Comment by embedding-shape
2 days ago
> No. You can hate both. But sometimes, rejecting A implicitly means causing B. In this case, rejecting a world police means–ceteris paribus–incentivizing realpolitik.
Yeah, I think this is the core of our disagreement. Maybe my view of the world isn't US-centric enough, but I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing China or Russia to suddenly want their own version of Pax Americana played out. But I do know this is a really common view in the US, so I won't really attempt to convince you otherwise, I think it's at this point we just agree to disagree.
> I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing China or Russia to suddenly want their own version of Pax Americana played out
They don’t. The Pax is expensive to maintain. They want their spheres of influence. Same as America’s elites. Same as India’s, Iran’s, Israel’s, Turkey’s, et cetera.
There is no indication Russia or China want to be world cops. But they—and many others, including America—do want to dominate their neighbours in ways that are restricted by the rules-based international order.
> I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing
Unless you’re voting in a small handful of European countries, you probably aren’t causing or restraining much in this theatre. (I’m in a single-party state in America. I’m not influencing this through my vote either.)