Islamic State, America, Russia and China. Let the talks begin. (MY ESSAY DEPENDS ON YOUR RESPONSE!).

New World Order: New Rules or No Rules?

The title above was inspired by a talk given by Russian President Vladimir Putin at a Vladai Discussion Group conference held in 2014. An excerpt of that conversation is provided at the bottom of this log. As we all know, following Russian military intervention in Syria, Putin (and by extension, Russia) has become a key player on the world stage - namely so, because he intervened without US permission. According to Putin, funding terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Nusrah to topple unfavourable regimes represents a cornerstone strategy of US foreign policy in the 21st Century (I am by no means saying he is correct, take it as you will).

Some observers are arguing that a bipolar (i.e. East vs. West) is reemerging, however I tend to disagree. There are more than two major players ... we have other world-influencing countries and movements like China and Islamic State who have their own agendas - completely separate from those of both the United States and Russia.

At this very point in postmodern times we witness an almost century-long, well-established hegemony (the United States), a once-great superpower trying to reassert its place on the world stage (Russia), a newly emerging economic empire now trying to match its might of wealth with military capability (China) and an ideology-driven, fundamentalist religious revivalist movement (Islamic State) all competing to control territories, markets and people in an age of considerable economic, political and social insecurity. Everything is up for grabs so it seems and perhaps maybe the 'old' rules of great powers respecting each others' spheres of interest no longer matter.

Are all the major players involved just as ruthless as one another or are there 'lesser evils' (so to say, please do not take my use of the word 'evil' too seriously - I gather you Jedi do not like that term) on this matter?

How do you see it? Reply however you wish, even if it means raising your own questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8p_5QaZWf4

I'm not sure the Chinese identify with being a newly emerging economic empire. There is a strong case to be made that theirs was the only real 'super-power' for 850 of the last 1000 years. The dragon has been sleeping for the last hundred and fifty years but it's waking-up! http://www.globalresearch.ca/china-rise-fall-and-re-emergence-as-a-global-power/29644

The Cold War was an aberration from the pattern of the 2nd Millenium. The "old-rules of great powers respecting each other" that you refer to were a blip against the background of all sorts of different groups slugging it out against each other. The current state of affairs is much more 'normal'.

Indeed the whole concept of a nation-state 'country' that seemed so concrete for much of the 19th and 20th Centuries is being shown for what it is - its just an idea - and an idea that can be challenged. Globalisation, multi-national companies and political units like the UN and EU have been chipping away at this edifice for a good 50 years from above, and more localised calls for self-governance from smaller states have been eroding it from below.

Political, economic, social and military insecurities are not new, or more prevalent than before - they're just new for the US . Those that challenge US hegemony today are no more or less evil than the US when it challenged UK hegemony, or the UK challenging German hegemony in Europe in the first half of the 20th Century.

Just some of my thoughts! Good luck with the essay!

What's "evil" is a point of view, an opinion. All players believe they are "right" in some sense, and believe others are "wrong" in some sense. That's human nature, to a point; however, it takes a certain flavour of humanity to believe it's good and right to kill another person in pursuit of one's own belief (or in opposition to that other's).

If you're asking for my opinion, I don't perceive one person ordering the killing of groups of non-combatants as "more evil" than another, whatever the context for that slaughter happens to be. We have become culturally accepting of phrases like "collateral damage" in a quite troubling way, and we are quick to write of military shortcomings as a different beast to "terrorist bombings" - even though the net result is dead children, dead parents, dead people in general. Put it this way - when my children fight, it's not a question of "who started it". It's a question of ending it, of educating both parties in the wrongs done, and in making agreement not to continue on the same path next time.

Finally a small point, but I don't believe it's accurate to assert Putin/Russia only re-emerged as a player on the world stage with their intervention in Syria; that pot has been boiling for a decade or so now, and in Europe we've seen the Russian/Putinist empire re-emerging for much of that time.

