you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think this has always been the reality and any ideological bent for the most part only really mattered domestically rather than in terms of foreign policy.

I think ideology does affect foreign policy when the people in charge take decisions ideologically. It is difficult, for example, to understand people like Zelensky and the Ukrainian political class without resorting to ideology - after all, from the perspective of power politics their interests are obviously tied to those of Russia. Similarly, I think it is difficult to explain World War 2 without making reference to ideology. Arguably, the Soviet Union was a more complete, or perhaps dangerous, antithesis to the American project than Germany, yet despite that America joined hands with the Soviets.

Ultimately I think that rhetoric will remain toothless as long as there are stakeholders within those countries that value wealth/comfort/access to the West over national dominance.

There's also the issue of it being an entirely negative policy. "We are against Western cultural imperialism and for autonomy." Autonomy for what, exactly? What is the use and purpose of autonomy? Russia and China have no real answer. Even Dugin, despite his desire to imbue politics with meaning and his ambition as a would-be ideologist, has no answer. Why is cultural autonomy and freedom valuable, why should we retain our natural differences? The Western liberal ideology may be disgusting, but it has conviction and goals. Its opponents have nothing - instead of mobilising for something, they mobilise against something. They derive their identity from the same liberalism that they are in conflict with.

I think the West will outlast Russia in that attrition but China is a wild card honestly.

I used to think the same, but to my shock, and probably to the shock of everyone else, Russia's advantage over the West turns out to be economic and not military. As to China, they have a lot of power and potential in quantitative terms, but ever since the end of the Cultural Revolution the country has been totally soulless. It remains to be seen whether they actually care about anything more besides making money and blustering.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Arguably, the Soviet Union was a more complete, or perhaps dangerous, antithesis to the American project than Germany

I disagree. Both projects are fundamentally egalitarian.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, but communism was more dangerous to the material existence and interests of the American elites. The Germans on the other hand, if I recall correctly, did not even seize American factories during the war. They limited themselves to simply taking control of them.