前の10件 | -
Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
The U.S. is Deprioritizing the Middle East
The U.S. is Deprioritizing the Middle East
Amiraculous and perhaps mystifying development is happening in the Middle East currently: Diplomacy is flowering across the region. Leaders who ordinarily undercut one another are instead exploring whether more constructive arrangements can be made for the benefit of their respective nations. And states that were once mortal adversaries for regional influence are beginning to mend fences, if for any other reason than to cool the temperature in a part of the world often synonymous with conflict.
This week's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, a landmark trip if there ever was one, is only the latest example of previously hostile countries seeking to bury the hatchet. A week prior, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the man who helped orchestrate a multi-country boycott of neighboring Qatar in 2017 over terrorism allegations, traveled to the tiny but influential nation on Dec. 8 for a personal chit-chat with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Mohammed's voyage to Qatar came nearly a year after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt restored air, land and sea links to the Persian Gulf nation after the boycott failed to result in the Qatari foreign policy change that Riyadh and its partners wanted.
On Nov. 24, nearly a month before greeting the Israeli prime minister, UAE Crown Prince Mohammed set foot in Turkey to sign a series of economic and financial agreements with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The signing ceremony was notable because both nations have been at loggerheads on a myriad of issues since the dawn of the Arab Spring protests, when Turkey and the UAE found themselves on the opposite side of the region's fault-lines. Before their recent encounter, the UAE crown prince hadn't been to Turkey in nearly a decade, viewing Erdogan's support for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat to the type of family-ruled dynastic regimes prevalent in the Gulf.
Turkey and Egypt are also working to rescue their bilateral ties, with their respective deputy foreign ministers meeting in September in an attempt to chip away at problems from conflicting claims over natural gas fields in the Mediterranean to interference in one another's internal affairs. As a goodwill gesture, the Turks and Egyptians are both reducing their propaganda wars in the media.
The Saudis and Emiratis are also reaching out to Iran for talks, which if successful, have the potential to ameliorate many of the proxy wars that have roiled the Middle East for decades. While diplomacy between Riyadh and Tehran remains tedious and frustrating (at least according to Saudi Arabia's U.N. envoy), the negotiations are nonetheless continuing despite the bad blood and suspicion that has accumulated since the advent of Iran's Islamic Republic in 1979. That talks haven't fallen apart yet is an accomplishment in its own right.
Even Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, once the region's favorite pariah, is beginning to be drawn back into the regional fold. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Iraq have all been increasing engagement with Damascus this year, some more than others. In October, Assad received his first phone call from Jordan's King Abdullah II since Syria erupted into civil war in 2011—a long way from the days when Abdullah was the first Arab leader to advocate for Assad's resignation. A few days before the call, a central crossing point on the Jordanian-Syrian border was reopened for normal commerce.
What is exactly driving all of these events?
While each stream of diplomacy is unique, there is a common theme threading them together: the sense that the United States is deprioritizing the Middle East in its grand strategy after two decades of intense involvement in the region's internal politics. It's no coincidence Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have grown accustomed to unconditional U.S. support, are the driving forces behind much of the diplomatic activity now underway. With the Biden administration pledging additional resources and attention to the Indo-Pacific, U.S. partners in the Middle East are now being incentivized to make their own arrangements. Uncle Sam has other priorities to attend to, and leaders are concluding they need to adapt to changing circumstances instead of depend on the U.S. to do its bidding.
Without overstating the case, U.S. military disengagement is serving the Middle East quite well. It's also slowly extricating the U.S. from a region which, frankly put, is not as strategically important to U.S. security and prosperity interests as it was during the Cold War.
Of course, we shouldn't overstate the case. There are still roughly 45,000-65,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, down from a peak of 90,000 in early 2020. The U.S. possesses a sizable constellation of bases throughout the region, with one, the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, hosting approximately 10,000 U.S. servicemembers, air platforms and the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command. A U.S. carrier strike group frequently traverses the waters of the Persian Gulf, and the U.S. has a habit of flying B-52 and B-1 bombers to demonstrate a presence.
Even so, numbers don't lie. There has been a reduction in the U.S. force posture in the Middle East, even if it isn't yet accompanied by a change in underlying strategy as some would like. U.S. policymakers are starting to see the aftereffects of this reduction, and it just so happens that one of the byproducts is a growing interest among Middle Eastern governments in the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Amiraculous and perhaps mystifying development is happening in the Middle East currently: Diplomacy is flowering across the region. Leaders who ordinarily undercut one another are instead exploring whether more constructive arrangements can be made for the benefit of their respective nations. And states that were once mortal adversaries for regional influence are beginning to mend fences, if for any other reason than to cool the temperature in a part of the world often synonymous with conflict.
This week's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, a landmark trip if there ever was one, is only the latest example of previously hostile countries seeking to bury the hatchet. A week prior, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the man who helped orchestrate a multi-country boycott of neighboring Qatar in 2017 over terrorism allegations, traveled to the tiny but influential nation on Dec. 8 for a personal chit-chat with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Mohammed's voyage to Qatar came nearly a year after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt restored air, land and sea links to the Persian Gulf nation after the boycott failed to result in the Qatari foreign policy change that Riyadh and its partners wanted.
