More importantly, the trend at the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting at Brussels on November 19-20, in the run-up to the London summit, showed that despite growing differences within the alliance, member states closed ranks around three priority items in the US global agenda — escalation of the aggressive policy toward Russia, militarisation of space and countering China’s rise....The only sure way to ensure permanent US hegemony is to break Russia and China into smaller countries that can be controlled and to prevent alliances of smaller countries that could challenge US hegemony by competing militarily or economically. US policy elites have known this for at least a century and the British policy elites knew this at least a century before that. Prepare for another Cold War and hope it never goes hot.
With NATO set up by Washington for a confrontationist posture, Russia and China won’t let their guard down. Addressing a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council on November 22, Putin said, “There are many uncertainty factors… competition and rivalry are growing stringer and morphing into new forms… The leading countries are actively developing their offensive weapons… the so-called ‘nuclear club’ is receiving new members. We are also seriously concerned about the NATO infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarise outer space.”India Punchline
Putin stressed, “In these conditions, it is important to make adequate and accurate forecasts, analyse the possible changes in the global situation, and to use the forecasts and conclusions to develop our military potential.”...
US primes NATO to confront Russia, China
M. K. Bhadrakumar | retired diplomat with the Indian Foreign Service
See also
The majority of Americans support liberal interventionism/neoconservatism in this survey.
Similarly, when asked about the efficacy of maintaining U.S. military bases overseas compared to reducing our foreign presence, Americans opt for maintaining bases by a 65% to 28% margin. Opinions on base-maintenance varies by gender (men +44 maintain versus reduce, women +30), age (under 30 years of age +18, over 65 +44), education (non-college +28, college +43), and region (East +50, MidWest +35, South +32). Perhaps surprisingly, veteran status has almost no effect on attitudes towards maintaining foreign bases. Race and ethnic differences also fail to predict these opinions.
This general support for engagement includes a willingness to use U.S. military forces, even when there is no direct threat to the U.S. By a 55-point margin—76% support, 22% do not support—Americans support using U.S. military forces to prevent human rights violations in other countries. By the same 55-point margin—again, 76% support, 22% do not support—they favor using U.S. military forces to defend freedom in other countries.
If the U.S. is directly threatened, the percent supporting a possible military response goes even higher: by a 75-point margin—87% support, 11% do not support—Americans support using U.S. military forces to eliminate potential threats to the U.S. before they strike. When it comes to these particular engagement questions, there are few significant sub-group differences. For example, 74% of men support using the U.S. military to prevent human rights violations; 78% of women feel likewise. Seventy-five percent of non-college people support, 77% of college grads support. Eighty percent of people in the East support, compared to 75% of people in the West. There is a partisan difference, as 84% of Democrats support whereas only 68% of Republicans support. There is also a slight age difference: among those under 30, 77% support; among those over 65, 65% support. But these differences should not obscure the dominance of pro-engagement attitudes....Beacon Research
Results from the 2019 Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute National Defense Survey
