Biden's Foreign Policy Direction

My basic belief about foreign policy for this period of history is that we should have a Realpolitik foreign policy agenda. That makes more sense than a moralistic one. Although I wouldn’t have called Trump a deep thinker of foreign policy, his instincts were of the Realpolitik variety; American interests should be the basis of prioritizing foreign policy goals. In other words, America first.

The establishment, the media, and the Democrats (all the same thing) hated that, and they couldn’t wait to turn the foreign policy direction of the United States around once they had a Democrat in charge. So, most of the old Obama hands are back in some capacity or other, doing what they do best, creating worldwide chaos.

As an example, a Realpolitik foreign policy wouldn’t be interested in lengthening the war, or getting involved in it. If anything, it would be interested in calming things down. Maybe by trying to negotiate a cease fire. What has the Biden Administration been doing? According to The Washington Post:

“Communications between the United States and Russia have been much more sparse since the war began last month. The U.S. ambassador to Russia, John J. Sullivan, has met with Russian officials most frequently with on and off visits and calls in Moscow. President Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, spoke to his counterpart, Nikolay Patrushev, last week for the first time since the start of the conflict. Some U.S. and Russian military officials met last week at the Russian Ministry of Defense, CNN first reported.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has not attempted any conversations with his counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, since the start of the conflict, according to U.S. officials.”

It’s almost unbelievable that during a European war, the Secretary of State would seem to have zero interest in communicating with Russian Foreign Minister. This would be a major scandal of course if the President had an R by his name, but that’s not even the point. This seems intentional, as was noted in The New York Times:

“The White House will commit no American or NATO planes to the skies above Ukraine, a move American officials fear could risk turning a regional war into a global conflagration, but it is providing Ukraine with missiles that could accomplish the same task of destroying Russian aircraft.

Such is the tenuous balance the Biden administration has tried to maintain as it seeks to help Ukraine lock Russia in a quagmire without inciting a broader conflict with a nuclear-armed adversary or cutting off potential paths to de-escalation.“

Uh OK…how does that serve the United States to keep the “Russia in a quagmire?” That means continuing the war. Why is it in our interest to keep the war going, while costing thousands of lives? Simply to “own” Putin?

Yeah. Under the “moralistic” type of foreign policy the United States is practicing, Putin is a bad guy, he’s evil, he’s Hitler II, heck he’s Hitler I. Therefore, we have to “get him.”

This leads up to idiocy like this:

“Speaking in Warsaw, Poland, on Saturday, President Biden said of Russian President Vladimir Putin: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.””

This sounds like regime change to international ears, and I’ve no doubt that’s how it sounded to Putin’s ears. How are you going to negotiate with a man that you’ve targeted? Yes, yes, I know the White House has walked this back. Given how often the White House has to walk back Biden’s statements, they no doubt have a whole system set up to roll them out almost as soon as Biden flaps his aged gums. But who doubts this doesn’t represent the planning in the White House and the State Department? They think it’s within their prevue and power to replace the leader of a nuclear power.

A most dangerous game.

The truth is that replacing dictators and then waiting for democracy™ to flourish has a bad track record, but if you operate from a moralistic view of foreign policy, you don’t care about either track records or consequences, you just want to get the bad guy, no matter the cost.

The truth is most of the world isn’t made for democracy and I wouldn’t bet that it has much of a future in the US, but that’s why we need to learn to live with these “evil” dictators. They will still be around long after we’re gone. We need to dump our current foreign policy direction and go back to Realpolitik. Sure, we had bad tweets, but no wars.

 

No doubt about it. That was literally one of the worst things a president could say in this situation. At least the guy's not a socialist right Democrats?

 

Well said.

 

You understand, though, that the reason why we hated that is that it's a fascist slogan, right? And, the worse part, is that it was used by Trump who actually IS a fascist.

I think that, as a matter of policy, we should always place the interest of America before others. But using that as a public policy statement is reminiscent of fascism. And for very good reasons. Because sometimes it's in the nation's best interest to put our immediate interest on hold, for example, in exchange for long-term gains. Trump had no vision whatsoever of "long-term" beyond his personal interests. Which didn't extend beyond his presidency. But America will keep being America after Trump is long gone.

So that's what we didn't like.

 

Well if that's why you guys didn't like it, that's an almost childish reason. "Fascism" isn't really a thing, at least how it was defined in the 20th Century. It's simply a pejorative for something you don't like. I would hope you guys would have a reason, a better one, than simple name calling.

But you don't.

 

Oh my! I'm afraid fascism is a real thing. It refers to excessive nationalism. Typically accompanied by racism.

I think it was very relevant that you understood this before opening a thread like this one. Especially how this relates, but is different from what you described. Calling somebody "fascist" is not name calling. It's the name of an actual philosophy which is usually associated with politicians, and not necessarily with their followers. Followers of fascism are typically victims of fascist politicians.

 

Nope.

You said, "I think that, as a matter of policy, we should always place the interest of America before others. But using that as a public policy statement is reminiscent of fascism."

In other words, you support this policy unless you call it by this name from this guy. It's simply childish.

 

A U.S. president restoring the nation's primacy as leader of the free world is a good thing. He was clearly correct in his assessment that NATO is not "obsolete."

Trump is right -- NATO is obsolete, and he's delivering that message loud and clear.
FOX NEWS
July 10, 2018

​

Has the President's unification of democratic forces and deft diplomacy pressured Putin into abandoning his wet dream of the exhumation of the interred USSR?

Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks: Russia Willing To Let Ukraine Join EU If It Stays Out Of NATO, Report Says
​

Let's hope so.
​

 

No! If you continued reading you will have noted the distinction. Putting the interest of the country before that of others is always implicit in any negotiation. You don't even need to say it, unless you either think the people you are talking to are brain dead, or because you think saying it as if it were a "thing" would earn you votes (i.e. fascist demagoguery). The only thing your are saying is that you won't compromise. And compromising is necessary when the benefits you wish to attain are long term. This is called excessive nationalism. i.e. "fascism"

 

Not compromising means fascism? That's an absurd definition. What textbook did you get that from?

 

A great many countries in the world including the EU all have democracy.

 

BINGO! That is EXACTLY what fascism is. Excessive nationalism demands zero compromise.

That's what a slogan like "America First" means when coming from fascists.

 

Wow, that's total gibberish. And off the topic gibberish as well.