On Nov. 24, nearly a month before greeting the Israeli prime minister, UAE Crown Prince Mohammed set foot in Turkey to sign a series of economic and financial agreements with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The signing ceremony was notable because both nations have been at loggerheads on a myriad of issues since the dawn of the Arab Spring protests, when Turkey and the UAE found themselves on the opposite side of the region's fault-lines. Before their recent encounter, the UAE crown prince hadn't been to Turkey in nearly a decade, viewing Erdogan's support for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat to the type of family-ruled dynastic regimes prevalent in the Gulf.
Turkey and Egypt are also working to rescue their bilateral ties, with their respective deputy foreign ministers meeting in September in an attempt to chip away at problems from conflicting claims over natural gas fields in the Mediterranean to interference in one another's internal affairs. As a goodwill gesture, the Turks and Egyptians are both reducing their propaganda wars in the media.
The Saudis and Emiratis are also reaching out to Iran for talks, which if successful, have the potential to ameliorate many of the proxy wars that have roiled the Middle East for decades. While diplomacy between Riyadh and Tehran remains tedious and frustrating (at least according to Saudi Arabia's U.N. envoy), the negotiations are nonetheless continuing despite the bad blood and suspicion that has accumulated since the advent of Iran's Islamic Republic in 1979. That talks haven't fallen apart yet is an accomplishment in its own right.
Even Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, once the region's favorite pariah, is beginning to be drawn back into the regional fold. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Iraq have all been increasing engagement with Damascus this year, some more than others. In October, Assad received his first phone call from Jordan's King Abdullah II since Syria erupted into civil war in 2011—a long way from the days when Abdullah was the first Arab leader to advocate for Assad's resignation. A few days before the call, a central crossing point on the Jordanian-Syrian border was reopened for normal commerce.
What is exactly driving all of these events?
While each stream of diplomacy is unique, there is a common theme threading them together: the sense that the United States is deprioritizing the Middle East in its grand strategy after two decades of intense involvement in the region's internal politics. It's no coincidence Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have grown accustomed to unconditional U.S. support, are the driving forces behind much of the diplomatic activity now underway. With the Biden administration pledging additional resources and attention to the Indo-Pacific, U.S. partners in the Middle East are now being incentivized to make their own arrangements. Uncle Sam has other priorities to attend to, and leaders are concluding they need to adapt to changing circumstances instead of depend on the U.S. to do its bidding.
Without overstating the case, U.S. military disengagement is serving the Middle East quite well. It's also slowly extricating the U.S. from a region which, frankly put, is not as strategically important to U.S. security and prosperity interests as it was during the Cold War.
Of course, we shouldn't overstate the case. There are still roughly 45,000-65,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, down from a peak of 90,000 in early 2020. The U.S. possesses a sizable constellation of bases throughout the region, with one, the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, hosting approximately 10,000 U.S. servicemembers, air platforms and the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command. A U.S. carrier strike group frequently traverses the waters of the Persian Gulf, and the U.S. has a habit of flying B-52 and B-1 bombers to demonstrate a presence.
Even so, numbers don't lie. There has been a reduction in the U.S. force posture in the Middle East, even if it isn't yet accompanied by a change in underlying strategy as some would like. U.S. policymakers are starting to see the aftereffects of this reduction, and it just so happens that one of the byproducts is a growing interest among Middle Eastern governments in the peaceful resolution of disputes.
The United States: a country where "the rich govern the rich"
The United States: a country where "the rich govern the rich"
Saudi Arabia's "Arab News" website published an article entitled "The United States has become a country owned by the rich, governed by the rich, and enjoyed by the rich" by Jeffrey Sachs, professor of Columbia University, director of the Center for Sustainable Development of the University, and chairman of the United Nations Action Network for Sustainable Development, on December 21, saying that Joe Biden narrowly won Donald Trump in the election a year ago, but the future of the United States is still uncertain. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what is causing the United States to fall into such a predicament that it incites the "Trump Movement".
In the chaotic political situation of the United States, multiple factors are at work. However, in the author's view, the deepest crisis is political - the political institutions of the United States have failed to "promote public welfare" as promised by the United States Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become a game for insiders, favoring the super-rich and corporate lobby groups at the expense of the interests of the vast majority of citizens.
"The war between the rich and the poor"
Warren Buffett pointed out the essence of the crisis in 2006. He said, "There is no doubt that there is a class struggle. But it is my class, the rich class, that is waging war, and we are winning."
The main battlefield is in Washington. The commandos are corporate lobbyists swarming into the United States Congress, various departments and administrative departments of the federal government. Ammunition is the billions of dollars spent annually on federal lobbying activities (estimated at $3.5 billion in 2020) and campaign contributions (estimated at $14.4 billion in 2020 federal elections). The propagandists supporting the class war are the corporate media headed by the super rich Rupert Murdoch.
