Zionism is supported by Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists, alike. The Christian Zionists even use their religious beliefs to justify the Zionist project.
Zionists would like nothing more than for you to accept their conflation of Zionism with Judaism. It gives them cover for their atrocities, and provides a very convenient scapegoat …
Zionism is supported by Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists, alike. The Christian Zionists even use their religious beliefs to justify the Zionist project.
Zionists would like nothing more than for you to accept their conflation of Zionism with Judaism. It gives them cover for their atrocities, and provides a very convenient scapegoat when this project fails, as we all hope. Why ever would you want to help them in this?
So Israel has issued displacement orders in cities and towns across Gaza, and the ICJ has concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful, and that it is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence “as rapidly as possible”. Further, Israel is also “under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” as well as “reparation for the damage caused to all natural or legal persons involved.”
So let’s see, which prevails, international law, or Zionist law…? To borrow from Stalin, “The ICJ? How many (American taxpayer supported) divisions does it have?”
That’s exactly the problem. An “obligation” means nothing if it’s just words on paper with no enforcement behind it. International law is nice in theory, but it only matters if someone has the power and will to enforce it. Otherwise, it's just theater.
The UN doesn’t have independent power—it’s a glorified debating club. All of its “authority” is borrowed from states that choose to back it, and when those states don’t care enough to act, the UN is effectively powerless. No state voluntarily gives up real force—do you seriously think the US would hand its carrier groups to the UN, or China would hand over control of its ballistic arsenal? Of course not. That’s fantasy.
So what’s left? Soft power. Influence, shame, PR pressure. But in the face of hard geopolitical interests, soft power gets ignored fast. States care about outcomes, not ideals. You can quote ICJ rulings all day, but if no one enforces them, they’re just moral noise.
International law is a beautiful concept—but completely detached from how raw power works in the current system.
"United Nations Command (UNC) was established on July 7, 1950 following the United Nations' recognition of North Korean aggression against South Korea. UNC signifies the world’s first attempt at collective security under the United Nations system. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 83 and 84 provided the international legal authority for member states to restore peace on the Korean Peninsula, and they designated the United States as the leader of the unified command we know as UN Command. During the Korean War and the reconstruction period following the signing of the Armistice Agreement, twenty-two countries contributed either combat forces or medical assistance to support South Korea under the United Nations flag."
So if it was done then, why couldn't there be a UN Gaza Command today? Well, note the common denominator - back then, the US was committed to fighting the communist threat anywhere and everywhere; nowadays, the US is committed to abetting the Zionist threat anywhere and everywhere (even if it entails the subversion of our own country).
Yes, the UN does have its problems, perhaps paramount among them having a built-in Western (European) bias, but I think it still does good things, and could even do much better things, were it not for the Hegemon in the room.
You're right—and you even answered your own question. The U.S. led the charge in Korea because it wanted to. It had clear strategic goals and a Cold War ideological framework driving it. Today, it has different interests, and supporting a UN military intervention in Gaza just isn’t on its agenda. Other Western nations aren’t going to take the lead either, because no one wants direct confrontation with Israel, especially given the web of alliances, arms deals, and domestic political pressure involved.
And as for non-Western powers—why would China intervene? Gaza offers no strategic advantage, no resource interest, no leverage point against the West. It’s a moral crisis, not a geopolitical opportunity. Same for India—deep economic ties with Israel, rising nationalist politics at home, and no incentive to alienate either side. Great powers don’t move on morality; they move on interest. That’s the part no one likes to admit.
Yes, the UN still does some good—UNICEF is a great example—but you don’t need a full UN security apparatus to feed kids or distribute medicine. The UN helps coordinate and give legitimacy, but it's not magic. It still depends entirely on what member states are willing to back.
And honestly? I’m glad we have a hegemon, even if I don’t agree with most of what it does. History shows that when there are two or more serious contenders for global dominance, you don’t get balance—you get proxy wars, instability, and chaos. Even the American War for Independence ([bald eagle scream, gunfire in the background]) was, in many ways, a proxy war between Britain and France—with American ideals layered on top for dramatic effect. The Cold War? Same thing, just with nukes and better marketing.
