What amuses me in this analysis is the sense of inevitability, both of the virtue of such external engagement and the reservations about success.



What we see on this international scale is similar to the corporate mergers and acquisitions of the large multi-national businesses on an economic stage. Most simply fail, some spectacularly, most just quietly. Or we could compare it to the incorporation of the weaker countries surrounding Russia into and as part of the USSR, and the subsequent idea of somehow converting all the various weak and failing economies of the world to global communism. This is a recipe for “success?” By what definition? To what end?



Of course there is great enthusiasm by the weaker “partners’ in the relationships, as the weaker partner seeks to find the best teat to suck on and grow fat, most always to the out-size benefit of the ruling elite. Which elite then takes its money and deposits it in a US based bank. How can these weak partners encourage such attempted feeding other than by some sort of competition for “influence?”



This influence is nothing but an attempt at bribery for resources, probably cheaper than and more effective than outright subjugation by war. The problem is that it is not exactly market based. It is nothing but an attempt to get resource prices reduced and stabilized for growth of the larger “partner” by paying off the elites of the weaker partner. And there is a social aspect to this as well, as the various “rulers” and elites of these countries meet and socialize with each other, praising and thanking each other as we see on the Hollywood and music awards shows on television. How charming it all is.



And underneath this is the same petty but powerful self-aggrandizement that drives the billionaire plutocrat businessmen to buy up smaller companies for the benefit (they say) of the shareholders. But as compared to shareholders, who can at least divest themselves of the corporate stock and end their participation in the ego driven fiasco, the citizens of the country cannot easily end their participation. And this is particularly true in China, etc.



I think the US, although misguided in its past involvement in the Mid-east, and although it may be squandering its goodwill now, has at least ceased the dramatic outflow of real resources to that area, and is probably more than content, if not actually pleased, to let China, like Russia before it, take the lead in helping these weaker and smaller countries.



For myself, as a US citizen, before I do too much to help the foreign counties do better I want to see more spent at home, and see real benefits to actual (or potential) citizens and residents.

