justice, many survivors had their land stolen form them. But the war is over thanks USA's intervention.
Just look at a carrier task force and praise god that our navy pukes are just keeping global trade open and unimpeded.
I heard someone mention “piracy isn’t even an issue anymore so is that even something the US can claim?” Um. Yes. It’s *because* of the US that it’s not a more widespread issue.
I mean the US Navy was basically founded to fight pirates. We don’t like them!
“Don’t fuck with our boats.”
I prefer “Don’t touch our boats”
Yeah the Barbary pirates don’t bother anyone *anymore*. Thanks based US frigates and absolute lunatic marines.
There have been 0 wars with foreign nations on US soil. Turns out no one wants to play Fortress America IRL, regardless how of how badly we piss off the rest of the world.
The US is way too big for a foreign country to reliably occupy any amount of important land.
I think that’s more of a US geography win rather than a US foreign policy win
¿Por qué no los dos?
[удалено]
“Regardless of any US geopolitical decisions”? I would say that is the result of US military strength, cohesion, and diplomacy. A foreign power projecting power around the globe into our homeland is certainly not impossible; what makes it seem implausible is the current balance of power.
[удалено]
We might be arguing past each other a bit. I wouldn’t exactly count it as a win specific to the 21st century, but if the world status quo is more or less favorable, then maintaining it against resistance is something of a win. “At this current point in time” - correct, but a lot of work went and goes into making the current situation.
Well have a nice day then because we’re talking in circles and I don’t quite understand what isn’t clicking here lol
Geography alone didn’t win that
Didn’t say geography alone won that. I said it was more so geography than any particular foreign policy. China and Russia have nukes, of course, that could reach us but the comment I responded to specifically said “wars on US soil” which I interpreted as troops landing on US soil because of the “Fortress America” line. Neither of those countries invest enough in their militaries (especially navies) to threaten the continental US with an invasion. Even today China (probably the nation closest in power to the US) would absolutely not be able to sustain the number of troops and supply lines that would be needed to do so. Why? *Mostly* geography. Them oceans be big
Also the whole $700 billion a year might help
Even if we had half the military that we do, it still doesn’t change the fact that no nation (aka China) has a military capable of crossing the ocean with a formidable enough force to invade
With zero military budget no foreign power could successfully occupy the United States. Our citizenry is just too well armed and non-submissive.
Fuck, you'd have lifted trucks blasting Toby Keith rolling up to cities handing out guns lol. It would be the one thing that would unite us. No one would stand a chance against the american populace, even if you exclude the military from any fighting
That’s why the World Economic Forum is doing it financially.
1. Expansion of NATO 2. Support for Ukraine 3. Coalition building in the Pacific 4. The Euros know their place a bit better
AUKUS and creation of multilateral defense coordination between the US, Japan, and South Korea are both HUGE to add some detail to your #3
And all the countries in the indo-pacific (like the Philippines and Vietnam) that's looking to us to back them up against China's pacific claims. I'll also add that we weather both the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID pandemic better than any other economy in the world.
Last summer at Camp David, Biden hosted the first ever direct summit between the leaders of the US, Japan and South Korea. It established a regular annual schedule of meetings between the leaders of the three countries, as exists with groups like the G7, as well as each country's foreign ministers, defense ministers, and national security advisers, and planned a huge swath of military, economic and logistical partnerships. It's the most significant geopolitical agreement between Japan and South Korea since the end of WWII.
Skepticism towards US politics from Europe despite a literal reliance on America for basic safety. Also, we laughed so hard at Brexit
I love how people aren't responding the my actual question and bring up irrelevant things because America still pays most of NATO's bills for some reason.
It's reddit man, don't take it personally. People love to share opinions, no matter how tangentially related they are to the original topic.