We’re now sliding into another hegemonic contest—primarily between the U.S. and China—and things will likely get worse before they get better. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in 20 years, people look back at the post-1990 U.S.-dominated world order and say, “Damn, that was actually the stable part.”
And that’s coming from someone who really doesn’t like U.S. foreign policy.
Good points all, I'm with you up until having one global hegemon, and that one being the US. The hegemony of the US, propagandistically touted domestically and abroad as promoting freedom and democracy, has entailed the exact opposite. In furthering its economic (capitalistic), political, and ideological interests worldwide (800 military bases over the globe!), this country has suppressed freedom and democracy through exploitation, subversion, coercion, murder, assassination, overthrow of governments, control of international organizations, bribery, overt warfare, covert warfare, and on, and on, and on... I mean even the worshiped USAID was a front for the CIA and a sleight of hand to profit American companies rather than assist in substantive international development, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mFSRb5dUOM.
Yeah, America as the "exceptional, indispensable" nation throughout the world has cost the lives of millions, has diminished the life prospects of untold millions more, including among its own people (“The U.S. ranks as the worst performer among 10 developed nations in critical areas of health care, including preventing deaths…”, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/us-health-care-ranking-report-last-rcna171652). America’s global leadership is also in its withdrawal from international climate accords and denial of global warming as official Trumpian/MAGA belief and government policy, That outlook hastens the environmental collapse bearing on all of civilization.
The words of JFK spoken in June of 1963 still pertain today: “What kind of a peace do I mean? What kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time” [https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-president-kennedys-peace-speech-at-american-university-june-10-1963/?singlepage=1].
So I don’t subscribe to there being a global hegemon, certainly not an American one, nor a Chinese, nor a Russian, nor… I’d like to see a multipolar world order (maybe along the lines of a BRICS one?) reflecting the values of - ready for this? – diversity, equity, and inclusion (gawd, I’m a DEI-ist!) in economic, political, social, and cultural arrangements. In other words, I don’t think Francis Fukumaya got it right in “The End of History and the Last Man.”
I always appreciate a well-structured and meaningful post, so no worries—thanks for taking the time to write it out.
I fully understand where you're coming from. The U.S. has absolutely used its power to extend and secure more power, and the network of 800+ military bases is a clear manifestation of that. There's no shortage of morally bankrupt operations either—whether it's their behavior abroad or at home. From spraying entire neighborhoods (often Black communities) with chemical agents, to poisoning people during Prohibition, to supporting regime changes for economic interests—they’ve done some deeply messed-up things.
And believe me, I never thought I would be the one defending the U.S. But I'm from the Czech Republic—former Eastern Bloc, Warsaw Pact, occupied by the Soviet Union for 40 years. I was born in 1990, just after the fall of the USSR. I grew up during the transition—when the country was privatizing state assets, rebuilding institutions, and aligning itself with the West. The Soviet system had just collapsed, but its effects were still everywhere: the economy, the infrastructure, the generational mindset of people around me.
I remember when my parents went to vote on joining NATO and the EU. I asked them how they voted, and they said, "For your future." And honestly? That choice paid off. I was able to study at a university in Denmark. Our economy became stable under the NATO umbrella. Infrastructure, commerce, even our global mobility improved massively. It wasn’t perfect—but for a huge number of people, life genuinely got better. That happened because of U.S. hegemony—whether directly or as a byproduct of the Western system it underwrites.
Sure, nothing is all good. But speaking from my own generational experience—growing up in the aftermath of Soviet collapse and now living under U.S. influence (mostly soft power)—I’d still pick U.S. influence every single time. If you need a comparison, just take Holodomor—millions starved to death under Stalin’s policies in Ukraine. Whatever missteps the U.S. has made, they’re not even in the same league of horror.
Now, I get that people in the Middle East or Southeast Asia may disagree—and rightly so. U.S. foreign policy in those regions has been brutal and cynical. But from the perspective of post-communist Europe, the West is the reason we have functioning economies, personal freedoms, and stable institutions.
As for the idea of a multipolar world: I get the appeal in theory—diversity, equity, decentralization—but history doesn’t support it. In practice, multipolarity tends to produce rival alliances competing for dominance. We’ve been there before. Europe had multiple powerful states—Prussia/Germany, France, Austria, Britain, Spain—and what did we get? Endless shifting alliances, constant tension, and two world wars born from that chaos.
