It’s Interesting to watch an empire just give up its place at the top of the world order. I can’t say it’s only time it’s ever happened in history but it’s still such a bad look but also not unexpected given how self absorbed Americans had become.
Internal inequality and corruption negatively impacts a nations ability to project power globally. America voted for this. Now we all get to watch China casually walk into the top spot.
Don’t worry it’ll for more than a generations. China is already a peer competitor and what America had going for it was incumbency as the global unipolar hegimon. Trump has openly reliquished this position and, regardless of who succeeds him, it’s not something that can be easily restablished.
Winning goodwill back is almost certainly not going to happen. Even with assurances, other countries will feel as if they’re only one election cycle away from potentially unfair treatment. The only way we go back to American unipolarity is another world war which America somehow gets rich off of like WW2 or achieving artificial general intelligence before anyone else.
I think the leaders of the US understand this which is why they’re pushing for higher military spending everywhere and also going hard on AGI, no matter how far fetched it is in the near future at least.
It’s actually in some ways refreshing in a sense that the US is embracing its role as imperial villain in many peoples stories. Shocking to people that live in America sure but to anyone that has experience with America’s foreign policy as an external entity it seems like America is finally accepting itself for who it really is and embracing its decline in a sort of reverse coming of age manner.
If the US is untrustworthy then so is NATO. The US accounts for two thirds of NATO’s defense spending and the bulk of NATO’s high‑end capabilities (strategic airlift, nuclear deterrence, advanced fighter fleets, and extensive overseas basing) are provided by the United States.
If the European component of NATO were as capable or financially solvent, the situation in Ukraine would be very different right now. Instead they are desperately trying to meet the 5% of GDP defense spending target to maintain US engagement while appropriating Russian frozen assets to divert to Ukraine, which implies a less than solid footing both militaristically and financially.
The US was isolationist during much of world war 2 and had a “cash and carry” approach towards selling arms to US allies during the initial part of the war. After much deliberation this became a laxer lend-lease arrangement that had been against the desires of the American people, who did not want to be a creditor in a conflict that had its center stage in Europe and were worried the Brits wouldn’t be able to pay back. These financial arrangements made the US incredibly wealthy, essentially extracting centuries of colonial and slavery based loot from the Brits, which allowed it to become the global hegimon it is today (for now) and brought an end to the British Empire. It took the Brits sixty years to settle the loan.
“To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal”
While the US came out as clear winners, many postcolonial nations are grateful that the war absolutely decimated the British Empire financially. Every seven days, a nation celebrates its independence from the British Empire. Though it was their inability to continue administrative operations in the colonies (due to financial decimation) that led to some very questionably drawn borders that have played a role in many present day conflicts.
What has caused this?
Wealth concentration among the elite in Western countries?
Demographic collapse putting strain on social systems warranting increased immigration, which is often poorly understood by locals?
Struggling to adapt to a changing world order brought about by a reemergent Global South?
The hard part is figuring out the why. Trump and the far right are symptoms of a mich bigger problem and it’s not going away in one election cycle.
I am pro democracy and anti imperialist. I take your point about whataboutism but I’m sure you can see how
Yea and a large portion of the USA is against those wars.
does not make for a good argument in favor of Western liberal democracy.
This is clearly a very Western leaning audience that is passionate about their perspective.
I don’t support imperialism in general, regardless of where it comes from. I’m more interested in how empire justifies imperialistic behaviour and how its subjects align themselves with that behavior. This thread has been illuminating in that regard. I imagine there will be quite a few American supporters for war in Venezuela, for example, as there were for the Iraq war.
I agree that nothing the USA or any other party has done justifies Russia’s war in Ukraine. But how the state justifies imperialism and how the subjects buy into and hold dearly their state’s mistruths is what is of interest to me.
Outside the West, Putin has interestingly suffered no significant reputational damage (particularly in the Global South) which makes one wonder how widely the truths that are presented here as fact are accepted globally.
The reality is the US has started numerous wars on shaky grounds / manufactured consent and we at least try to reflect on their rationale and judge whether there’s any way for empire to be held accountable for war on false pretenses. In the US’ case it essentially never is.
This is clearly a very Western leaning audience that is entrenched in their perspective which is totally fine. As long as it’s understood that they are also perceiving reality through propaganda disemminated by their elites.
I don’t support imperialism in general, regardless of where it comes from. I’m more interested in how empire justifies imperialistic behaviour and how its subjects align themselves to that behavior. This thread has been illuminating in that regard. I imagine there will be quite a few American supporters for war in Venezuela, for example.
I agree with you. Nothing the USA or any other party has done justifies Russia’s war in Ukraine. But how the state justifies imperialism and how the subjects buy into and hold dearly their state’s mistruths is a fascinating sight to behold.
Well they started the war so there’s no question they’re the aggressor. But to mount a legitimate defense it is important to understand the factors that contributed to their choice and judge their legitimacy. Certain actions taken by the US are noteworthy.
