Now is a fair time to question how much civil liberties will matter in the growing absence of survival.
Although a difficult pill to swallow for the United States, perhaps the most pragmatic and realistic approach is to allow states to dictate their own domestic politics unimpeded.
Russia does not possess enough latent power to seek military entanglement, but it might not have to if the U.S. and China were to fight a long and costly war. Russia would be thrilled with a conflict that saps the strengths of both its largest competitors.
If the UN Security Council is going to play the role that it plays today, it must realize that the Cold War is over. Its top priority should be working to eliminate the systematic reinforcement of global poverty.
Interventionists, of course, will inflate the threat to the liberal world order posed by restraint advocates in order to maintain a consolidated establishment in the face of a cumulative intellectual opponent.
Their decisions might transform relations between the US and countries where many of the US’s undocumented immigrants tend to come from. For those interested in immigration and American foreign politics, Chris Magnus and Ed Gonzalez are men to keep an eye on.
The anecdote to this current ‘crackpot era’ is actual realism and restraint when it comes to China. This means not succumbing to the belief that this competition is a zero-sum contest that will determine the fate of liberalism or falling for romantic Orientalist narratives that situate China-US competition in a grand arc of history.
It is in America’s interest to reject both Trump’s hot-headed bombasts and Biden’s stone-cold ignorance. The only foreign policy that is ‘just right’ for America is one of restraint.
Regardless of NATO’s treaty obligations, there is no strategic value in fighting a war on Russia’s border to defend three countries that contribute virtually nothing to U.S. national security.