Opinions vary, and everyone has theirs...

I am of the opinion, that the US has itself too stretched out, and should pull itself back, concentrate on itself...

Right now, a friend is experiencing some issues in their life, and all of the pressures are building on them, and they feel overwhelmed, worried, probably a bit confused as well as a bit scared...

My advice to my friend, was to pull back a bit, find their center/balance/themselves, and 'get right', before trying to help others too much, as trying to help others, can throw ourselves off balance... Just like you have to put your own oxygen mask on first on an air plane... You are no good to anyone, if you dont take care of yourself...

And, I think the US should be doing the same thing...

Stop mucking around in the affairs of the rest of the world, unless requested (and the 'by who/how' would need worked out, lol), and work on rebuilding ourselves again...

Loudzoo wrote: Political, economic, social and military insecurities are not new, or more prevalent than before - they're just new for the US . Those that challenge US hegemony today are no more or less evil than the US when it challenged UK hegemony, or the UK challenging German hegemony in Europe in the first half of the 20th Century.!

Good point.

tzb wrote: in Europe we've seen the Russian/Putinist empire re-emerging for much of that time.

You're right, I should have mentioned Crimea's annexation as another muscle-flexing action of Putin.

Jestor wrote: Opinions vary, and everyone has theirs...

I am of the opinion, that the US has itself too stretched out, and should pull itself back, concentrate on itself...

Right now, a friend is experiencing some issues in their life, and all of the pressures are building on them, and they feel overwhelmed, worried, probably a bit confused as well as a bit scared...

My advice to my friend, was to pull back a bit, find their center/balance/themselves, and 'get right', before trying to help others too much, as trying to help others, can throw ourselves off balance... Just like you have to put your own oxygen mask on first on an air plane... You are no good to anyone, if you dont take care of yourself...

And, I think the US should be doing the same thing...

Stop mucking around in the affairs of the rest of the world, unless requested (and the 'by who/how' would need worked out, lol), and work on rebuilding ourselves again...

So what you are trying to say is that America's foreign actions represent a well-meaning global strategy, but that it should step back for the time being to handle some of its own declining affairs? Did I interpret that correct?

Jestor wrote: Opinions vary, and everyone has theirs...

I am of the opinion, that the US has itself too stretched out, and should pull itself back, concentrate on itself...

Right now, a friend is experiencing some issues in their life, and all of the pressures are building on them, and they feel overwhelmed, worried, probably a bit confused as well as a bit scared...

My advice to my friend, was to pull back a bit, find their center/balance/themselves, and 'get right', before trying to help others too much, as trying to help others, can throw ourselves off balance... Just like you have to put your own oxygen mask on first on an air plane... You are no good to anyone, if you dont take care of yourself...

And, I think the US should be doing the same thing...

Stop mucking around in the affairs of the rest of the world, unless requested (and the 'by who/how' would need worked out, lol), and work on rebuilding ourselves again...

I think this goes for a lot of Nations , take care of your own first and then see what you can do for others , the thing is as a nation when you have a sore under your foot , its hard to walk and if you tell others they walk funney , they will just look at you :dry: sometimes i feel we should all mind our dang bussiness a bit more :whistle: but its hard , we all have our morals and think we are superior to others.

Ai and new world order scare every one. In my life some order is good. Very good. This looks nothing like that. Control is the idea behind what is see as a motive. Considering a few who seek unification have actual laws awaiting martial law... the US too... it hard to see the out come of this one. I hope for the best, plan for the worst and cook a great meal...

The world's a stage and the Islamic State, the United States, Russia and China are just actors playing the script given to them. For the last 50 or so years it's become completely obvious that the governments no longer represent the governed, they act in the interests of private and public insiders and societies of great nobility, wealth who've basically lived as demigods through established bloodlines that claim to go back to Egypt and possibly beyond. This 'New World Order' in your title, is not new at all. Most of us living day to day don't pick up on the various trends and patterns that have gone on around us, but our current events are acutally part of a global transformation that's been happening for a very long time and each event could be part of a 25, 50, 100+ year plan.

