The United States of Hypocrisy: Revisiting the Monroe Doctrine

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

There is no doctrinal statement in American diplomatic history that is more fundamental than the Monroe Doctrine. It was designed to draw a strategic line between the New World and the Old, and to alert the European powers that their political influence and presence was no longer welcome in the Western Hemisphere. No doctrinal statement has been enforced as often as the Monroe Doctrine, which has been used to justify U.S. intervention throughout Central America and the Caribbean. The Monroe Doctrine was cited in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961, a perfect failure, as well as the Cuban missile crisis, a diplomatic triumph.

To read more:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/01/31/the-united-states-of-hypocrisy-revisiting-the-monroe-doctrine/

It is not just how the US sees itself, it is how the rest of the world sees the US.

[Xolodno]

1. You'll get many who will say...

...there was no agreement not to expand NATO. Sure there are no formal treaties, memo's etc. But....

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)

------------------------------------------
And at the time, it was unthinkable of a Warsaw Pact nation joining NATO. But Baker, not Bush made the commitment. But it was also implied NATO would become less of a Military alliance and the Soviet Union would become more integrated with Europe. But as the link show:

But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27)

This would no doubt include Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

[guillaumeb]

2. Excellent points.

My view, shared by many, is that NATO was always intended to be a power alliance directed against Russian expansion.

And the US, having over 700 overseas bases, surrounds Russia.

There is no doubt that Putin is a thug, and essentially if not actually a part of the Russian Mafiya, but the world knows that the US always uses power if diplomacy does not work to achieve the interests of the rich.

Diplomacy is the velvet covering the iron fist.

[Xolodno]

3. To correct you a bit, NATO was an alliance to stop Soviet expansionism.

After its collapse, then it turned more political and the military alliance was repositioned to keep peace around the world and fight terrorism. This is when Russia was often included in numerous missions with NATO. Yeltsin even asked to join NATO at one point and Clinton implied that could happen.

https://time.com/5564207/russia-nato-relationship/

But that got fucked up under W. Bush. He went reckless with foreign policy, expanding NATO with no regard to the implications and twisting the arms of allies to get it done and even ignoring NATO's revised purpose, keep peace and fight terrorism. Instead he fights terrorism as a secondary mission even after we got hit on 9/11 and starts a war in Iraq.

And any overtures of allowing Russia to join NATO vanish with Cheney and Rumsfeld at the helm. Far as they were concerned, Russia was a defeated enemy that needs to stay defeated, do what it was told and like it. That resulted from friendly NATO - Russia relations to Russia turning to opposition. Now were forced with a mess that the GOP hawks created and no good way to get back.

In the case of Putin, he and many other former KGB agents went into politics, government administration, industries, etc. and slowly rose up the ranks. Some have even speculated that this was the rough plan of the KGB should the Soviet Union collapse.

So you could call it a "KGB Mafia". They rose to be oligarchs and Putin became the boss oligarch. And those that didn't play game, got the boot.

[EX500rider]

4. "And the US, having over 700 overseas bases, surrounds Russia."

Sure, if you agree with Ron Paul...otherwise only 11 countries actually house more than 1,000 U.S. military personnel.

A more accurate way to treat this data would be to say that the United States has 20 major bases around the world, not counting the war in Afghanistan, with major concentrations of troops in 11 countries.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-pauls-strange-claim-about-bases-and-troops-overseas/2012/02/08/gIQApZpqzQ_blog.html