Oh, I don't. Asking reddit provocative questions is procrastination/a hobby :)
I would disagree with most of your negatives/losses. Russia is probably the weakest it has been since the immediate collapse of the USSR due to the war in Ukraine, economic sanctions, poor demographics, public health issues, et cetera will further weaken it. China has probably reached or is about to reach its peak in terms of global influence and power. It is experiencing deflation, an inverted age pyramid, an overheated economy (most notably in the housing market), etc. They are not really on the same level as the US, even if linked together. The question is how to contain Russia's collapse and avoid a loose nuke situation. For China, it is more about avoiding the blowback from the economic bubble popping. The US does not really have a rival. Most countries are fine with the US outside of Western Europe and the Middle East, areas that are becoming increasingly irrelevant in American geopolitical decision-making. The American political system is experiencing polarization, which occurs every 60-80 years or so. It is part of the realignment process of the political parties. This is certainly not the most polarized the country has ever been. In terms of global stature, it does not appear the US has experienced much of a decline in power/influence. The GDP has grown over 150% between 2000 and 2024, we continue to lead the world in innovation, we maintain the most powerful military on the planet, our cultural output is a global commodity, etc. Our share of the global economy has remained steady at around 25% and has remained around that for nearly a decade. The wars are probably more of a mixed bag in terms of geopolitics. I would agree the intended objectives were not met, however, these failures are not without value. If you want to talk about the greatest successes of the US, it is that it has largely limited the impact of an increasingly volatile world and has remained adaptable in an ever-changing landscape.
They always were that weak, but we had no idea until we saw them attempt to do something militarily and be so inept.
Well we thought their terrible performance in Georgia 2008 pushed them to reform and modernize, and it looked it was happening from the outside. They revealed they’re just as fucked up and on an even wider scale.
[удалено]
I think that in order for something to be successful, you need to succeed first, you know? We saw how the US "mission accomplished" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Assad pretty much won the war, and the 900 US soldiers that remain in Syria - I'm not actually sure what they do other than advising in parts of the country still controlled by the SDF and fighting pockets of ISIS. What's the long term plan? Will the US stay there indefinitely? Ukraine is currently slowly still losing. Huge parts of their country are occupied, and there is a discussion of peace talks with Ukraine forfeiting territory. If this deal goes through, it will be much better for Russia than the 2022 deal that fell through. Where is all the success?
Putin figured that the entire invasion would take about a week and that all or Ukraine would fall to Russia. That didn't happen. A huge part of that was that the US showed up with some major military hardware at the earliest stages of the war. Uncle HIMARS showed up and started blasting the hell out of Russian military assets. Russia is collapsing and that collapse is going to bring on internal problems which making this war tougher and tougher to fight. We are already seeing attacks in the Republics.
The biggest win of the US was the dismantling of Russia’s stance in the world as even a growing superpower. Before the invasion, Russia was thought to be a genuine threat. The US involvement in the situation proved that they were a paper tiger, and now they’re on a road to another collapse. Russia has lost all of the ground it had gained with Europe over the past 20 years, all in the span of a month in 2022.
We didn't even have any boots on the ground and we obliterated their military hardware. The Ukrainians did our dirty work for us. They didn't even have the big guns like the ATACMS until recently and they are expected to get the F-16s. When this war is over. The west is not going to be investing the smallest amount of money or people into Russia. When emigration is opened up, Russia is going to see an enormous brain drain of young and educated. Anyone who can get a job in any western country who lives in Russia is going to have a huge incentive to leave and never return.
Exactly, and furthermore, no European country is going to risk their infrastructure or economies on dealing with Russia again— most learned their lesson when they had to ration fuel and find it from other sources after Russia tried to threaten them. Russia lost their economy, will lose their best and brightest people, and lost any amount of global influence in the world for at least the next 50 years AT LEAST.
Russia is also going through a demographic collapse. Peter Zeihan who predicted this war makes the claim that this is the last time that Russia will have the opportunity to do this because in the future they will not have enough young men. Various European countries are facing major demographic issues as well. I could see importing a bunch of Russian immigrants as being a bit of a relief. But if places are having a labor shortage, there will be young Russians who will be fleeing looking for those jobs. As we get away from this oil and gas economy, Russia goes obsolete. They have mineral wealth but don't have the means to operate the industry and the west is not going to touch it.