The various divisions in religion and politics, whether it's Torah vs Talmud, Orthodox vs Catholic vs Protestant, colonial America, the Soviet Union, there are key players in the shaping of those events at the time that make it seem as if those occurrences were actually sanctioned by groups for the sake of social experiment to further their own agenda because the conflicts between each division created the environments needed for evolution and transformation. The problem we have is to understand the present we must understand history, but history has been skewed or whitewashed and with all the book burnings, conquering, a lot of events we'll never know what really happened and so a lot of what we know now is based solely on how we were told and the whole concept of ancient history could be built on lies. What we're dealing with is Machiavellianism on a global scale perpetrated by a single united group or perhaps a few competing groups but even if competing it goes beyond just the US vs Russia for example.

It's too bad that the popularized and fantasy conspiracy theories have disuaded the average person from looking into the shady events and facts of history, which if widely understood would shatter a lot of the illusions and beliefs the majority holds and current events could be going in a different direction. My favorite piece is this James Bond Specter self styled group's involvement in funding and supporting the Bolsheviks, Hitler and Roosevelt at the same time, for the same purpose. This is the modus operandi of almost every event or group that involves power changing hands, popular movements, going back hundreds if not thousands of years that purposely shapes the minds of the majority of people which steers where geopolitics goes in a sense.

There's oceans of information out there now because our collective ability to find and share information on the internet but that will be disappearing soon with all the poltiical correctness enforcement happening, plus all of the divide and conquer games being played that pit everyone against each other that will cause the hatespeech and violence that will be used as the excuse to have more cybersecurity and restriction that will target free speech, alternative and opposite views the establishment will basically consider hooliganism or terrorism. Also there is just a lot of simple nonsense out there plain and simple, there's so much speculation about topics like aliens, ancient civilizations, various views of the occult, that all may be intertwined of course but distract from the real facts of history that again, if were widely understood could make a huge difference.

So having said all that, whether it's considered or not or whether it is all just nonsense or not, I'll play the game.

Putin is right about funding and using groups is a cornerstone strategy, since 1945 the US has attempted to overthrow over 50 foreign governments using similar methods including economic warfare and color revolutions, the US just got a new puppet in Brazil. It's a shame that the US gets the blame for this, as the US government is itself a puppet of an international power structure. It doesn't mean that Putin is innocent, it's the same game over there with the corruption and oligarchies that are similar if not part of the entire international power structure as all their children live in the 'West' and go to school in the 'West' and so both sides really seem to just use the 'East vs West brewing conflict' as a way to captivate the minds of the taxpayers to keep giving money and support, it's just a psyop to get more control of regular people like you and I. NATO pushes, Russia pushes back, but the world only sees Russia as the aggressor. The 'West' does a coup in Ukraine right in Russia's backyard for their own interets, but Russia is the one criticized for securing it's interests in Crimea. Both sides are aggressors. On the surface it seems Russia is a potential competitor to the international 'western' power structure, hell look how big Russia is and think of the endless amounts of resources it has on it's own if it gets it's act together to develop and use them. However I think this East vs West game is being played for reasons above, to crack down and control all of us.

The situation the the middle east as most do know has been going on, since history has been recorded as all the 3 big religions have fought over that area and still are. Having the technology and economic resources of today though has allowed the more developed nations and 'superpowers' to keep the middle east, and Africa for that matter, in a constant state of conflict and 'development' to prevent them from becoming able to independently compete, to keep up an excuse for military and defense budgets, and also oil and resources. In a way it could be seen that ISIS is just a natural response to all of this meddling, but I think that they are more or less a tool for the powers they supposedly fight and are against, and have just duped very ignorant and vulnerable people into it's ranks and ideology. It ties in with the migrant invasion of Europe as well because it serves as a way to divide and conquer Europe through multiculturalism, which increases violence and clashing, which allows the governments to crack down on everyone and extract more taxes, to have more power over an individual's life.

