Geopolitics

Conclusions that can be drawn from the Israel-Iran conflict and the broader global situation:
- Currently, international law only functions effectively in times of low tension. When crises escalate, countries tend to rely on power politics. Each state acts based on its own interpretation of national interest.
This will remain the case until the key destabilizing factors are eliminated.
- Russia is the main threat to the free world.
- Global instability will continue to rise until an effective system of international law is established.
However, as mentioned, achieving this will be difficult without first addressing the sources of destabilization.
- The global arms race is set to intensify, with more countries expanding their military capabilities.
- Once again, Russia has shown itself to be an unreliable partner. Alliances with Russia offer no genuine security guarantees.
- Iran’s air defense systems, including those supplied by Russia, proved to be ineffective.

Kinda can‘t hear it anymore how Russia is portrayed as the evil and US the Savior of the free world.

The US has made it clear that they only care about Military strength, not international laws etc.; certainly been doing it with their military in the past and have weaponizee the Financial System more than anybody else to make (less obvious) moves but now (with Trump, latest actions, and rhetoric) we‘re officially back to whoever is stronger overall wins.

As the West is tired of actual fighting & the Financial System isn‘t as robust as many might think, this overconfidence may very well be their downfall.

It‘s 100% obvious Americans (overall, obv some will have differentiated opinions) have 0 clue about Iran, Russia, China or the EU, what those (groups of) countries want and value.

At best, Americans will tell you Russia, China, Iran are socialist & cooperate therefore - ignoring all the other (more important, pragmatic) facettes of their Alliances today

Selling energy at low prices isn’t necessarily a sign of being a “good partner.” It can be part of a strategy: to get you hooked on a resource, create dependency, and then use that as leverage. Russia supplied cheap gas to Germany for years. But that wasn’t driven by altruistic friendship it was calculated:
To make European industry dependent on Russian resources.
That said, I meant something else when I talked about partnership. I meant how they treat their own allies. For example, they abandoned Armenia simply because a non-systemic, non-pro-Russian leader came to power there.
For Russia, the West is the enemy because it stands in the way of their imperial revanchism.
That’s the core of it. That’s what everything else stems from. The rest is just details.

2 more Notes

- it‘s funny that every politician in the US has said China is the main threat for years but you & News currently single out Russia

- Why is Russia a Bad Partner? They have always delivered cheap Energy to Germany as agreed. Meanwhile the US actively wanted Germany to get 3x more expensive energy from them instead and has started a trade war with all its allies (even with those they made deals just a few years ago)

1. Of course, Russia has contributed and continues to contribute significantly to destabilization. I’m not painting an idealized picture - every country has its flaws, but equating Russia and the US as equally bad is a bit odd. To get a general sense of what values each brings to the table (in the context of the US vs. Russia/Soviet Union), it’s enough to look at the level of development in countries that were under the influence of the West/US versus those under Russia/USSR. And compare.

As for the phrase “But for starters, wouldn’t it be good to let countries, their people with unique backgrounds & circumstances figure their stuff out themselves (as long as they don’t inflict pain on others)?” - well, exactly, “as long as they don’t inflict pain on others.” 😁And that’s exactly where Russia has a clear problem))

2.👇

Russia certainly has it’s fair Share in destabilizing countries, using Force to get what it wants - but it’s Not operating in a silo.

When You List what the US & Russia stand for, it‘s clearly one-sided that it doesn’t make sense to dive deeper 😅

In Germany, I know many that have a similar view aka judge all others from their relatively wealthy perspective, their moral highstand and start to paint everything in black and white instead of shades, Imperfect pieces with different good and bad things.. 

„xyz Regime is Bad and needs to be replaced, democracy abc is good“.

obv I also have opinions on values, politics, diff countries, Regimes, Leaders. But for Starters, wouldn’t it be good to let countries, their people w/ unique background & circumstances figure their stuff out themselves (as long as they don‘t inflict pain on others) and not unequivocally tell everyone that democracy is The Only Right System (whatever they need at the time - security, water, stability, business, gay rights)?

It’s not about Russia being “portrayed as evil” the reality is that it consistently acts as a destabilizing force, not just for the West but especially for its neighbors. The invasions of Georgia, Crimea, Donbas, the full-scale war in Ukraine… not to mention hybrid attacks and constant political interference.
And this whole “might makes right” mentality? That’s exactly what the Kremlin pushes, not the democracies.
So maybe we should ask: what does each side actually offer the world? The U.S. for all its flaws stands for open markets, innovation, and alliances. Russia? Threats, blackmail, and repression at home.
Yeah, the U.S. uses force sometimes but usually against the “bad guys.” And as long as there are bad guys, the world does need a kind of policeman. Maybe it’s not perfect, but nature abhors a vacuum..
And if that vacuum gets filled by authoritarian regimes, people will be looking back at U.S. leadership with tears in their eyes.