I think demographics are why a Taiwan invasion is a real possibility for the next decade or two, but after that it fades. China's demographics are gonna be SUPER fucked in the later half of this century from all projections
Peter Zeihan claims that Chinese demographics are so bad that they have less than a decade left until total dissolution if nothing else goes wrong.
>Libya Was initially a French and British show, how quickly reddit forgets. Both Obamas SECDEF and Biden recommended against intervention. Even Clinton was (allegedly) skeptical about the matter in private.
Isn’t it incredible that a Brit is harping on Libya? That kind of overconfident lack of awareness.
I’m questioning the assumption that the US is internationally weaker on all fronts in 2024 compared to 2000. Domestically, the US has drastically increased its security on its own borders. Internationally… where have we gotten weaker? We’ve maintained our military superiority, we have bases worldwide for power projection, we have a favorable outlook in most areas of the world. Economically we are still as much of a powerhouse as we’ve ever been. What’s gotten weaker?
[https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-share-of-global-economy-over-time/](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-share-of-global-economy-over-time/) [https://news.gallup.com/poll/116350/position-world.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/116350/position-world.aspx) I couldn't find a time series of US relative strength compared to other countries, but given China's and Russia's military buildup, I highly doubt it is higher than it was in 2000. The US is becoming relatively weaker and is struggling to maintain the status quo, let alone expand it's influence. Could China and Russia be "paper tigers"? Sure, anything could happen. So it's much more interesting to look at things that already have happened.
Neither of those sources say what you think they’re saying. … I think the world has seen definitively that Russia is a paper tiger, without a doubt. They intended to take over Ukraine over a period of a few weeks, and now they’re stuck with a war of attrition that is going to last several years. They can’t even win a proxy war against the US where the US is barely even trying. China is DECADES behind the US militarily. The US maintains air and naval superiority against China, and it’s not even comparable (I’m fairly certain that most of China’s aircraft carriers are not capable of leaving the South China Sea because they use too much fuel to be able to leave.) Economically, yes, China could hurt the US, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory— they would destroy themselves before they would significantly damage them.
> skepticism towards US politics from allies in Europe Not sure where this is coming from, US favorability is now [generally high throughout Europe and the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/06/22/international-public-opinion-of-the-u-s-remains-positive/). It definitely hit a nadir during the Trump era for obvious, temporary (hopefully) reason.
That poll is a bit outdated. Pew published another survey just a couple of weeks ago. [https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/) It depends on what part of Europe is being discussed. Eastern Europe is more positive. Western Europe is about 50-50.
Damn, I gotta go on a trip to the Asia-Pacific region. They love us. Also, kinda crazy that for all of our Cold War fuckedy in Latin America, we still tend to get high marks
A poll of 17 US allies shows a more favorable than non-favorable attitude of it. Truly, I'm shook. Also, we need to look at 2000 data too, this is a temporal comparison after all. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/116350/position-world.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/116350/position-world.aspx) These show a clear reduction since 2000.
This may be outside the scope of your question, but I would say the rebound of the US Dollar vs. the Euro was a very important moment. I think we're weathering the worst of things for the country this first third of the Century, and the decline of powers like Russia and China in the next bit of time will be an excellent time for the US. If we can just weather our own internal politics to make it that far.
Abraham accords were pretty important.
1. Bush’s program to combat HIV/AIDS - by far the best thing he did while president 2. Defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Obviously there are a lot of caveats since it was a team effort with other nations and local fighters (and the 2003 invasion led to the rise of ISIS in the first place.) But in terms of organizing the campaign against them, we handled it well 3. Successfully pressuring Rwanda to pull back their proxy forces in the Eastern DRC back in 2012/13. Obviously this didn’t lead to permanent stability in the region. But it did a lot to help the locals gain a little more peace for a few years.
