[Political Interest]

All of the schools of International Relations appear to suggest strategic imperatives for the United States and Great Britain which contradict the interests of the heartland powers of Eurasia (namely Russia). Other countries in Europe and Asia can swing between different alliances, i.e. with Atlantic sea power and Eurasian land power.

But America and England cannot choose to be anything than Atlanticist powers, just as Russia cannot be anything but a Eurasian power.

Mainstream opinion in England and the US accepts the need for these countries to maintain global interests and denies the possibility of their alignment with a country such as Russia or the US.

However, fringe groups in these countries, whether they were communists or fascists did seek alignment with continental powers. The example of the communists is most interesting as both the British and American communists were very supportive of any Soviet foreign policy decision, even if it contradicted the strategic vision of their countries.

Therefore how would a theoretical communist America or communist England have reconciled their ideological aims with International Relations theory about the strategic imperatives of their countries?

[mikema63]

I personally have the suspicion that all else being equal a lot of foreign policy in the US and UK would be basically the same regardless of ideology. The material pressures and incentives that drive things like the US support of the saudi's, the south china sea issue, intervention in countries that oppose us, and various other ways we advance our economic interests would be pretty much the same.

It would just be justified in different ways and be driven by the internal pressure of government factions rather than a combination of capitalist interests out of government and political pressures within it.

[Political Interest]

I personally have the suspicion that all else being equal a lot of foreign policy in the US and UK would be basically the same regardless of ideology. The material pressures and incentives that drive things like the US support of the saudi's, the south china sea issue, intervention in countries that oppose us, and various other ways we advance our economic interests would be pretty much the same.

It would just be justified in different ways and be driven by the internal pressure of government factions rather than a combination of capitalist interests out of government and political pressures within it.

Do you think that a theoretical communist USA would defend it's essential interests but then try and work for ideology wherever possible?

For example, it might support leftist forces in any case where they did not threaten core American interests?

[mikema63]

Yes basically.

A lot of america's modern foreign policy is predicated on spreading our ideology and particularly connecting our markets to foreign ones. The general belief is that doing so creates allies, or at least countries that aren't willing to get into conflicts with us. The international systems we set up post WW2 with our allies are basically designed to do this as well among other things.

A communist USA would do more or less the same except by spreading communism and connecting our economies together through trade.

[Rich]

I personally have the suspicion that all else being equal a lot of foreign policy in the US and UK would be basically the same regardless of ideology. The material pressures and incentives that drive things like the US support of the Saudi's,

The US a net energy exporter has no material interest in defending the Saudis quite the reverse. No American foreign policy is run by Jews and Jew worshippers. America's foreign policy is Jews first. This is the reason for the hate towards Russia and the almost complete non reaction to North Korean and Han Imperialist aggression. Russia is not trying to destroy Israel, but it doesn't make Israel's Jew's short term interests the overriding driver of policy the way America and Britain do, hence the need to destroy Russia.

By the way I predicted years before the Arab Spring that Israel would veto Assad's removal. Israel hates Assad and enjoys seeing him diminished, but they prefer Assad to a unitary Sunni Arab run Syria. What happened in Syria was no accident. It was not incompetence. Like when the US was backing both sides in the Iran Iraq war Reagan said "Sometimes our Right had doesn't know what our far right hand is doing". In other words: sometimes our Zionist hand doesn't know what our ultra Zionist hand is doing.

[mikema63]

Oil is a global market, we export energy but the Saudis still represent a huge amount of the supply and destabilization would lead to price hikes on basically any and every good that gets transported. Leading to a global economy slowdown.

Jewish conspiracy nonsense doesn't have a place in a rational foreign policy discussion.

[Sivad]

Jewish conspiracy nonsense doesn't have a place in a rational foreign policy discussion.

I think you're confusing rational with respectable. Respectable types don't bring up the enormous influence the Israel lobby has on foreign policy. It's unfortunate that in our society rational and respectable diverge so sharply, it would be nice if they did mean the same thing.

[mikema63]

Playing pretend that countries do anything other than act in their own self interest is absolutely ridiculous and irrational.

The US's actions good, bad, and ugly are at the feet of the United States and not shadowy cabals of Jews pulling the strings.

[Political Interest]

The US's actions good, bad, and ugly are at the feet of the United States and not shadowy cabals of Jews pulling the strings.

It's defnitely not the Jews, but what if the people in charge actually misunderstand what American interests are?

What if it possible that if the American leadership have miscalculated their interests?

[mikema63]

By American interests I mean the interests of the state and the superstructure (the economy, capitalism, etc.) Not necessarily the interests of the people on the street. The interests of one can often be in conflict with the other.

As for being wrong, well, people are just wrong sometimes.

[Sivad]

It's defnitely not the Jews

No, there's a Jewish power clique in Washington. It's not all powerful and it's not the only clique, but it is one of the most powerful and dominant. Foriegn policy is crafted and implemented by people so it's always going to reflect the goals and ambitions of the people and groups that shape it.