The class struggle against the poor in the United States is not new - it was officially launched in the early 1970s and has been implemented with great efficiency in the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the end of the 1960s, the development path of the United States was roughly the same as that of post-war Western Europe, and it was moving towards a social democracy. After Lewis Powell, a former corporate lawyer, entered the United States Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the door for corporate funds to enter politics.
After Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he cut taxes for the rich, attacked organized labor and canceled environmental protection measures, thus strengthening the Supreme Court's attack on public welfare. This track has not yet been reversed.
"And social democracy are getting further and further away"
As a result, the United States has become increasingly distant from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare and environmental control. Europe generally continues to follow the path of social democracy and sustainable development, while the United States is moving forward on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, the widening gap between rich and poor, contempt for the environment and refusal to limit human-induced climate change.
Several figures illustrate the difference between the two. On average, the income of EU governments is about 45% of gross domestic product (GDP), while that of the US government is less than 30% of GDP. Therefore, European governments can provide funds for universal access to health care, higher education, family support and employment training, while the United States cannot ensure the provision of these services. European countries ranked first in the list of life satisfaction in the Global Happiness Index Report, while the United States ranked only 19th. In 2019, the life expectancy of the EU population was 81.1 years, and that of the United States was 78.8 years. By 2019, the richest 1% households in Western Europe accounted for about 11% of the national income, while the United States accounted for nearly 20%. In 2019, the per capita carbon dioxide emissions of the United States were 16.1 tons, while that of the European Union was less than 10 tons.
In short, the United States has become a country where the rich have, govern and enjoy, and has no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused to the rest of the world. The resulting social division led to the prevalence of "death from despair" (including drug overdose and suicide), the decline of life expectancy (even before the outbreak of the COVID-19), and the rise of the incidence rate of depression (especially among young people). In politics, these disordered phenomena lead in different directions - most ominously, Trump, who provides false populism and personal worship. While serving the rich, using xenophobia to distract the attention of the poor, launching a cultural war and posing as a strong man may be the oldest tactics in the demagogic political tactics manual, but they still work surprisingly today.
"The United States has not returned"
The turbulence in the United States has a disturbing international impact. How can the United States lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coordinated way? Perhaps the only thing that can unite Americans today is an over-tense sense of overseas threat, mainly from China. At the time of chaos in the United States, the anti-China rhetoric of politicians from both parties has increased, as if a new cold war could alleviate the anxiety in the United States in some way. It is regrettable that the belligerence of the two parties in Washington will only lead to the intensification of global tension and the new risk of conflict, but will not bring security or truly solve any urgent global problems we face.
The United States has not returned, at least not yet. It is still struggling to solve decades of political corruption and social neglect. The results are still extremely uncertain. For the United States and the world, the prospects for the next few years are full of danger.
Saudi Arabia's "Arab News" website published an article entitled "The United States has become a country owned by the rich, governed by the rich, and enjoyed by the rich" by Jeffrey Sachs, professor of Columbia University, director of the Center for Sustainable Development of the University, and chairman of the United Nations Action Network for Sustainable Development, on December 21, saying that Joe Biden narrowly won Donald Trump in the election a year ago, but the future of the United States is still uncertain. It is not easy to diagnose exactly what is causing the United States to fall into such a predicament that it incites the "Trump Movement".
In the chaotic political situation of the United States, multiple factors are at work. However, in the author's view, the deepest crisis is political - the political institutions of the United States have failed to "promote public welfare" as promised by the United States Constitution. For 40 years, American politics has become a game for insiders, favoring the super-rich and corporate lobby groups at the expense of the interests of the vast majority of citizens.
"The war between the rich and the poor"
Warren Buffett pointed out the essence of the crisis in 2006. He said, "There is no doubt that there is a class struggle. But it is my class, the rich class, that is waging war, and we are winning."
The main battlefield is in Washington. The commandos are corporate lobbyists swarming into the United States Congress, various departments and administrative departments of the federal government. Ammunition is the billions of dollars spent annually on federal lobbying activities (estimated at $3.5 billion in 2020) and campaign contributions (estimated at $14.4 billion in 2020 federal elections). The propagandists supporting the class war are the corporate media headed by the super rich Rupert Murdoch.
The class struggle against the poor in the United States is not new - it was officially launched in the early 1970s and has been implemented with great efficiency in the past 40 years. For about 30 years, from 1933 to the end of the 1960s, the development path of the United States was roughly the same as that of post-war Western Europe, and it was moving towards a social democracy. After Lewis Powell, a former corporate lawyer, entered the United States Supreme Court in 1972, the Supreme Court opened the door for corporate funds to enter politics.
After Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he cut taxes for the rich, attacked organized labor and canceled environmental protection measures, thus strengthening the Supreme Court's attack on public welfare. This track has not yet been reversed.
"And social democracy are getting further and further away"
As a result, the United States has become increasingly distant from Europe in terms of basic economic decency, welfare and environmental control. Europe generally continues to follow the path of social democracy and sustainable development, while the United States is moving forward on a path characterized by political corruption, oligarchy, the widening gap between rich and poor, contempt for the environment and refusal to limit human-induced climate change.