Look, a better alternative has to be grounded in facts. The hegemon will always be the one with the biggest gun—it’s never been about morality, and it never will be. It’s just a global dick-measuring contest powered by missiles and money. The most peaceful version of that we've seen was probably the U.S.–EU relationship pre-Orange Man, and even that was built on mutual interest, mostly because we had a common enemy. That won’t change. Humans always need enemies.
So the only way I can see this pattern breaking is if the enemy becomes truly universal—something that threatens everyone equally. I don’t want to say Aliens… but Aliens. 😄 Or fine, let’s say an asteroid. A big one. Something that forces all of humanity to look in the same direction for once. But even then, I’d bet that as soon as the “NEVER GONNA CLOSE MY EYES!!!” montage ends and the space rock explodes, we’ll go right back to massacring each other over flags and markets.
I saw your reply just as I was about to zone out last night (up much too late!) and after I had edited and posted my previous response with the addendum citing the link to a Jeffrey Sachs piece on a new international order. Our respective missives must have crossed somewhere in cyberspace. If you missed it, I ask that you give it a read. Similarly I reiterate JFK’s question-answer, “What kind of a peace do I mean? What kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave…”
You have given me much to think about. I hope the following reflects something cogent.
I can scarcely comprehend what life was like in the Czech Republic even under the waning effects of Soviet domination (although I think we’re now getting more than a hint of it in the U.S. under Trump and the MAGAs). I can’t disagree that for a huge number of people in Eastern Europe (and the former Soviet republics?) life genuinely got better after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But whether “That happened because of U.S. hegemony—whether directly or as a byproduct of the Western system it underwrites,” especially such a militarily reliant one as exemplified by its creation of NATO, I have to say “no”.
I arrive at my conclusion by referencing George Kennan and his 1946 “containment policy” (his “Long Telegram”) toward the Soviets https://retrospectjournal.com/2025/03/16/the-long-telegram-george-kennan-and-the-birth-of-containment/. A few points: first, Kennan meant that the strategy was to be a political and economic one, not a military one. Second, the policy was directed at the communism in the Soviet Union that was unique to Eastern Europe, not elsewhere. Third, he accurately foretold the internal collapse of the Soviet economy and system as a whole.
A bit more… as a result, Kennan was put in charge of the Office of Policy Planning at the State Dept. in May 1947. Dean Acheson as Secretary of State signed the treaty creating NATO in April 1949. He forced Kennan out of his position in May 1950, replacing him with kindred spirit Paul Nitze, who manipulated Kennan’s message so as to confront communism anywhere and everywhere in the world with overwhelming military force. Nitze’s NSC-68 was a counterpart to Kennan’s “Long Telegram”, opening the way to the Cold War, its historically unprecedented military spending (to the tune of over one-half the federal discretionary budget, and climbing), and involvement in open and clandestine wars in and Southeast Asia and elsewhere throughout the world.
[So this statement is correct: “Now, I get that people in the Middle East or Southeast Asia may disagree—and rightly so. U.S. foreign policy in those regions has been brutal and cynical. But from the perspective of post-communist Europe, the West is the reason we have functioning economies, personal freedoms, and stable institutions.” The West’s circumscribed success in that part of the world must be stacked up against its horrific ruinations wreaked elsewhere across the globe. The West’s legacy now more recently includes its complicity in the Gaza genocide extending back to the Nakba of 1948 and beforehand.]
A bit more more… with the collapse of the Soviet Union, what was the need for NATO? This question was even being asked, and answered to some degree, by officials in the Bush I administration, such as U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and his famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990 in return for the reunification of Germany. The discussions went beyond that, including the integration of the Soviet Union (still extant at the time) into European economic and security structures and protecting Soviet security interests. Subsequent discussions included the possibility of the Soviet Union becoming a partner in NATO. On May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev, “And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion” https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early.
Needlessly generating another war and possibly the last one ever, this is the Pax America JFK warned against.