If we assume we are good faith actors and whoever it is we are against are acting in bad faith then we fail to see the whole picture.
NATO has not started a war but that is not mutually exclusive from it being perceived as an arm of American imperialism. The general perception is that due to its astronomical defense spending the US has disproportionate influence within the group. There is precedent for NATO countries joining America in unjustified wars. This contributes to the perception that, if the US conjures up a reason to go to war with your country, there is a whole club of countries which America may have coercive leverage over (due to defense investment) that may join in seeking to anhilate you.
NATO countries are (or perhaps were) America’s sphere of influence.
That’s fair, what was meant was whether Russia could feel justified in doing so (from their perspective) in a similar way that America felt justified in its war on Iraq or its posturing for war in Venezuela. All of which are not justified from an objective perspective.
No doubt imperialism is involved but I think we need to be realistic in recognizing that non-NATO countries do not see NATO as a defense alliance. They see it as an extension of the American empire/imperialism. With the Trump administration it seems like even America has come to see it that way.
In 2019, the US pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty claiming that Russia had violated the treaty by developing, testing and fielding a ground‑launched cruise missile (GLCM) designated SSC‑8.
Independent analysts noted that the evidence for the Russian violation was contested, with some questioning the reliability of the U.S. claims and pointing out that the United States itself operated missile‑defense systems (e.g., Aegis Ashore) that could be interpreted as infringing the INF’s ban on land‑based intermediate‑range missiles.
This fed into their perception that if Ukraine joined NATO such weapons would pointed in their direction from Ukrainian territory.
On August 4, 2025, the Russian Federation announced the termination of its unilateral moratorium on deploying ground-launched intermediate-range (1,000–5,500 km) and shorter-range (500–1,000 km) missiles, six years after the US pulled out
Not good if you’re a fan of denuclearization.
The tough thing about soft power is its built on trust so its unlikely America will be getting it back.
It’s interesting to invoke the US as it typically has a low threshold for military action.
I don’t think it justifies war but I would understand if the US perceived that as a national security threat (though it appears everything is a national security threat in the US today). It would be naive to assume a great power would sit by idly and watch that occur.
I definitely understand that many percieve this through a cultural ‘us vs them’ lens but I would advise against oversimplified conceptualizations. Global geopolitics is complex and a positive outcome in this war is dependent on deeper understanding of historical contexts and how they play into motivation and strategy today.
Fair bit of speculation on Russia’s behalf.
The most important point to keep in mine is that most of the world (ie countries outside of NATO) do not see NATO as a defensive alliance.
We can argue back and forth about whether Russia was justified to start a war over perceived expansion (I don’t believe so) but historical context is important and I don’t think it’s hard to see how they perceived a threat from their geopolitical perspective, especially if even Merkel recognized that.
This is an oversimplification. When the Berlin wall fell and Germany was unified there were assurances made that NATO would not expand eastward which obviously did not pan out.
The West has pushed forward with NATO inclusion of several eastern European nations including Ukraine since that time. During the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, George W. Bush insisted on raising the topic of Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, despite opposition from Angela Merkel, who was concerned about the implications for relations with Russia.
The concern from a Russian standpoint was an expanding Western sphere of influence, not fear of Ukrainian military action specifically.
What a mess of a situation. When the soviet union collapsed assurances were made that NATO would not expand eastward beyond Germany. That promise obviously wasn’t kept and Russia has perceived that as a provocation in the case of Ukraine being right on their border. But there’s more than enough blame to go round and Russia is obviously not helping themselves.
The big questions are if NATO carries any significant impact with a disengaged US and what will be the consequences of Russia now strengthening its relationship with China and India in a world where it already seems like power, wealth and the epicenter of innovation are slowly drifting from the US to China.
It seems to me that the US has come to a realization that it can’t project power over the world like it used to and would instead like to focus on its geographical ‘sphere’ (the Western hemisphere including Canada and South America) instead. Trumps recently released national security strategy document seems to suggest as much.
Unfortunately it’s hard to imagine how this war is won for Ukraine without US engagement or a change in the mindset and strategy of the EU.
Weren’t American soldiers killing countless civilians during that war? I believe 61% of Americans see the war as unjustified in hindsight. Makes for a bit of a complicated situation.
Should we see America entering a war without justification as evil too or just a big oopsie?
Al-Qaeda is in every way unjustifiable but my guess is the person you’re responding to sees this individual as a resistance fighter of some sort, which must be in some way how the West sees him for them to be cozying up to him like this.
The regime he toppled was undeniably evil which makes things even messier.
Isn’t this to be expected on some level? All roads lead to this path (facism and genocide) when you’re constantly proselytizing an exceptionalistic narrative.
America doesn’t just do this domestically. They have interfered in other nations public health perceptions as well. The CIA undermined polio vaccination programs in Pakistan when global eradication actually seemed possible.