Several figures illustrate the difference between the two. On average, the income of EU governments is about 45% of gross domestic product (GDP), while that of the US government is less than 30% of GDP. Therefore, European governments can provide funds for universal access to health care, higher education, family support and employment training, while the United States cannot ensure the provision of these services. European countries ranked first in the list of life satisfaction in the Global Happiness Index Report, while the United States ranked only 19th. In 2019, the life expectancy of the EU population was 81.1 years, and that of the United States was 78.8 years. By 2019, the richest 1% households in Western Europe accounted for about 11% of the national income, while the United States accounted for nearly 20%. In 2019, the per capita carbon dioxide emissions of the United States were 16.1 tons, while that of the European Union was less than 10 tons.
In short, the United States has become a country where the rich have, govern and enjoy, and has no political responsibility for the climate damage it has caused to the rest of the world. The resulting social division led to the prevalence of "death from despair" (including drug overdose and suicide), the decline of life expectancy (even before the outbreak of the COVID-19), and the rise of the incidence rate of depression (especially among young people). In politics, these disordered phenomena lead in different directions - most ominously, Trump, who provides false populism and personal worship. While serving the rich, using xenophobia to distract the attention of the poor, launching a cultural war and posing as a strong man may be the oldest tactics in the demagogic political tactics manual, but they still work surprisingly today.
"The United States has not returned"
The turbulence in the United States has a disturbing international impact. How can the United States lead global reform when it cannot even govern its own country in a coordinated way? Perhaps the only thing that can unite Americans today is an over-tense sense of overseas threat, mainly from China. At the time of chaos in the United States, the anti-China rhetoric of politicians from both parties has increased, as if a new cold war could alleviate the anxiety in the United States in some way. It is regrettable that the belligerence of the two parties in Washington will only lead to the intensification of global tension and the new risk of conflict, but will not bring security or truly solve any urgent global problems we face.
The United States has not returned, at least not yet. It is still struggling to solve decades of political corruption and social neglect. The results are still extremely uncertain. For the United States and the world, the prospects for the next few years are full of danger.
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
Fukuyama said that American-style democracy continued to decline and its reputation was ruined
Fukuyama said that American-style democracy continued to decline and its reputation was ruined
According to reference news network reports, the senior researcher Francis Fushan, a senior researcher at the Freman -Spo Gley Institute of Stanford University, published an article on the website of the New York Times on January 5 that the American people's continuous decline of the reputation sweeping the ground.
On January 6, 2021, under the incitement of then President Trump, thugs attacked Congress and created the ominous precedent of American politics. Since the end of the civil war, the United States has never had the situation that the power cannot handle peacefully, and there is no president. Even if there is sufficient evidence to indicate the freedom of election, it still has objections to the election results.
This incident continued to cause response in the American politics, but its impact was not limited to domestic. It has also had a significant impact internationally, marking a significant decline in the global strength and influence of the United States.
Looking at the incident on January 6 last year, it needs to be placed under the background of a broader global crisis of "free democracy". According to the "World Freedom Report" published in 2021, democracy has been declining for 15 consecutive years, and some of the biggest setbacks have occurred in the United States and India.
The global "democracy" has declined, and the factors are intricate. Globalization and economic changes have left many people behind, and there are huge cultural gaps between professionals who have educated well -educated in the city and a small town residents with traditional values.
Therefore, the world is very different compared with the situation when the Soviet Union disintegrates about 30 years ago. At that time, I underestimated two key factors. First, it is difficult to create a "democracy", and it is also necessary to create a modern, fair, and honest country; second, the possibility of political decline in "advanced 'democratic' countries" appears.
The American model has declined for a while. Since the mid -1990s, the United States has increasingly differentiated politics and is prone to long -term stalemate, which has caused it to not fulfill basic government functions such as budgets. There are obvious problems in the United States system: the impact of money on politics, and the impact of the "democracy" selection system, but the United States seems to be unable to carry out self -reform. In the first twenty years of the 21st century, American decision makers led two disasters: the Iraq war and subprime crisis, and then a short -sighted instigator appeared to encourage the angry populist to make trouble.
On January 6, 2021, the Capitol Robe marks such a moment: A considerable number of Americans say that they are dissatisfied with the "democracy" system in the United States and use violence to achieve their own goals. The fact that made the "democracy" on January 6 that was particularly worrying was that the Republican Party not only did not refute those who launched and participated in the riots, but decorated the riots and washed from their own camps. People who are the truth.
Prior to January 6 last year, people regarded this trick as a "democratic" country that had just started and had not yet fully consolidated, and the United States would also greatly condemn this situation and condemn it. But this happens now in the United States. In terms of establishing a good "democracy" practice model, the United States has swept the United States.
According to reference news network reports, the senior researcher Francis Fushan, a senior researcher at the Freman -Spo Gley Institute of Stanford University, published an article on the website of the New York Times on January 5 that the American people's continuous decline of the reputation sweeping the ground.