Now, as to “Whatever missteps the U.S. has made, they’re not even in the same league of horror [as the Holodomor—millions starved to death under Stalin’s policies in Ukraine]”, I have to mention the plight of the Native American peoples and the Blacks, both of whom could be said to be victims of genocide of policies toward them, involving outright slaughter in the case of the Natives to slavery of the Blacks and to more subtle measures such as discriminatory laws and practices affecting both groups. The Natives population was estimated to be 15 million at the time of Columbus’ arrival in the New World; by the late 19th century that number had been reduced to 238,000 https://eji.org/news/history-racial-injustice-mass-killings-of-native-americans/ and https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-3.
The effects of historical social marginalization, discriminatory policies, and insufficient resources over the centuries has led to decreased health status for both groups to the present day, Native Americans ranking near the bottom in health and education measures https://www.gao.gov/tribal-and-native-american-issues and Black life expectancy is nearly five years shorter compared to White people, as well as suffering in other measures.
Are we condemned to having no better an international order than that of hegemony, the most seemingly benign of them being the U.S.? If we are, we should be prepared for the collapse of the American Empire as laid out by Chris Hedges here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csI8JLJ15Ak. Will a futile spasm of trying to retain dominance be World War Last with China?
Jeffrey Sachs piece on “Birthing a New International Order” is worth rereading and contemplating. A path forward, rather than running into roadblocks or running in circles, looks promising with Security Council reform at the UN to allow India as a member, giving greater more proportional representation to that part of the world while reducing the West’s grip and telling the U.S. to keep its dick in its pants, no matter how much it boasts of it (got a kick outta the “dick-measuring contest” metaphor).
Finally, that need for a “universal enemy”...? We got two, global warming and nuclear war. We’ve taken ourselves out of contention for any leadership role there, indeed any role, as we’ve torn up arms control agreements, are spending $1.5 trillion on nuclear weapons “upgrades”, and pretty much set back if not abandoned government involvement in global warming mitigation efforts. Pretty impressive record for the defender of the free world.
Zionism is supported by Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists, alike. The Christian Zionists even use their religious beliefs to justify the Zionist project.
Zionists would like nothing more than for you to accept their conflation of Zionism with Judaism. It gives them cover for their atrocities, and provides a very convenient scapegoat when this project fails, as we all hope. Why ever would you want to help them in this?
So Israel has issued displacement orders in cities and towns across Gaza, and the ICJ has concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful, and that it is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence “as rapidly as possible”. Further, Israel is also “under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” as well as “reparation for the damage caused to all natural or legal persons involved.”
So let’s see, which prevails, international law, or Zionist law…? To borrow from Stalin, “The ICJ? How many (American taxpayer supported) divisions does it have?”
That’s exactly the problem. An “obligation” means nothing if it’s just words on paper with no enforcement behind it. International law is nice in theory, but it only matters if someone has the power and will to enforce it. Otherwise, it's just theater.
The UN doesn’t have independent power—it’s a glorified debating club. All of its “authority” is borrowed from states that choose to back it, and when those states don’t care enough to act, the UN is effectively powerless. No state voluntarily gives up real force—do you seriously think the US would hand its carrier groups to the UN, or China would hand over control of its ballistic arsenal? Of course not. That’s fantasy.
So what’s left? Soft power. Influence, shame, PR pressure. But in the face of hard geopolitical interests, soft power gets ignored fast. States care about outcomes, not ideals. You can quote ICJ rulings all day, but if no one enforces them, they’re just moral noise.
International law is a beautiful concept—but completely detached from how raw power works in the current system.
To add further to the comedy we have this from https://www.unc.mil/History/1950-1953-Korean-War-Active-Conflict/:
"United Nations Command (UNC) was established on July 7, 1950 following the United Nations' recognition of North Korean aggression against South Korea. UNC signifies the world’s first attempt at collective security under the United Nations system. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 83 and 84 provided the international legal authority for member states to restore peace on the Korean Peninsula, and they designated the United States as the leader of the unified command we know as UN Command. During the Korean War and the reconstruction period following the signing of the Armistice Agreement, twenty-two countries contributed either combat forces or medical assistance to support South Korea under the United Nations flag."
