Shadow_Ro said:
annakey said:
I welcome a more self-confident, assertive Kremlin to counter-balance the Pentagon.
Exactly how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
Since the Berlin wall collapsed, and particularly since 9/11, the US as sole superpower has been free to bully it's way across the globe. The neocons wrap it up in highfalutin language - full spectrum dominance - but they mean, basically, the perceived right of US corporations to secure resources anywhere in the world without interference, which they can buy cheap and sell expensive, backed by military force should anyone decline to cooperate, e.g. Sadam, in key areas e.g. oil.
I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on bullies, those who believe might = right. Free marketers - up to and including libertarian capitalists or market anarchists (of whom there are a number on this site) - should agree with me that the free market - global free trade - is skewed if one power infects world markets in this manner.
The obvious answer is for another power: aggressive, nuclear-tipped, occupying a large land mass, to stick two fingers up at the US and demand that interests other than those of US citizens are also taken into account when carving up world resources.
As the US is a bully, raw force will be required to make the US start co-operating with the rest of the globe - acting mulilaterally not unilaterally - and in a civilized manner. Russia, with its historic cold war enmity towards the US, is the obvious choice for such a role. Id certainly prefer Russia did it rather than China, while the EU (my first choice) still has no unified military command structure with control of nuclear weapons.
So, to answer your question directly:
how would the Kremlin 'counter-balance' the Pentagon in a way that could be considered remotely beneficial for the rest of the world?
1. Bringing a bully to heal. Replacing the doctrine of Might = Right with Might = Justice.
2. Establishing a level playing field in world markets, e.g. re-introducing, as far as possible, free trade.
Which of those objectives do you find offensive? Do you favour bullies or mafia-type world trade practices?