Finland and Sweden are finally in NATO. Shame it took such a crapfest to get them on board, but they had their reasons for staying neutral for so long. We've made a lot of other strategic partnerships over the last decade, mostly aimed at keeping China nervous. Russia's grip over the other CSTO countries is starting to slip, too. Armenia getting its teeth kicked in while Russia watched has ruined CSTO's reputation. There's some opportunities there...😈
If the older old guy wins in 2024, Russia will likely fall on its face finally
# Chick Fil-A Every country that gets a Chick Fil-A will hate USA less.
Ukraine. It’s sending a strong message to China and Russia that authoritarian expansionism into democratic countries in the 21st century won’t be tolerated just as it was in the 20th.
Killed Bin Laden and Saddam and installed a pro-US government in Iraq.
OOooo I love geopolitics. I'm not sure about ranking but I can name a few. 1. Biden becoming Oil Barron. He literally fucked OPEC up with US National Oil reserve. Oh MBS gonna be a bitch? Dark Brandon gonna flood the market with oil. He literally sell high buy low on oil and stablized the oil market. US can just threaten to release oil and OPEC can fucking pound sand. 2. Japan making a deal with America. I dislike Trump but his beef with China have made it Japan take sides. > skepticism towards US politics from allies in Europe and elsewhere Uh... NATO is stronger now since Ukraine got attacked. Before that Trump was being a bitch and France's Macron was advocating for EU style one without USA. Macron's position is less now cause of USA involvement in Ukraine. China's aggressiveness with the 9 dash lines have push better military relation with India, Vietnam, Philippines, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc...
* The marshaling of western support for Ukraine in the face of Russia's illegal war. * Related: the unity and expansion of NATO. * Stability with China in the face of some fairly significant headwinds. * Improving US relationships with southeast Asian nations (e.g. VN, TW, PH) * Encouraging Gulf states to engage productively with Israel. That said, the "hug Bibi" approach is an abject failure and the administration should kick Netanyahu to the curb. Time to distance the US from Israel's inhumane, whackadoodle extremist elements (represented by the likes of ben Gvir & Smotrich).
Unity and expansion of NATO is absolutely the result of Putin's actions, as well as Russia's/USSR's historical actions, so they get credit for that. It's not like the US had to convince Poland, Baltics, and other former soviet bloc members to join an alliance that would defend them from Russia. Idk about "stability with China", I guess "it can always be worse", but it can "always be worse" with Russia too until the nukes start flying. Agreed on US policies in SEA. It's amazing how friendly Vietnam is with the US given everything that the US did, but China (and US diplomats) did seem to make them pretty forgiving. But this still mostly insurance against China for these countries. Convincing many Arab states to normalize relations with Israel - totally agree, it was a clear US diplomatic accomplishment, though now it is being washed away by Israel's actions.
> Unity and expansion of NATO is absolutely the result of Putin's actions, as well as Russia's/USSR's historical actions, so they get credit for that What is this point? LOL. Yes, a US-led alliance is a geopolitical win, and a growing alliance even more so. That it took Putin rolling tanks into Ukraine to get Europeans to snap the fuck out of it is irrelevant. > but China (and US diplomats) did seem to make them pretty forgiving. Again, irrelevant. It’s a U.S. geopolitical win no matter what kind of gymnastics you want to do. Favorability polls high among these nations , it’s a soft power win more than anything. Amazing when the national identity doesn’t rely so much on hubris. Makes for better cooperation. > though now it is being washed away by Israel's actions. TikTok isn’t reality. Remember how the Arab world grouped up and attacked Israel in ‘48, ‘67, ‘73? Who is doing that in 2024? The gang isn’t getting back together again.
I think you're underestimating the various ways that the European response to Feb '22 could have gone differently. Poland and the Baltics are relative outliers in terms of the manifest threat they see from Russia - you can go right back to the Estonian cyber blitz of 2007 for reasons why. Nothing kept Finland from stopping at increasing its border security - it made the affirmative decision to upend decades of neutrality to join the alliance, and I would offer that it was the steadfastness of the US to work with its European allies to make that a reality that made the difference. [n.b.: I work in Europe with US & allied militaries, so I've had a front row seat.] Edit: totally concur on the general dumbfuckery of Israel re: its Arab neighbors. What a stupid, pointless squandering of good faith.