So if it was done then, why couldn't there be a UN Gaza Command today? Well, note the common denominator - back then, the US was committed to fighting the communist threat anywhere and everywhere; nowadays, the US is committed to abetting the Zionist threat anywhere and everywhere (even if it entails the subversion of our own country).
Yes, the UN does have its problems, perhaps paramount among them having a built-in Western (European) bias, but I think it still does good things, and could even do much better things, were it not for the Hegemon in the room.
You're right—and you even answered your own question. The U.S. led the charge in Korea because it wanted to. It had clear strategic goals and a Cold War ideological framework driving it. Today, it has different interests, and supporting a UN military intervention in Gaza just isn’t on its agenda. Other Western nations aren’t going to take the lead either, because no one wants direct confrontation with Israel, especially given the web of alliances, arms deals, and domestic political pressure involved.
And as for non-Western powers—why would China intervene? Gaza offers no strategic advantage, no resource interest, no leverage point against the West. It’s a moral crisis, not a geopolitical opportunity. Same for India—deep economic ties with Israel, rising nationalist politics at home, and no incentive to alienate either side. Great powers don’t move on morality; they move on interest. That’s the part no one likes to admit.
Yes, the UN still does some good—UNICEF is a great example—but you don’t need a full UN security apparatus to feed kids or distribute medicine. The UN helps coordinate and give legitimacy, but it's not magic. It still depends entirely on what member states are willing to back.
And honestly? I’m glad we have a hegemon, even if I don’t agree with most of what it does. History shows that when there are two or more serious contenders for global dominance, you don’t get balance—you get proxy wars, instability, and chaos. Even the American War for Independence ([bald eagle scream, gunfire in the background]) was, in many ways, a proxy war between Britain and France—with American ideals layered on top for dramatic effect. The Cold War? Same thing, just with nukes and better marketing.
We’re now sliding into another hegemonic contest—primarily between the U.S. and China—and things will likely get worse before they get better. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in 20 years, people look back at the post-1990 U.S.-dominated world order and say, “Damn, that was actually the stable part.”
And that’s coming from someone who really doesn’t like U.S. foreign policy.
Good points all, I'm with you up until having one global hegemon, and that one being the US. The hegemony of the US, propagandistically touted domestically and abroad as promoting freedom and democracy, has entailed the exact opposite. In furthering its economic (capitalistic), political, and ideological interests worldwide (800 military bases over the globe!), this country has suppressed freedom and democracy through exploitation, subversion, coercion, murder, assassination, overthrow of governments, control of international organizations, bribery, overt warfare, covert warfare, and on, and on, and on... I mean even the worshiped USAID was a front for the CIA and a sleight of hand to profit American companies rather than assist in substantive international development, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mFSRb5dUOM.
Yeah, America as the "exceptional, indispensable" nation throughout the world has cost the lives of millions, has diminished the life prospects of untold millions more, including among its own people (“The U.S. ranks as the worst performer among 10 developed nations in critical areas of health care, including preventing deaths…”, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/us-health-care-ranking-report-last-rcna171652). America’s global leadership is also in its withdrawal from international climate accords and denial of global warming as official Trumpian/MAGA belief and government policy, That outlook hastens the environmental collapse bearing on all of civilization.
The words of JFK spoken in June of 1963 still pertain today: “What kind of a peace do I mean? What kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time” [https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-president-kennedys-peace-speech-at-american-university-june-10-1963/?singlepage=1].
So I don’t subscribe to there being a global hegemon, certainly not an American one, nor a Chinese, nor a Russian, nor… I’d like to see a multipolar world order (maybe along the lines of a BRICS one?) reflecting the values of - ready for this? – diversity, equity, and inclusion (gawd, I’m a DEI-ist!) in economic, political, social, and cultural arrangements. In other words, I don’t think Francis Fukumaya got it right in “The End of History and the Last Man.”
[Thanks for taking the time to read this.]
ADDENDUM: I came across this from Jeffrey Sachs after writing the above. I think it's very germane https://consortiumnews.com/2025/04/14/jeffrey-sachs-birthing-a-new-international-order/.
I always appreciate a well-structured and meaningful post, so no worries—thanks for taking the time to write it out.
