The Trump impact on US policy

[Azor]

*Please, less ellipsis!

…the Russian Federation is by even some Russian legal experts not the "real" inheritor of the SU…as the SU was comprised of 128 different SSRs....and the RF was just one of them....

Oh really? Then who is the “real” inheritor of the Soviet Union?

…if at some point the UNSC becomes largely ineffective which it has shown itself to be in Syria...then the UNGA option is in fact a valid option.

Most UNGA members are not fully free or full democracies (54%), and 56 are members of the OIC (29%). Only 32 or 17% of the UNGA’s members are Western liberal democracies. I am not sure that a non-democratic and non-Western bloc of the UN should be able to impose its will upon the West or compel Western military activity.

So basically I am sorry the US is on the hook for something they pushed and signed and shouted to the globe 10 years ago...what happened in WW1 and 2 or the Cold war in Africa..does not matter to me...WHAT does matter is what the US is on record to do pushed ten years ago...Which actually when you think about it...the US reneged on the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and had they adhered to it...we would not be seeing the Russian fighting in eastern Ukraine...

History is replete with pronouncements by American presidents that are meaningless because of opposition in Congress, particularly the Senate (e.g. Wilson and collective security). Bill Clinton had the freest hand in the developing world of any president, and did nothing in Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, North Korea or Pakistan. I suggest you take it up with Bubba…

As for the Budapest Agreement, its text only provided for consultation in the event of violation, and referral to the UNSC if that violation involved the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Did you think that Yeltsin was going to handicap himself? Did you think that Bubba would commit to military action in defense of Ukraine? Did you think that Ukraine signed because of ironclad guarantees, or because Russia threatened invasion?

Budapest was the best agreement that Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan were going to get at the time; securing nuclear warheads in the 1990s and averting a violent dissolution of the USSR (ongoing) were the main priorities for NATO and Russia.

…Actually viewing the world should be right now a true matter of black and white because IMHO...the concept of discussing and acting in the grey zones is what the Obama WH has been doing for 8 years as did Bush in his 8 years....I personally find working the black and white fields allows for clearer thinking and actions....BECAUSE grey just becomes another option if a strategy is actually being used... BECAUSE Obama and Rhodes spun us so hard using the grey zone for their Iran Deal no one even knows any longer what is really black and or white...

The world is shades of gray. Americans prefer that every conflict suit the mythology of the Civil War and World War II, when they fought for a “higher object”, but until the next one occurs, there are plenty of dirty, gray and selfish ones to fight.

Had Obama been painting in grays, he would have done the following:

• Supported the Arab Spring in Tunisia
• Supported Mubarak in Egypt (against the Muslim Brotherhood)
• Refused to help the Libyan rebels (nuclear non-proliferation)
• Supported the Arab Spring in Syria (against Iran)
• Signed the JCPOA with Iran (at least there is a verification mechanism)
• Supported Saudi efforts in Yemen (against Iran)
• Not confronted China (to prevent a Sino-Russian condominium)
• Confronted Russia in Ukraine (lethal aid)
• Encouraged Chinese penetration of Central Asia (against Russia)
• Deployed peacekeepers to South Sudan (against Sudan)
• Partnered with China to effect regime change and unification in Korea
• Allowed China to bully the Philippines and Vietnam, but not Taiwan and Japan

Reference Germany....Germany works because they have adhered for years to what is called..."a social contract" which is now causing problems because under the former Schroeder SPD government they followed the US model and went for a loosening of this "contract" and it is now causing a negative impact overall.....in 2016.

Prior to the Financial Crisis and Great Recession, many American Neo-Conservatives were referring to Germany as the “sick man” of Europe. How ironic…

Yet Schroeder did not erode Germany's manufacturing sector as a share of GDP, the current account went from -$5 billion to +$12 billion during his tenure, and economic growth had begun to slow during Kohl's tenure.

Secondly the Euro as it was envisioned was to be exactly equal to the USD...one to one...but surprisingly it jumped immediately to a level of about 20-40% higher than the USD...depending on the markets...right now it is 6% over the USD...I know as my USD salary when the Euro came in was suddenly 25% less when I had my salary deposited in the French bank...that means if anything they must produce at a range of 6-40% cheaper in order to compete with US goods using the USD... BUT then globalization took over...actually the older term MNC...multi national corporations took over but I like the term TNC transnational corps...and figured out that they could actually demand a single price for a single product in all of the EU...and suddenly the cost of living rose by over 20%-50% in the last ten years in the countries of say France and Italy and remained stable in Germany...as they were high to begin with...AND not a single EU leader say a single thing about this development...That is the true problem inside the Euro zone...

Yet if Germany had retained the DM, it would be far more expensive vis-à-vis the USD than the Euro. What you described is the free market acting against arbitrage, which was far easier with a single currency.

And we have today a US Admiral stating he is ready to defend US rights in the South China Sea...is he channeling Trump as he knows what Trump has stated about China?

You do realize that Obama used Breedlove as he uses Harris: to talk tough on Russia and China, respectively, while the White House takes a more conciliatory tone?

…WELL maybe the Trump natsec advisor and Trump should not throw stones at a glass house...

Yawn. Hillary deliberately put classified materials at risk for her personal convenience, whereas Flynn unknowingly shared classified materials with US allies that did not cause any real or potential damage. It is unknown if Hillary’s violation caused damage.