Out of the time from when America was founded yes a hegemony has grown and become very powerful, but the families and groups are part of that hegemony never cut ties to where they came from and that's why I say international power structure because it comes from Europe and has existed throughout history dating back to who knows when. Russia could be seen as trying to reassert it's role and position as a superpower, but at face value it could be that they are just the ones to say "We've had enough of this meddling by the international power structure" and stopped it from removing Assad which has caused all sorts of issues for the 'West'. Where it goes from there, well we'll continue to see the back and forth between NATO and Russia but I don't think it will escalate to the extremes of the Cold War. I also think the Cold War was a psyop on the regular person who didn't understand that capitalism and communism are two sides to the same coin in the context that both ideologies are used to extort the working and lower classes despite both systems being potentially useful and positive in their original intent.

The real violence will come from ISIS and other 'terrorist' groups, who's activities, leaders, foundations are all questionable as to whether they are a natural occurence, or contrived and sustained via governments, intelligence agencies or other private groups. As mentioned it will give an excuse for more loss of privacy, liberties and rights, to control every aspect of human life, to raise more taxes for military and defense, and give the motivation for more souls to willingly die for 'their country/freedom/religion/etc'. A war on 'terrorism' is a never ending war and all those branded as 'terrorists' are just the opposition or nemesis to who's doing the branding. ISIS would have just as much justification for saying their conducting a war on terrorism, even with their horrible acts against non-military targets, because they believe those civilians' votes and ideas are what is represented by the governments activities in their area.

As for China, well other than that they will have a capable navy by 2020 and having to reverse their one child policy to have enough workers for all the economic development they've been trying to implement, not too sure where they fit in to all of this but they are definitely a problem for the global environment with their economic ambitions. The US/UK, Russia and China are definitely the big kids on the block, with others trying to compete as well. Who knows what the future has in stock for us. I basically think that everyone should start to think about preparedness in terms of defense, food/water, practicing situational awareness, paying attention to and reading between the lines of the global media, becoming closer to family, neighbors and reaching out more into our communities so that we can work together when things get tough, which they certainly will. We don't need anymore politicians that keep us clinging to false ideas and idols. For a lot of people they think their life is too miserable to care, so they only care about the entertainments, drugs and alcohol. 40-50 years ago we were talking about going to the moon, now we're talking about letting men into's women's bathrooms.

academic_observer wrote:

Jestor wrote: Opinions vary, and everyone has theirs...

I am of the opinion, that the US has itself too stretched out, and should pull itself back, concentrate on itself...

Right now, a friend is experiencing some issues in their life, and all of the pressures are building on them, and they feel overwhelmed, worried, probably a bit confused as well as a bit scared...

My advice to my friend, was to pull back a bit, find their center/balance/themselves, and 'get right', before trying to help others too much, as trying to help others, can throw ourselves off balance... Just like you have to put your own oxygen mask on first on an air plane... You are no good to anyone, if you dont take care of yourself...

And, I think the US should be doing the same thing...

Stop mucking around in the affairs of the rest of the world, unless requested (and the 'by who/how' would need worked out, lol), and work on rebuilding ourselves again...

So what you are trying to say is that America's foreign actions represent a well-meaning global strategy, but that it should step back for the time being to handle some of its own declining affairs? Did I interpret that correct?

Yes, thats my feelings...

Im not above helping others, but, as has been shown, we need to be responsible in how we do it, and who we help...

It can/does come back to bite us...

While there is no denying the existence of these various groups and the struggle for power and resources between them, I find the examples of the Islamic State and China especially telling.