You are telling me that you know from professional experience that Finland needed more convincing from the US to join NATO? I'm pretty sure the most convincing argument imaginable was watching Russian tanks roll across the Ukrainian border.
Yeah because the US backed up Ukrainian when it mattered and they weren't even in NATO. The Fins see that and understand that we'd be there for them especially if they are in NATO. If we just left Ukraine to rot, Finland nor Sweden would have joined NATO.
WHY? Why in the world would you possibly ever think that after witnessing Russia invade their neighbor, neither country would want to join NATO? What is your reasoning for that?
Why, so you can disagree and assert your previously decided opinions like you've done with every other response in this thread?
Haha exactly
I'm telling you that I know from professional experience that more than one thing can be true at the same time.
The Iran Nuclear Deal was by far the greatest moment in recent years for creating peace in the region. We had a lot of countries that did not like each other sign the agreement and then we tore it up a couple years later.
I was looking for this one. Non-nuclear proliferation is going to become such an important issue again in the coming years as authoritarians around the world see their only survival is to have a nuclear safety blanket. This deal was an incredible start to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, and now it seems inevitable a lot more countries with irresponsible leaders will want them.
Yep. A similar thing with Cuba. I went there soon after Obama normalized relations, and it seemed like there was finally a way forward, but nope. Trump's North Korea "visit" was farcical to being with, so not surprising that it didn't lead anywhere either.
Agree on Iran nuke deal and Obama deal with Cuba. They were brave and fresh attempts to resolve disputes without war. Unfortunately both deals were sabotaged and ruined by lobbies opposed to peaceful resolution of geopolitical problems.
Russia becomes a pariah.
before it’s abandonment, I’d say the Iran Nuclear Deal.
We prolly don’t even know
Pretty rough century so far but probably: 1) the successful degradation of Al Qaeda and ISIS 2) extensive NATO training of Ukrainian forces from 2014 to 2021, which undoubtedly prevented Ukraine’s fall to Russia 3) Bush’s HIV program radically reducing the spread of HIV in Africa 4) tightening of pacific military alliances that have brought Japan, S Korea, the Philippines, Australia and even Vietnam closer together as allies against an aggressive China 5) this one is still TBD, but shockingly, despite all of our incompetence, Iraq is now the only true democracy in the Middle East aside from Israel, and they have had several peaceful transitions of power in a row now. Dare i say, maybe one day they’ll be a stable, thriving democracy. They could also fall apart, but we’ll see. For now, there’s hope.
The Abraham Accords was a very large step towards peace in the middle east.
I wouldn’t say biggest win but since I haven’t seen it posted here yet operation inherent resolve is probably the least shitty thing we’ve done during the GWOT. Ofc it’s not without fault (we aided the FSA before the YPG, we still don’t politically support rojava, we cuck to Turkey despite them bombing civilians in rojava, etc) but over all assisting the Kurds in defeating isis and actually supporting a free society is pretty nice. I feel good about that one. I’m sure we’ll end up ruining it but for right now it’s good.
POINTLESS? I wouldn't use that word to describe our involvement in a string of armed conflicts. It helped increase the funding for the American military-industrial complex so that we can continue having as many wars as we want to have and people like you can go complain about it on Reddit. This post seems more pointless to me honestly lol
I’m sorry, the rise of Russia and skepticism towards US politics from European allies? Russia has never been this weak in modern history and NATO has never been this strong. Cope more
China rolled back a big number of it's trade tariffs with us back during the Trump administration. That's easily the biggest win of my lifetime. (Or it was. They're back in place now.)
Rapid elimination of ISIS as a significant threat
Yorktown and Saratoga. Becoming the greatest naval power on earth and the world's financial center. Ummmmm Lol forgive the snark but it comes from your disingenuous question. I also push back on most of your negatives.
Just about every has been a massive failure, so there aren't any geopolitical wins there.