I fully understand where you're coming from. The U.S. has absolutely used its power to extend and secure more power, and the network of 800+ military bases is a clear manifestation of that. There's no shortage of morally bankrupt operations either—whether it's their behavior abroad or at home. From spraying entire neighborhoods (often Black communities) with chemical agents, to poisoning people during Prohibition, to supporting regime changes for economic interests—they’ve done some deeply messed-up things.
And believe me, I never thought I would be the one defending the U.S. But I'm from the Czech Republic—former Eastern Bloc, Warsaw Pact, occupied by the Soviet Union for 40 years. I was born in 1990, just after the fall of the USSR. I grew up during the transition—when the country was privatizing state assets, rebuilding institutions, and aligning itself with the West. The Soviet system had just collapsed, but its effects were still everywhere: the economy, the infrastructure, the generational mindset of people around me.
I remember when my parents went to vote on joining NATO and the EU. I asked them how they voted, and they said, "For your future." And honestly? That choice paid off. I was able to study at a university in Denmark. Our economy became stable under the NATO umbrella. Infrastructure, commerce, even our global mobility improved massively. It wasn’t perfect—but for a huge number of people, life genuinely got better. That happened because of U.S. hegemony—whether directly or as a byproduct of the Western system it underwrites.
Sure, nothing is all good. But speaking from my own generational experience—growing up in the aftermath of Soviet collapse and now living under U.S. influence (mostly soft power)—I’d still pick U.S. influence every single time. If you need a comparison, just take Holodomor—millions starved to death under Stalin’s policies in Ukraine. Whatever missteps the U.S. has made, they’re not even in the same league of horror.
Now, I get that people in the Middle East or Southeast Asia may disagree—and rightly so. U.S. foreign policy in those regions has been brutal and cynical. But from the perspective of post-communist Europe, the West is the reason we have functioning economies, personal freedoms, and stable institutions.
As for the idea of a multipolar world: I get the appeal in theory—diversity, equity, decentralization—but history doesn’t support it. In practice, multipolarity tends to produce rival alliances competing for dominance. We’ve been there before. Europe had multiple powerful states—Prussia/Germany, France, Austria, Britain, Spain—and what did we get? Endless shifting alliances, constant tension, and two world wars born from that chaos.
Look, a better alternative has to be grounded in facts. The hegemon will always be the one with the biggest gun—it’s never been about morality, and it never will be. It’s just a global dick-measuring contest powered by missiles and money. The most peaceful version of that we've seen was probably the U.S.–EU relationship pre-Orange Man, and even that was built on mutual interest, mostly because we had a common enemy. That won’t change. Humans always need enemies.
So the only way I can see this pattern breaking is if the enemy becomes truly universal—something that threatens everyone equally. I don’t want to say Aliens… but Aliens. 😄 Or fine, let’s say an asteroid. A big one. Something that forces all of humanity to look in the same direction for once. But even then, I’d bet that as soon as the “NEVER GONNA CLOSE MY EYES!!!” montage ends and the space rock explodes, we’ll go right back to massacring each other over flags and markets.
Because that’s just what we do.
Martin-
I saw your reply just as I was about to zone out last night (up much too late!) and after I had edited and posted my previous response with the addendum citing the link to a Jeffrey Sachs piece on a new international order. Our respective missives must have crossed somewhere in cyberspace. If you missed it, I ask that you give it a read. Similarly I reiterate JFK’s question-answer, “What kind of a peace do I mean? What kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave…”
You have given me much to think about. I hope the following reflects something cogent.
I can scarcely comprehend what life was like in the Czech Republic even under the waning effects of Soviet domination (although I think we’re now getting more than a hint of it in the U.S. under Trump and the MAGAs). I can’t disagree that for a huge number of people in Eastern Europe (and the former Soviet republics?) life genuinely got better after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But whether “That happened because of U.S. hegemony—whether directly or as a byproduct of the Western system it underwrites,” especially such a militarily reliant one as exemplified by its creation of NATO, I have to say “no”.
I arrive at my conclusion by referencing George Kennan and his 1946 “containment policy” (his “Long Telegram”) toward the Soviets https://retrospectjournal.com/2025/03/16/the-long-telegram-george-kennan-and-the-birth-of-containment/. A few points: first, Kennan meant that the strategy was to be a political and economic one, not a military one. Second, the policy was directed at the communism in the Soviet Union that was unique to Eastern Europe, not elsewhere. Third, he accurately foretold the internal collapse of the Soviet economy and system as a whole.