Since the emergence of rapid air travel, the Internet and more recently social networks, the lines we draw on maps have become less and less significant. Like it or not, we are quickly moving toward a global community. The IS does not consider itself to be limited by borders. The Islamic State exists wherever their ideology does. The same can be said for Anonymous and groups like them. Rapid worldwide communication and travel allows groups to exert influence across the globe without occupying or controlling any of the actual ground.

The rise of China as an economic power is yet another example of globalization at play. The recent growth of China's economy is in large part due to American consumerism, and yet the United States wants to force China to adopt American views about environmental protection and labor laws. Other nations will fall on one side or the other or get caught up in the middle, but the policies put in place by both nations will have an impact on the world as a whole. Eventually the global community will have to adopt standards that everyone will be held to. It is crucial to our survival as a species.

TL;DR version: The sooner we realize that "nations" and "states" are just ideas that separate us, the sooner we will come to accept the world as it actually is, a global community.

I'm not a fan of Putin so don't have much to say on Russia other then it appears to playing by a slightly different rulebook to the US. China is a bit of an unknown at the moment for me, its actions in the Spratly's are not particularly encouraging. But my concern with most of the upcoming 'players' (countries which a capacity to exert military force outwards with sufficient capacity to shape the course of conflict) is they shift from a place of talking tough because they cannot act tough, into a place of being able to act tough suddenly and finding themselves either having to change their tune or start lighting fires.

Take North Korea for example, every few months they promise imminent destruction of South Korea and the USA, fire some artillery and go back to chopping wood for the stove until next time, but what happens when they have the capability to do it? It shifts from being chest thumping attention seeking behaviour to a potential real threat. The later run's the risk of preemptive action to remove the threat, because in the day of weapons of mass destruction you cannot not only afford to turn the other cheek, but you cannot afford to get slapped in the first place. Better to grab the hand enroute, but idealism has its risks... like if your not fast enough, reactive vs proactive. So talking tough and having the capacity to act on it would really shift the risk assessment in that regard. The US and Russia have had this capability for a long time, and developed their relationships accordingly, so WMD proliferation makes things so much more complicated and difficult, and is likely the main reason behind a lot of the US involvement in the Middle East.

The Islamic State mob do not really factor for me so much anymore then any other terrorist group. I'd imagine they are easier to track and deal with by being centralized. The main threats with these groups is access to WMD, but criminal entities like these groups really have no place, it's just about finding the neatest way for their causes to die off. Syria is just failed foreign policy, letting a scrub fire go on and one in amongst oil filled eucalyptus trees is always going to cause an explosive bushfire sooner rather then later. Russia is there to back up its allie Syria against its civil war opponents primarily, one of which is the Islamic State, and the IS are only as difficult to destroy with military force as is the extent to which that military force is concerned about collateral damage and death.

Russia is unique as an ex-superpower and the main reason behind US foreign policy in the last 60 years because it has retained a large share of its nuclear capability and it's perestroika was a positive thing for it, despite its subsequant birth pains. What she is going through now is the teething period, when you get your new teeth and are trying to learn to smile
:side:
The question there is will she be able to handle wearing braces a little longer and grow up looking like Dolly, or not and end up looking like Jaws (007 For Your Eyes Only)...
:whistle:

I'm probably not the most impartial when it comes to the USA, while I'm not from the US and have never been to the US - I was raised reading military history and most of that is written by only one side LOL, but I try to exert a degree of reading between the lines of that, and my interests do not gravitate or circle the US. So, the US seems to try to do the 'right' thing by decent standards most of the time, but has a relatively forward posture as a result of the Cold War where it did not simply walk away from its allies, instead it tried to keep democratic principles in place in those areas.

Do democratic values underlie capitalism, yes probably. I'm not saying they are mutually dependent, but since I support both democracy and capitalism as separate concepts, I see no conflict in when both things are supported. In fact I see capitalism as financial democracy, but that is another story. The question becomes does this require military intervention, sometimes yes, that is how the third world works unfortunately, by force, and so the issue there becomes what is the best way to get a desired outcome - giving it to someone because you know they will thank you later, or letting them learn it the hard way and risk never having it. It would be an easy decision if it were not often a hard and long road in both directions.