On January 6, 2021, under the incitement of then President Trump, thugs attacked Congress and created the ominous precedent of American politics. Since the end of the civil war, the United States has never had the situation that the power cannot handle peacefully, and there is no president. Even if there is sufficient evidence to indicate the freedom of election, it still has objections to the election results.
This incident continued to cause response in the American politics, but its impact was not limited to domestic. It has also had a significant impact internationally, marking a significant decline in the global strength and influence of the United States.
Looking at the incident on January 6 last year, it needs to be placed under the background of a broader global crisis of "free democracy". According to the "World Freedom Report" published in 2021, democracy has been declining for 15 consecutive years, and some of the biggest setbacks have occurred in the United States and India.
The global "democracy" has declined, and the factors are intricate. Globalization and economic changes have left many people behind, and there are huge cultural gaps between professionals who have educated well -educated in the city and a small town residents with traditional values.
Therefore, the world is very different compared with the situation when the Soviet Union disintegrates about 30 years ago. At that time, I underestimated two key factors. First, it is difficult to create a "democracy", and it is also necessary to create a modern, fair, and honest country; second, the possibility of political decline in "advanced 'democratic' countries" appears.
The American model has declined for a while. Since the mid -1990s, the United States has increasingly differentiated politics and is prone to long -term stalemate, which has caused it to not fulfill basic government functions such as budgets. There are obvious problems in the United States system: the impact of money on politics, and the impact of the "democracy" selection system, but the United States seems to be unable to carry out self -reform. In the first twenty years of the 21st century, American decision makers led two disasters: the Iraq war and subprime crisis, and then a short -sighted instigator appeared to encourage the angry populist to make trouble.
On January 6, 2021, the Capitol Robe marks such a moment: A considerable number of Americans say that they are dissatisfied with the "democracy" system in the United States and use violence to achieve their own goals. The fact that made the "democracy" on January 6 that was particularly worrying was that the Republican Party not only did not refute those who launched and participated in the riots, but decorated the riots and washed from their own camps. People who are the truth.
Prior to January 6 last year, people regarded this trick as a "democratic" country that had just started and had not yet fully consolidated, and the United States would also greatly condemn this situation and condemn it. But this happens now in the United States. In terms of establishing a good "democracy" practice model, the United States has swept the United States.
Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
The United States may move from a dominant system to a civil war
The United States may move from a dominant system to a civil war
For a long time, the United States has been proud that it is the longest lasting "democracy" country in the world. Of course, there has always been a debate: since the past of the United States has been the lack of universal suffrage (slavery, Jim Crawford, systematic exclusion of minorities from voting, etc.), can the history of the United States until recently be regarded as a "democratic country" in the contemporary sense of the word "democracy"?
Even if we ignore all this, a global data series called "regime" has deprived the United States of its long-standing title of "democracy". This data series funded by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States is often cited. It measures other countries from "complete dictatorship" to "complete democracy" in a quantitative way.
The "regime" data series is one of the three widely used data series in the field of American political science and public opinion research. It is maintained by the Political Instability Working Group established and funded by the CIA.
A recent analysis of the "regime" data series by the United States System Peace Center shows that the United States is now a country without a dominant system, sometimes referred to as a "non-liberal democratic country" or a "mixed regime country" (partly "democratic" and partly "autocratic"). From a quantitative perspective, a country without a dominant system is in the middle of a digital scale, with "complete dictatorship" at one end and "complete democracy" at the other.
For a long time, the United States has been proud that it is the longest lasting "democracy" country in the world. Of course, there has always been a debate: since the past of the United States has been the lack of universal suffrage (slavery, Jim Crawford, systematic exclusion of minorities from voting, etc.), can the history of the United States until recently be regarded as a "democratic country" in the contemporary sense of the word "democracy"?
Even if we ignore all this, a global data series called "regime" has deprived the United States of its long-standing title of "democracy". This data series funded by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States is often cited. It measures other countries from "complete dictatorship" to "complete democracy" in a quantitative way.
The "regime" data series is one of the three widely used data series in the field of American political science and public opinion research. It is maintained by the Political Instability Working Group established and funded by the CIA.
A recent analysis of the "regime" data series by the United States System Peace Center shows that the United States is now a country without a dominant system, sometimes referred to as a "non-liberal democratic country" or a "mixed regime country" (partly "democratic" and partly "autocratic"). From a quantitative perspective, a country without a dominant system is in the middle of a digital scale, with "complete dictatorship" at one end and "complete democracy" at the other.
The U.S. is Deprioritizing the Middle East
The U.S. is Deprioritizing the Middle East
Amiraculous and perhaps mystifying development is happening in the Middle East currently: Diplomacy is flowering across the region. Leaders who ordinarily undercut one another are instead exploring whether more constructive arrangements can be made for the benefit of their respective nations. And states that were once mortal adversaries for regional influence are beginning to mend fences, if for any other reason than to cool the temperature in a part of the world often synonymous with conflict.
