The threat of a widespread conflict in the Middle East has shifted attention from Ukraine. Western fatigue with the war in Ukraine is real, “and increasingly so,” the foreign minister of Finland told the Financial Times recently.
I guess we have our answer to who has more patience. Though I expected this. Russia's political system allows more long term planning and commitments. In liberal democracies policies can change abruptly depending on who wins the election.
A tangential question, AIPAC-aside which is more important to the US: Eastern Europe or West Asia?
To me it seems Ukraine should have been a strategic priority for the US and not Israel, if it weren't for AIPAC influence, or is controlling the Eastern Mediterranean a priority for the US regardless?
Ukraine has little strategic value for the US in the grand scheme of things, and the US simply lacks the capacity to have a prolonged war of attrition with Russia. Europe is entering a period of decline now, and I full expect that the US will abandon it to refocus on Asia going forward.
It's also important to keep in mind that the US runs a global empire, so it can't devote all its resources to Ukraine the way Russia is able to. Being overly focused in one place means that others start to break free. This is what happened in Africa with the west starting to get pushed out. It's also happening in Latin America, and other places.
The biggest worry for the US is that there's going to be Eurasian integration. That's why there is so much focus on destabilizing West Asia. If Eurasia becomes economically integrated over land then then it will become the economic centre of the world focused on China. If Israel falls, then Iran will become the dominant power in the region. It's already integrated with BRICS, and it would pull the rest of the countries into BRICS orbit as well. This is what makes Israel so important for US.
Thank you.
I guess we have our answer to who has more patience. Though I expected this. Russia's political system allows more long term planning and commitments. In liberal democracies policies can change abruptly depending on who wins the election.
A tangential question, AIPAC-aside which is more important to the US: Eastern Europe or West Asia?
To me it seems Ukraine should have been a strategic priority for the US and not Israel, if it weren't for AIPAC influence, or is controlling the Eastern Mediterranean a priority for the US regardless?
Ukraine has little strategic value for the US in the grand scheme of things, and the US simply lacks the capacity to have a prolonged war of attrition with Russia. Europe is entering a period of decline now, and I full expect that the US will abandon it to refocus on Asia going forward.
It's also important to keep in mind that the US runs a global empire, so it can't devote all its resources to Ukraine the way Russia is able to. Being overly focused in one place means that others start to break free. This is what happened in Africa with the west starting to get pushed out. It's also happening in Latin America, and other places.
The biggest worry for the US is that there's going to be Eurasian integration. That's why there is so much focus on destabilizing West Asia. If Eurasia becomes economically integrated over land then then it will become the economic centre of the world focused on China. If Israel falls, then Iran will become the dominant power in the region. It's already integrated with BRICS, and it would pull the rest of the countries into BRICS orbit as well. This is what makes Israel so important for US.