A bit more… as a result, Kennan was put in charge of the Office of Policy Planning at the State Dept. in May 1947. Dean Acheson as Secretary of State signed the treaty creating NATO in April 1949. He forced Kennan out of his position in May 1950, replacing him with kindred spirit Paul Nitze, who manipulated Kennan’s message so as to confront communism anywhere and everywhere in the world with overwhelming military force. Nitze’s NSC-68 was a counterpart to Kennan’s “Long Telegram”, opening the way to the Cold War, its historically unprecedented military spending (to the tune of over one-half the federal discretionary budget, and climbing), and involvement in open and clandestine wars in and Southeast Asia and elsewhere throughout the world.
[So this statement is correct: “Now, I get that people in the Middle East or Southeast Asia may disagree—and rightly so. U.S. foreign policy in those regions has been brutal and cynical. But from the perspective of post-communist Europe, the West is the reason we have functioning economies, personal freedoms, and stable institutions.” The West’s circumscribed success in that part of the world must be stacked up against its horrific ruinations wreaked elsewhere across the globe. The West’s legacy now more recently includes its complicity in the Gaza genocide extending back to the Nakba of 1948 and beforehand.]
A bit more more… with the collapse of the Soviet Union, what was the need for NATO? This question was even being asked, and answered to some degree, by officials in the Bush I administration, such as U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and his famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990 in return for the reunification of Germany. The discussions went beyond that, including the integration of the Soviet Union (still extant at the time) into European economic and security structures and protecting Soviet security interests. Subsequent discussions included the possibility of the Soviet Union becoming a partner in NATO. On May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev, “And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion” https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early.
In 1994 Clinton reneged on the assurances given to Gorbachev by beginning the expansion eastward that resulted in the Ukraine-Russia war (still threatening WWIII) and even continued after its onset https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nato-75-russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994.
Needlessly generating another war and possibly the last one ever, this is the Pax America JFK warned against.
Now, as to “Whatever missteps the U.S. has made, they’re not even in the same league of horror [as the Holodomor—millions starved to death under Stalin’s policies in Ukraine]”, I have to mention the plight of the Native American peoples and the Blacks, both of whom could be said to be victims of genocide of policies toward them, involving outright slaughter in the case of the Natives to slavery of the Blacks and to more subtle measures such as discriminatory laws and practices affecting both groups. The Natives population was estimated to be 15 million at the time of Columbus’ arrival in the New World; by the late 19th century that number had been reduced to 238,000 https://eji.org/news/history-racial-injustice-mass-killings-of-native-americans/ and https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-3.
The effects of historical social marginalization, discriminatory policies, and insufficient resources over the centuries has led to decreased health status for both groups to the present day, Native Americans ranking near the bottom in health and education measures https://www.gao.gov/tribal-and-native-american-issues and Black life expectancy is nearly five years shorter compared to White people, as well as suffering in other measures.
Are we condemned to having no better an international order than that of hegemony, the most seemingly benign of them being the U.S.? If we are, we should be prepared for the collapse of the American Empire as laid out by Chris Hedges here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csI8JLJ15Ak. Will a futile spasm of trying to retain dominance be World War Last with China?
Jeffrey Sachs piece on “Birthing a New International Order” is worth rereading and contemplating. A path forward, rather than running into roadblocks or running in circles, looks promising with Security Council reform at the UN to allow India as a member, giving greater more proportional representation to that part of the world while reducing the West’s grip and telling the U.S. to keep its dick in its pants, no matter how much it boasts of it (got a kick outta the “dick-measuring contest” metaphor).
Finally, that need for a “universal enemy”...? We got two, global warming and nuclear war. We’ve taken ourselves out of contention for any leadership role there, indeed any role, as we’ve torn up arms control agreements, are spending $1.5 trillion on nuclear weapons “upgrades”, and pretty much set back if not abandoned government involvement in global warming mitigation efforts. Pretty impressive record for the defender of the free world.
It’s late, again. Good night, ‘til the next time.