This week's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, a landmark trip if there ever was one, is only the latest example of previously hostile countries seeking to bury the hatchet. A week prior, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the man who helped orchestrate a multi-country boycott of neighboring Qatar in 2017 over terrorism allegations, traveled to the tiny but influential nation on Dec. 8 for a personal chit-chat with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Mohammed's voyage to Qatar came nearly a year after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt restored air, land and sea links to the Persian Gulf nation after the boycott failed to result in the Qatari foreign policy change that Riyadh and its partners wanted.
On Nov. 24, nearly a month before greeting the Israeli prime minister, UAE Crown Prince Mohammed set foot in Turkey to sign a series of economic and financial agreements with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The signing ceremony was notable because both nations have been at loggerheads on a myriad of issues since the dawn of the Arab Spring protests, when Turkey and the UAE found themselves on the opposite side of the region's fault-lines. Before their recent encounter, the UAE crown prince hadn't been to Turkey in nearly a decade, viewing Erdogan's support for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat to the type of family-ruled dynastic regimes prevalent in the Gulf.
Turkey and Egypt are also working to rescue their bilateral ties, with their respective deputy foreign ministers meeting in September in an attempt to chip away at problems from conflicting claims over natural gas fields in the Mediterranean to interference in one another's internal affairs. As a goodwill gesture, the Turks and Egyptians are both reducing their propaganda wars in the media.
The Saudis and Emiratis are also reaching out to Iran for talks, which if successful, have the potential to ameliorate many of the proxy wars that have roiled the Middle East for decades. While diplomacy between Riyadh and Tehran remains tedious and frustrating (at least according to Saudi Arabia's U.N. envoy), the negotiations are nonetheless continuing despite the bad blood and suspicion that has accumulated since the advent of Iran's Islamic Republic in 1979. That talks haven't fallen apart yet is an accomplishment in its own right.
Even Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, once the region's favorite pariah, is beginning to be drawn back into the regional fold. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Iraq have all been increasing engagement with Damascus this year, some more than others. In October, Assad received his first phone call from Jordan's King Abdullah II since Syria erupted into civil war in 2011—a long way from the days when Abdullah was the first Arab leader to advocate for Assad's resignation. A few days before the call, a central crossing point on the Jordanian-Syrian border was reopened for normal commerce.
What is exactly driving all of these events?
While each stream of diplomacy is unique, there is a common theme threading them together: the sense that the United States is deprioritizing the Middle East in its grand strategy after two decades of intense involvement in the region's internal politics. It's no coincidence Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have grown accustomed to unconditional U.S. support, are the driving forces behind much of the diplomatic activity now underway. With the Biden administration pledging additional resources and attention to the Indo-Pacific, U.S. partners in the Middle East are now being incentivized to make their own arrangements. Uncle Sam has other priorities to attend to, and leaders are concluding they need to adapt to changing circumstances instead of depend on the U.S. to do its bidding.
Without overstating the case, U.S. military disengagement is serving the Middle East quite well. It's also slowly extricating the U.S. from a region which, frankly put, is not as strategically important to U.S. security and prosperity interests as it was during the Cold War.
Of course, we shouldn't overstate the case. There are still roughly 45,000-65,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, down from a peak of 90,000 in early 2020. The U.S. possesses a sizable constellation of bases throughout the region, with one, the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, hosting approximately 10,000 U.S. servicemembers, air platforms and the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command. A U.S. carrier strike group frequently traverses the waters of the Persian Gulf, and the U.S. has a habit of flying B-52 and B-1 bombers to demonstrate a presence.
Even so, numbers don't lie. There has been a reduction in the U.S. force posture in the Middle East, even if it isn't yet accompanied by a change in underlying strategy as some would like. U.S. policymakers are starting to see the aftereffects of this reduction, and it just so happens that one of the byproducts is a growing interest among Middle Eastern governments in the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Amiraculous and perhaps mystifying development is happening in the Middle East currently: Diplomacy is flowering across the region. Leaders who ordinarily undercut one another are instead exploring whether more constructive arrangements can be made for the benefit of their respective nations. And states that were once mortal adversaries for regional influence are beginning to mend fences, if for any other reason than to cool the temperature in a part of the world often synonymous with conflict.
This week's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, a landmark trip if there ever was one, is only the latest example of previously hostile countries seeking to bury the hatchet. A week prior, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the man who helped orchestrate a multi-country boycott of neighboring Qatar in 2017 over terrorism allegations, traveled to the tiny but influential nation on Dec. 8 for a personal chit-chat with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Mohammed's voyage to Qatar came nearly a year after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt restored air, land and sea links to the Persian Gulf nation after the boycott failed to result in the Qatari foreign policy change that Riyadh and its partners wanted.
