this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
7 points (73.3% liked)

History

2108 readers
6 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

thanks for sharing. but i feel that after reading his Wikipedia entry this guy also had somewhat difficult ideas to put it mildly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan

not saying that the particular ideas discussed in your linked article are wrong though. i guess they make sense from a us-centric, realist perspective. what is, in my mind, often missing from discussions about NATO expansion is that the new members wanted to join NATO. given how the Soviet Union/Russia treated those countries in the past, i can hardly blame them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Kennan is a neocon, but that's what makes this even more impactful in my opinion. It shows that even the most rabid warmongers in the US establishment understood that there were red lines that shouldn't be crossed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Most of the time, I (a European) can't distinguish the differences between neocons and liberals in the USA. But, in any case, I think that for both applies this old joke:

"I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says.

"Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them."

The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America".

🤷🏼‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Indeed, there is very little difference between the two. It became especially clear when a bunch of republicans moved over to the dem party in the recent years and dems are now celebrating people like Bush and Cheney.