Empire, Imperialism and other geo-political naughtiness

[welsh]

In 1780, America was for the most part a nation state, with similar culture across all the states. While true that a Northerner had more in common with a Canadian in most repsects than with a Georgian, one could walk North to South and still be speaking the same langauge. And by the time America became a multicultural society with the annexation of the West, Europe was in no condition to be called in a "post-modern condition". Le Doctrine, the Jacobians and other groups had taken Europe back a good few hundred years. Look at Russia. The Peterian period was long over, and the Tsars where clearly becoming Right Wing Nationalists, as well as the Prussians.
So, that period of the Enlightenment only lasted from about 1750-1794. Timeframe sound familiar?

Oops I think I wrote badly and am misunderstood. I agree with this notion that one of the things that tied the US together was language, a problem for the Europeans. With language one has an easier time building a common culture and national identity. But yes, by the turn of the century the US is on the way to being a national state- a central government, subordinant states, administrative structure, but not quite a monopoly on the use of force. Still it is that question of federal control over the state- leading to both a civil war and the 14th Amendment, that finally resolves these issues.

As for the European stuff, I think I was unclear here. The Economist was making an argument that contemporary Europe had become post modern. In otherwords the issues of identity and sovereignty vested in national states was being transcended into a new system of relationships. Its an old article and I don't remember it so well.

But I found it a bit optimistic. I think the Europeans still need to develop a stronger notion of common heritage and common purpose. Part of this is language, but part of it is culture and history. But I think more importantly are the policies of the strong parties. The UK trying to hold onto autonomy because of its international financial power or the Germans trying to strong arm through currency manipulation or the French arrogance to place itself as leader of Europe. Its a bit difficult to see this notion of common idenity form when the major countries are looking out for their individual self interest first.

I know Kharn will argue this point, but it has been a very good thing for the US to maintain its involvement in Europe and to support NATO. As someone once said, NATO had two missions-
(1) keep the Russians out, (2) Keep the Germans down. The French in the end will not be able to constrain the Germans from being powerful. The greatest restraint on Germany is Germany itself- its recogniztion that historical paths tend to lead in the same direction ending in war.

If the Germans become strong the French and Russians would balance again (as they did before). Both France and Russia have an interest in balancing against Germany and both have countries with strong executive leaderships. Both countries have their own vision of place in the world and both have security issues. The English would be in a position to figure out who to balance with or against to try to keep things peaceful. Most of the smaller countries would have to pick sides based on individual and shared interests.

The US role in NATO plays the same role as the US does in Japan. It allows countries to free ride on US security. By allowing the countries of Europe to free ride, it means they don't self-help for security, no self-help means no arms races, no insecurities, and allowed for the EU to build. Yes, I know that the Germans and the rest of the European countries paid in a number of ways for having the Americans there. But had the Americans not been there, the Euros would have probably spent more on military and thus constrain economic development and intergration.

The EU could not have existed without NATO.

Not to say the US didn't benefit. Greatest share of world trade happens between firms that stretch across the Atlantic. Economically, the continent of Europe and the US are tied, and usually are tied in foreign policy.

Now the French are seeing a chance to create a more autonomous Europe, under French leadership. This should send send warning flags up.

Frankly, I see France's willingness to argue against the US, or even to pursue an autonomous foreign policy as a good thing for the US. It's good for the US to face some competition, some criticism and some resistance from the Europeans. It's like being married. Sometimes its good for one spouse to tell the other spouse, "what the fuck do you think you're doing? Are you on drugs?" Too much however can lead to trouble.

Here, I quote a great philosopher, Mom, on being honest in a relationship. "While its good to be honest, its not good to be TOO honest."

 

[John Uskglass]

I find it hilarious that Europe still belives that a bi-polar world is hilarious. They are blinding themselves from the horrors of WW1. Or how close everything was to total annihalation every second of the cold war.
I also find it funny that Europe dislikes America for war-like tendancies, because Europe now has no major threat to it's soverignty like the USSR............so they start saying that the US needs a nother USSR "to balance American agression".