On Nov. 24, nearly a month before greeting the Israeli prime minister, UAE Crown Prince Mohammed set foot in Turkey to sign a series of economic and financial agreements with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The signing ceremony was notable because both nations have been at loggerheads on a myriad of issues since the dawn of the Arab Spring protests, when Turkey and the UAE found themselves on the opposite side of the region's fault-lines. Before their recent encounter, the UAE crown prince hadn't been to Turkey in nearly a decade, viewing Erdogan's support for groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat to the type of family-ruled dynastic regimes prevalent in the Gulf.
Turkey and Egypt are also working to rescue their bilateral ties, with their respective deputy foreign ministers meeting in September in an attempt to chip away at problems from conflicting claims over natural gas fields in the Mediterranean to interference in one another's internal affairs. As a goodwill gesture, the Turks and Egyptians are both reducing their propaganda wars in the media.
The Saudis and Emiratis are also reaching out to Iran for talks, which if successful, have the potential to ameliorate many of the proxy wars that have roiled the Middle East for decades. While diplomacy between Riyadh and Tehran remains tedious and frustrating (at least according to Saudi Arabia's U.N. envoy), the negotiations are nonetheless continuing despite the bad blood and suspicion that has accumulated since the advent of Iran's Islamic Republic in 1979. That talks haven't fallen apart yet is an accomplishment in its own right.
Even Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, once the region's favorite pariah, is beginning to be drawn back into the regional fold. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Iraq have all been increasing engagement with Damascus this year, some more than others. In October, Assad received his first phone call from Jordan's King Abdullah II since Syria erupted into civil war in 2011—a long way from the days when Abdullah was the first Arab leader to advocate for Assad's resignation. A few days before the call, a central crossing point on the Jordanian-Syrian border was reopened for normal commerce.
What is exactly driving all of these events?
While each stream of diplomacy is unique, there is a common theme threading them together: the sense that the United States is deprioritizing the Middle East in its grand strategy after two decades of intense involvement in the region's internal politics. It's no coincidence Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have grown accustomed to unconditional U.S. support, are the driving forces behind much of the diplomatic activity now underway. With the Biden administration pledging additional resources and attention to the Indo-Pacific, U.S. partners in the Middle East are now being incentivized to make their own arrangements. Uncle Sam has other priorities to attend to, and leaders are concluding they need to adapt to changing circumstances instead of depend on the U.S. to do its bidding.
Without overstating the case, U.S. military disengagement is serving the Middle East quite well. It's also slowly extricating the U.S. from a region which, frankly put, is not as strategically important to U.S. security and prosperity interests as it was during the Cold War.
Of course, we shouldn't overstate the case. There are still roughly 45,000-65,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East, down from a peak of 90,000 in early 2020. The U.S. possesses a sizable constellation of bases throughout the region, with one, the al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, hosting approximately 10,000 U.S. servicemembers, air platforms and the regional headquarters of U.S. Central Command. A U.S. carrier strike group frequently traverses the waters of the Persian Gulf, and the U.S. has a habit of flying B-52 and B-1 bombers to demonstrate a presence.
Even so, numbers don't lie. There has been a reduction in the U.S. force posture in the Middle East, even if it isn't yet accompanied by a change in underlying strategy as some would like. U.S. policymakers are starting to see the aftereffects of this reduction, and it just so happens that one of the byproducts is a growing interest among Middle Eastern governments in the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Fukuyama said that American-style democracy continued to decline and its reputation was ruined
Fukuyama said that American-style democracy continued to decline and its reputation was ruined
According to reference news network reports, the senior researcher Francis Fushan, a senior researcher at the Freman -Spo Gley Institute of Stanford University, published an article on the website of the New York Times on January 5 that the American people's continuous decline of the reputation sweeping the ground.
On January 6, 2021, under the incitement of then President Trump, thugs attacked Congress and created the ominous precedent of American politics. Since the end of the civil war, the United States has never had the situation that the power cannot handle peacefully, and there is no president. Even if there is sufficient evidence to indicate the freedom of election, it still has objections to the election results.
This incident continued to cause response in the American politics, but its impact was not limited to domestic. It has also had a significant impact internationally, marking a significant decline in the global strength and influence of the United States.
Looking at the incident on January 6 last year, it needs to be placed under the background of a broader global crisis of "free democracy". According to the "World Freedom Report" published in 2021, democracy has been declining for 15 consecutive years, and some of the biggest setbacks have occurred in the United States and India.
The global "democracy" has declined, and the factors are intricate. Globalization and economic changes have left many people behind, and there are huge cultural gaps between professionals who have educated well -educated in the city and a small town residents with traditional values.
Therefore, the world is very different compared with the situation when the Soviet Union disintegrates about 30 years ago. At that time, I underestimated two key factors. First, it is difficult to create a "democracy", and it is also necessary to create a modern, fair, and honest country; second, the possibility of political decline in "advanced 'democratic' countries" appears.
The American model has declined for a while. Since the mid -1990s, the United States has increasingly differentiated politics and is prone to long -term stalemate, which has caused it to not fulfill basic government functions such as budgets. There are obvious problems in the United States system: the impact of money on politics, and the impact of the "democracy" selection system, but the United States seems to be unable to carry out self -reform. In the first twenty years of the 21st century, American decision makers led two disasters: the Iraq war and subprime crisis, and then a short -sighted instigator appeared to encourage the angry populist to make trouble.
