It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: hjesterium
It begs the question: why did the British feel the need to oust him from power after the war?
We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.
Again, another reactionary talking point. One search and most results come from US-based think-tanks. www.jstor.org... This study draws attention to how the all-pervasive myth is lazily invoked in academic circles and by bourgeois politicians whenever tensions are high as an explanation for Russian foreign policy and behavior.
some of those prices remain eternal like a warm water port for Russia
The clearest admission to a lack of principles I've read to date. The British were notorious for upholding policies (European balance of power) when they had ceased to be viable.
We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.
Then it is the current "rules-based" world order/prevailing state of affairs which is to blame for interest cliques, not individual nations.
its why the British Russian relationship is perhaps one of the most interesting as they start a fair few wars on opposite sides then pivoting to be allies, participate in proxy wars on the same side and as opponents
originally posted by: sHuRuLuNi
All "experts" here who wish for the demise of the west and the rise of Russia and the like, are the same ones who have never lived under communism.
If you have had (like me) you would SHUT THE HELL UP.