Simply put, as one of my friends said, "Bush has lost the world." What my friends described was not a mere rise of anti-Americanism amongst the world's publics, such as was discussed here:No, what my friends sketched for me was much more profound and far more troubling: a reaction to the Bush regime's Iraq and Iran follies that is impelling Russia, China, and Germany into an unprecedented level of co-operation. Remember back in March and April, when Bush himself appeared in public for live, unrehearsed Q and A's for what we thought was part of an effort to halt his steep decline in public approval ratings? At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin was visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing for two days. The two leaders signed nearly 30 agreements, putting the finishing touches on a political, economic and technological alliance that is a historic shift in the geo-political alignment of the globe. But the summit between Putin and Hu Jintao received nary a mention in the U.S. news media.

You have to step back and think about this a minute (or have a long dinner and a few drinks with certain residents of Falls Church, Virginia) for the full weight to sink in. Two of the world's most powerful nations, which have historically been at each other's throats, have reacted to what the U.S. has done under Bush, by agreeing to settle their border disputes (full demarcation is slated for next year), AND by forging ahead with a framework for a solid alliance of cooperation and shared progress. In fact, Putin and Hu Jintao have met FIVE times in the past year. In July 2005, they issued a joint statement denouncing "the pursuit of monopoly or domination of world affairs," a remark clearly aimed at the U.S.

About three to four weeks after the most recent Putin-Hu Jintao summit (I therefore assume three to four weeks to be the amount of time it takes for the conservative ideologues running the United States to become conscious of the fact that some one is poking them in the belly with a sharp stick), Vice-President Dick Cheney created an international furor with his undiplomatic and impolitic May 4 remarks about Russia and Putin. Cheney's remarks are likely to be seen by future historians as the opening shots in a new phase of the conservatives' "long war." (Don't hold your breath waiting for similar remarks by Cheney regarding China; the Chinese have too much leverage over the U.S. economy in the form of their supplying basic consumer commodities such as shoes and electronics, and their holdings of U.S. debt.)

Just a few days ago, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Viktorovich Lavroy was in Peking again.

The online version of the Daily News & Analysis of India reports:

http://www.dnaindia.com/...



On his current tour of duty to China, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Viktorovich Lavroy noted on Tuesday that his country's relationship with China had "reached an unprecedented level." He made his comments as the two giants, both of whom share an anxiety over US militarist policies and both of whom have veto power in the UN Security Council, reiterated their calibrated stand on the Iran nuclear standoff: China and Russia, he said, would not vote for the use of force in resolving the issue, and would instead favour dialogue and diplomacy. This unambiguous articulation of policy places them diametrically opposite to the course of action preferred by the US... snip Moscow and Beijing have built on their economic relationship, which is founded on China's need for Russian oil and natural gas, raw materials as well as weapons, and elevated it to a level where there is an increasing congruence to their worldviews....

Where does Germany fit into this? You mean besides the energy deals between Germany and Russia? China is industrializing as rapidly as it can, with little regard at present for social and environmental consequences. Who is designing and constructing all those new factories being built so frantically? According to my friends, there are over 400 German companies doing the great bulk of that work in China. Hmm, and you were wondering why Germany's new chancellor, Angela Merkel, was in China just a week ago.

The online edition of the Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/...

recently had an article entitled, "Germany, Russia redraw Europe's frontiers" which reported that Polish Defense Minister Radek Sikorski made remarks to a conference of European and North American leaders in Brussels



intended to draw the attention of the trans-Atlantic leaders to the lengthening shadows of the Russian-German ties across the vast landscape of Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia (and even stretching all the way to China) that are steadily, inexorably reconfiguring the international system. Given that the German economy is rebounding as Europe's No 1 powerhouse and given Russia's growing status as the 21st century's energy superpower - and not the least of all, China's phenomenal rise - a lineup involving the three countries would profoundly impact Euro-Atlanticism.

The rest of the article has all the details you could want about the energy deals between Germany and Russia.

What about the rest of the world? We all know how the U.S. is now in the process of "losing South America."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/... (again, note the China angle)

In India, no one is particularly happy about the closer relations with the U.S. Bush tried to forge two months ago, even if it gives India access to U.S. nuclear technology (which is outmoded, anyway). India is one of the countries where the fruits of Bush/conservative ideology -- the ongoing re-alignment of global geo-politics - is going to cost the U.S. dearly, because it is giving China more maneuvering room on the world stage. The Chinese Communist Party is furtively supporting the small but very active group of Maoists in India, who are shifting the tone and frames of reference of politics in India, much as the conservatives have done in the U.S. since Barry Goldwater's 1964 defeat.

Iran and Afghanistan are the pivot of the world geo-political re-alignment. Part of the cost of Bush and company's strategic blunder in Iraq is that they left unfinished the good work they had started in Afghanistan. The result is that the Afghan economy is a shambles and increasingly dependent on poppy production for the making of opium and heroin, the political strength of the warlords is increasing outside of Kabul, the Taliban is resurging in the border areas, and the population has grown weary of the unfulfilled promises of the shrinking "coalition of the willing."

http://news.scotsman.com/...

In Iran, my friends said that in the mid-1990s, the U.S. and its (former) European allies had successfully created a republican (with small "r") movement in Iran that was poised to reduce, if not completely replace, the power of the mullahs. That republican movement in Iran was crushed virtually overnight by Bush's "Axis of Evil" State of the Union address in 2002.

That reference to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil" is a frightening case study of how policy is made in the Bush administration. In his insiders' account of the U.S. preparations for the invasion of Iraq, Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward recounts how the term "axis of hatred" was included in the State of the Union address by Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson after asking conservative author David Frum "to come up with a sentence or two summing up the case for going after Iraq." Gerson changed "axis of hatred" to "axis of evil." Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley then suggested including Iran and North Korea by name, in order to "protect" the secrecy of then ongoing Iraq war planning. (See Plan of Attack, pages 86 to 91.)

Bush's mention of Iran as part of an axis of evil thus was a small part of a major speech that had no input from the professional diplomats at the State Department or the spymasters at the CIA. But this small part had major repercussions inside Iran, where the terms of political debate shifted in the mullahs' favor literally overnight, derailing the republican movement that had been slowly and painstakingly nurtured over nearly a decade.

The ideological blinders and mis-steps of the Bush regime also carry a high price tag here at home. My friends' description of the demoralization of State and CIA careerists made my chest constrict painfully. Career diplomats, foreign service officers, and analysts realize they have been deliberately frozen out of policy making and have lost all hope of having any influence in the Bush administration and of turning around what they see as a series of mounting disasters. One friend said simply, "Everybody at State goes home each night and starts drinking." My other friend said the same applies to the CIA.

I would like to reinforce Markos' message about Democratic candidates NOT running against Bush, or even the Bush regime's incompetence.

http://www.dailykos.com/...

The one third of the American people that remain solidly for Bush see the federal government bureaucracy as one of the major obstacles to their vision of "renewing" America. They WANT government careerists shoved aside and kept out of the making and implementation of policy,

As Markos said:

What you are seeing is the failure of right-wing conservatism. The failures since 2000 are not Bush, or Cheney, or incompetence; they are the logical end result of their philosophy of government. When you vote for people who believe government is the problem, this is the government you get.