by Summary:
While this is an important post worth reading in full, I think Professor Robinson misses the point in speculation about the outcome of the ideological conflict between the US and Russia. His account is based on political philosophy. It ignores both the economics and the geostrategy of the US based on economics, which is where the rubber meets the road. Principles are only necessary for rationalization of otherwise aggressive behavior aimed at dominance. Political dominance is only necessary to the degree that is is required for economic dominance. Thus, the conflict is not between Western liberalism and Russian traditionalism. Rather, Western liberalism has morphed into neoliberalism as a political theory that prioritizes economic liberalism (privatization, deregulation,
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Boris Mezhuev, civilizational realism
This could be interesting, too:
While this is an important post worth reading in full, I think Professor Robinson misses the point in speculation about the outcome of the ideological conflict between the US and Russia. His account is based on political philosophy. It ignores both the economics and the geostrategy of the US based on economics, which is where the rubber meets the road. Principles are only necessary for rationalization of otherwise aggressive behavior aimed at dominance. Political dominance is only necessary to the degree that is is required for economic dominance. Thus, the conflict is not between Western liberalism and Russian traditionalism. Rather, Western liberalism has morphed into neoliberalism as a political theory that prioritizes economic liberalism (privatization, deregulation,
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Boris Mezhuev, civilizational realism
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Nicolai N. Petro — The Surprising Allure of Russian Soft Power
His account is based on political philosophy. It ignores both the economics and the geostrategy of the US based on economics, which is where the rubber meets the road. Principles are only necessary for rationalization of otherwise aggressive behavior aimed at dominance. Political dominance is only necessary to the degree that is is required for economic dominance.
Thus, the conflict is not between Western liberalism and Russian traditionalism. Rather, Western liberalism has morphed into neoliberalism as a political theory that prioritizes economic liberalism (privatization, deregulation, transnational corporatism) over social and political liberalism.
Neoliberal globalization's goal is subjection of the world to neoliberalism, which amounts to control by Western capital and the elite network that controls it.
The US has erected it as a zero-sum game. There is no obvious solution to this other than war.
The same applies to China. The US elite cannot compromise with China in the long run when the only solution in a zero-sum game is winner takes all. This is especially the case when not only two civilizations intersect but two economic systems conflict.
To secure its ultimate victory, the US has to partition Russia and China to ensure they can never again rise as great powers to challenge the US as the rule-giver. That is what empire is.
It's difficult to see this happening without war, but the US will try all other means for regime change possible, since the outcome of an all-out war between or among great powers is uncertain.
Irrussianality
Moscow conference
Paul Robinson | Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa
Moscow conference
Paul Robinson | Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa