Trump and “Deviationism” from the US Foreign Policy Consensus
Michael Tracey

If you want to discuss actual foreign policy, do so. If you want to discuss insider versus outsider approaches to foreign policy, again go right ahead. But the off the cuff thoughts of a character from Goodfellas aren’t worth yours, or anyone’s actual time. I genuinely cannot understand what point you are trying to make.

Electing to continue the status quo in Syria and not undertaking new military measures there is not detente or cooperation with Russia. Detente would start with the suspension of antagonistic actions towards NATO members. It would continue with suspension of support for Ukrainian separatists. And then you would see a lifting of sanctions. This isn’t rocket science. Sanctions happened because of bellicose actions on Russia’s part that were unprovoked by the west.

The US has mostly stood by in Syria because there is not a clear and compelling national interest in Syria. That is the status quo. However Russia’s support for mass war crimes does create a national interest based on the externalities to the region and Europe. This is a case for further actions against Russia. But that does not mean action must explicitly be military in nature.

It would be a shame if the Russia OPEC production cap proposal fell apart…

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.