YMix wrote:Parodite wrote:YMIX.. no clue what you are alluding to. If sponsoring NGO pro-democracy human rights groups in Russia translates to you as "f*cking" with Russians.. then I only hope the f*cking will continue forever.
I would agree with you if Washington was interested in actual democracy.
So you think Washington isn't.. why?
I think Washington, and the US public in general, is very much interested in promoting (and protecting) democracy and human rights in the world wherever they can. That they often do a poor job, failing to achieve their objectives.. is an issue that deserves attention.
US foreign policy I think usually is well intended, not just using democracy a cheap selling point. However, when they drive the car.. more people with
different interests, i.e. not primarily promoting democracy, jump on the bandwagon too. They rather have a business interest.. making money one way or other. They not oppose democracy; more likely they don't care that much, if at all. After all, money can be made on everything. If the US succeeds somewhere in promoting democracy.. they will see opportunities to make money. If however the US fails promoting democracy.. they will still look for opportunity under the changed circumstances.
Given the reality that votes are bought by dollars in the US.. the power and influence of a-moral money making can't be underestimated. However, there are more people on that bandwagon that are not business people. They are
advisors to the presidency..but with way too little understanding of the realities that the US wants to operate in abroad. Badly informed, misinformed. Amateurs unable to read the map correctly, responsibly. They can advise the POTUS to engage in military adventures where the outcomes are totally different from the predicted, hoped for. No need to mention examples of these failures.
It seems to me that the US is adapting to this reality, in that it discovered it cannot do as much in the world as it hoped. It is, in fact, not the super power that it wants to be, and cannot be! So most likely the US will want to play a more modest role in the world, certainly militarily. At the same time, there are "American Century" cracks who still seem unable to learn. They may have come to conclude that you can't create an empire anymore with mere military force, but that money can still buy you a lot of influence and power, strengthen your strategic position in the geo-political game. Their game is money, influence, bribery. Whether this is pure bad or not, depends on the question if paralel to their questionable strategies.. they truly also want to invest in democracy or.. if they are cynically ok with propping up just another oligarch.