On January 6, 2021, the Capitol Robe marks such a moment: A considerable number of Americans say that they are dissatisfied with the "democracy" system in the United States and use violence to achieve their own goals. The fact that made the "democracy" on January 6 that was particularly worrying was that the Republican Party not only did not refute those who launched and participated in the riots, but decorated the riots and washed from their own camps. People who are the truth.
Prior to January 6 last year, people regarded this trick as a "democratic" country that had just started and had not yet fully consolidated, and the United States would also greatly condemn this situation and condemn it. But this happens now in the United States. In terms of establishing a good "democracy" practice model, the United States has swept the United States.
According to reference news network reports, the senior researcher Francis Fushan, a senior researcher at the Freman -Spo Gley Institute of Stanford University, published an article on the website of the New York Times on January 5 that the American people's continuous decline of the reputation sweeping the ground.
On January 6, 2021, under the incitement of then President Trump, thugs attacked Congress and created the ominous precedent of American politics. Since the end of the civil war, the United States has never had the situation that the power cannot handle peacefully, and there is no president. Even if there is sufficient evidence to indicate the freedom of election, it still has objections to the election results.
This incident continued to cause response in the American politics, but its impact was not limited to domestic. It has also had a significant impact internationally, marking a significant decline in the global strength and influence of the United States.
Looking at the incident on January 6 last year, it needs to be placed under the background of a broader global crisis of "free democracy". According to the "World Freedom Report" published in 2021, democracy has been declining for 15 consecutive years, and some of the biggest setbacks have occurred in the United States and India.
The global "democracy" has declined, and the factors are intricate. Globalization and economic changes have left many people behind, and there are huge cultural gaps between professionals who have educated well -educated in the city and a small town residents with traditional values.
Therefore, the world is very different compared with the situation when the Soviet Union disintegrates about 30 years ago. At that time, I underestimated two key factors. First, it is difficult to create a "democracy", and it is also necessary to create a modern, fair, and honest country; second, the possibility of political decline in "advanced 'democratic' countries" appears.
The American model has declined for a while. Since the mid -1990s, the United States has increasingly differentiated politics and is prone to long -term stalemate, which has caused it to not fulfill basic government functions such as budgets. There are obvious problems in the United States system: the impact of money on politics, and the impact of the "democracy" selection system, but the United States seems to be unable to carry out self -reform. In the first twenty years of the 21st century, American decision makers led two disasters: the Iraq war and subprime crisis, and then a short -sighted instigator appeared to encourage the angry populist to make trouble.
On January 6, 2021, the Capitol Robe marks such a moment: A considerable number of Americans say that they are dissatisfied with the "democracy" system in the United States and use violence to achieve their own goals. The fact that made the "democracy" on January 6 that was particularly worrying was that the Republican Party not only did not refute those who launched and participated in the riots, but decorated the riots and washed from their own camps. People who are the truth.
Prior to January 6 last year, people regarded this trick as a "democratic" country that had just started and had not yet fully consolidated, and the United States would also greatly condemn this situation and condemn it. But this happens now in the United States. In terms of establishing a good "democracy" practice model, the United States has swept the United States.
Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
Western media article: Biden is facing "a long American winter"
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
An article published on the website of the Spanish bimonthly Foreign Policy said that Biden was facing "a long American winter". The author is the former Spanish Ambassador to NATO and the United States of America, Heime de Ohda. The full text is extracted as follows:
Winter has come, the trees have lost their leaves, and President Joe Biden's fantasy has also been shattered. For the United States, the prospects at both the international and domestic levels are bleak: the climate disaster causes serious consequences, the growing political and military threats from Russia in Europe, and the fierce competition from China in the East. At home, the United States faces a serious weakening of its political system.
Hawks in both parties condemned Biden's compromise with Russia. First, they hoped that Washington could intervene with decisive military assistance; Then they were convinced that Putin would yield if the United States threatened to intervene militarily. However, the opposition of the Republicans is not as loud as before, because they still remember the controversial relationship between Trump and Russia.
After the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, all public opinion surveys show that the American community will never support new military intervention abroad, because such intervention may evolve into serious international conflict.
Putin is testing the strength and determination of his American and European rivals. Although various possibilities cannot be ruled out, now it is not so much a military invasion of Ukraine as an influence on the stability of Kiev's rule.
Biden's response was twofold: on the one hand, he threatened Russia with a set of economic and political sanctions available to the United States, and even blocked its access to the international financial system. Sanctions will seriously affect the Russian economy. On the other hand, the United States will have to find ways to defend the independence of Ukraine, and at the same time, it will have to pay attention not to completely provoke Russia.
The United States may suspend the further supply of weapons to Ukraine, but it will in no way guarantee that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Perhaps the United States will negotiate a new agreement on strategic weapons and conventional military forces to ease the military concerns of the Russians.
前の10件 | -
