Well, I think all the analysts who were hoping that world trade would change their governments have a point. I mean, we really did stimulate the economy in China with all this trade, we must have. Even to the point where I think it cost america in terms of manufacturing. And Russia as well, with their oil and fertilizer production. It was all supposed to be friendly, but somewhere it broke down. What do you think should have been done on our end
Probably a less aggressive foreign policy might have helped. I'm not just speaking of how the US related to Russia or China, but in the world at large. A lot of countries simply don't like the way the US carries out its foreign policy. Even if it doesn't necessarily affect their nations directly, they may still not like it, along with a certain arrogant, supercilious, sanctimonious, and hypocritical attitude which our media and political establishment have worked to an artform.
Also, once the Berlin Wall came down, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, and the Soviet Union broke up, the world situation changed, yet US policymakers really couldn't keep up, as they were seemingly running on automatic, as if they didn't even know that the Cold War ended. (And maybe it never really ended - or maybe we never really wanted it to end.)
The analysts were obviously wrong. They were ostensibly thinking like bean counters and not as statesmen or true geopoliticians. Gangster (aka "businessmen") politics might work for street wars in urban areas, but on a larger scale, it only invites more of the same, except worse, such as we see with regimes in Iran and Russia.
What we're seeing are the consequences of policies which led to the US military expanding its presence around the world and gallivanting around like some kind of wild warmonger. Teddy Roosevelt spoke about his "Great White Fleet," but now we have 750 bases in 80 countries. It may not technically be an "empire," but I think the Caesars and Napoleons of the world would still be envious.
One of the problems with being the world's champion is that there's always going to be some upstart, some challenger who will want to take you down.
That's kind of inverted way of thinking about it, compared to how that is usually thought of. I thought that most of that power-play was between the bigger powers, but maybe you're correct
Well, it is between the bigger powers, but there were clearly certain ambitious leaders of smaller nations who tried to benefit by becoming players in that game. I don't think people like Castro or Ho Chi Minh were puppets of the Soviet Union. They were their own men, and they had to play the game in such a way that would get a good deal for their own country while still enjoying a certain level of aid and assistance from a larger power. Likewise, many of the dictators the US government backed also did quite nicely for themselves - at least for a while. It didn't turn out too well for the Shah in the end, and even Pinochet had the face the music in the twilight of his life.