But I think the US would be quite happy if it did not need to provide such a role in security globally.
I don't think it abuses it's power for its own gain even though those things align in some regards most usually, as previously mentioned.
I do think it wants the capacity to ensure its own security, and until its closest allies can do the same for themselves it desires to provide protection for them too, as at the end of the day any conflict does come down to numbers fielded with pointy sticks, whom ever has the most friends wins. Luckily the US IMO does not define its purpose in those terms, but is realistic about the nature of the playground.

So China is the big question mark for me. It can go either way, because the nationalism is quite pumped up. Social Identity Theory points to how efforts to build a strong unified group can easily shift to attacking non-groups members and other groups as a function in strengthening its own group identity. So having a strong national pride and identity is a good thing, until its at the expense of others.... I mean, that is what sport is for after all, a polite way of teaming up and competing, for self development and entertainment etc.

So while China was actively happy to participate in the hotter parts of spreading communism in the Cold War, it's I think in modern times is keeping its options open and focusing on its own growth so to remain in a position of regional superpower. This is a realistic goal, and already manifest. I think China just needs to keep playing a square bat and not try to get too flashy in its territorial ambitions. If they can make Space affordable (by their own standards) then we'll probably see the territorial ambition shift out there.

So a baseline way to assess each of these four groups could be to try and measure both the extent and nature of the government involvement in shaping nationalism. It's easy to do with the nature, but the extent probably speaks more about the imperative given it by that government, and if they have a history of using force to control the population's behaviour then it's a risk they might again use the people as instruments of the government. That is where I'd probably start, and after that I'd look at the imperatives behind recent foreign policy decisions, ensuring they are anchored in the appropriate historical context, and consider the 'health' of the citizen as an indicator of civil unrest to define that nations capacity to focus outwards or inwards. I don't mean to infer an unrest populace keeps a nation in line, but rather a marching army needs many boots (in metaphorical terms).... unfortunately sometimes a popular small war can fuel nationalism like sprinkling sugar on a pizza, which is not a good direction to go if one wants to avoid gas.

Good luck, and remember to properly attribute anyone if you use their words!!!!

Jestor wrote: Yes, thats my feelings...

Im not above helping others, but, as has been shown, we need to be responsible in how we do it, and who we help...

It can/does come back to bite us...

Awesome, thanks for clarifying that ...

It only just occurred to me that my question may come off as a little prudent. Wasn't my intention to raise any alarms if I did.

academic_observer wrote:

Jestor wrote: Yes, thats my feelings...

Im not above helping others, but, as has been shown, we need to be responsible in how we do it, and who we help...

It can/does come back to bite us...

Awesome, thanks for clarifying that ...

It only just occurred to me that my question may come off as a little prudent. Wasn't my intention to raise any alarms if I did.

Raising alarms is fine !

So let me now redirect the question (btw thank you for all your responses thus far!!)

Of the four identifiable 'big' players on the world stage (IS, USA, Russia and China) vowing for global dominance (lets face it, that's ALWAYS the end game for major powers), who do you as individuals (perhaps as Jedi? Please state so if this is the case) deem to be the lesser evil of the lot (i.e. the one that offers more to humanity or will seem less imposing)?

By all means, draw contrasts between political and economic ideologies (i.e. capitalism, democracy, theocracy, etc ...) in presenting your arguments.

Superficially, I think the problem in Russia and China is that too much 'stage-owned enterprise' has been shown historically to be unprofitable, stagnation of innovation, and leads to huge unproductive debt over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise
While lots of things create debt, something has to be the engine of the economy. Ideally I think innovation and development represent the most useful direction of growth, so activity which promotes those things seems to fit into capitalism best at the moment.