Europe does not have a common heritage, except possibly in Racial matters in some repsects. The Czech are a important member, but are they "culturally linked"? Thier language is unique in the world, to some extent they are racially unique as well. What of Hungary? A nation that is culturally a third German, a third Romanian and a third Magyar? Or Finland? Europe is a diverse area, and this will not happen. I think Farred Zakaria said it best, look for his article.


I am afraid I was also misunderstood. In Europe it is a circular pattern- waring (Thirty Years War), Enlightenment, Technological Boost, War. Nothing can stop it, and the EU is just a pause.

Did the Economist really write that? Maybe the Brazillian Economist is diffirent, because the Economist I know is basically a British Reason, only more intellegent.

 

[John Uskglass]

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/063003.html

 

[Sander]

I find it very interesting, craprunner(ARGH, I hate your name....) that you keep referring to Europe. Europe hates this, Europe doesn't like that. But Europe isn't like that, because THERE IS NO EUROPE. Currently, you have the EU, which is just a power-struggle with indicisive and battling people who can't agree, and thus EUROPE itself thinks nothing.The MAIN problem with Europe is one of not only identity, but more of completely differet views.

Those problems were much less there when the USA formed. For one, there were original people were all pushed away, and had nothing to do with the country anymore, everyone there was relatively new, and everyone came there for the same reasons(mainly): Freedom. So, there were little ideology frictions. As well as that, most people really didn't know THAT well what was going on, information flow was poor, and education was low. The culture of the USA just became the USA, and the different views weren't really there, only becoming aparent in the Civil War, which was won by the North.

In Europe, you have a completely different situation, you have a lot of countries, most highly civilized, with a long history behind them, and with a very big nation-awareness as well. Most people like heir own nations, seen very clearly in soccer matches. As well as that, there are stil problems with both Ireland and the Basques in Spain. Certain countries have problems with their economy(Mainly eastern-european ones), and there is quibbling about who gets how much power within the EU. I think that there wil eventually be a unified EU, however, it will consist of people from countries, voting over things. It will have SOME points where everything is the same in every country(Currency, property taxes), however, I think that most countries will keep their self-rule, and there sense of nationality as well. However, things wil be more and more centralised as time goes on. I think that the countries themselves, will never disappear(Barring wars).

 

[welsh]

I find it hilarious that Europe still belives that a bi-polar world is hilarious. ....

..... I think Farred Zakaria said it best, look for his article.


I am afraid I was also misunderstood. In Europe it is a circular pattern- waring (Thirty Years War), Enlightenment, Technological Boost, War. Nothing can stop it, and the EU is just a pause.

Did the Economist really write that? Maybe the Brazillian Economist is diffirent, because the Economist I know is basically a British Reason, only more intellegent.

Hey, are you from Brazil? So is my wife?

Anyway,yes. There is an idealist position that the world can move beyond patterns of peace and violence. I think that if you want to trace a cause of world peace since the second world war, you need to think about nuclear weapons. It's a terrible thought, but the bomb changed the costs and benefits of war significantly.

Yes, the Economist did write that a few years ago. I think the Economist was going through a liberal moment and then went make to its normal conservativism. It was interesting and I was tempted to write a letter and say "what the fuck?" Still the bastion of English reason and economic thinking.

They write goofy stuff sometimes, but it outclasses just about everything printed (at least in weekly editions) in the US.

 

[Brother None]

But yes, by the turn of the century the US is on the way to being a national state- a central government, subordinant states, administrative structure, but not quite a monopoly on the use of force.

you do realise this national identity was possible because the English slaughtered everyone that was not like them, thus leaving a "unified identity"?

Do you really want Europe to do the same? Be careful what you're proud of, dudes.

I know Kharn will argue this point, but it has been a very good thing for the US to maintain its involvement in Europe and to support NATO. As someone once said, NATO had two missions-
(1) keep the Russians out, (2) Keep the Germans down. The French in the end will not be able to constrain the Germans from being powerful. The greatest restraint on Germany is Germany itself- its recogniztion that historical paths tend to lead in the same direction ending in war.

...

Since these 2 points are useless these days, I once again argue the point that the NATO should be rrrremoved.

If the Germans become strong the French and Russians would balance again (as they did before). Both France and Russia have an interest in balancing against Germany and both have countries with strong executive leaderships. Both countries have their own vision of place in the world and both have security issues. The English would be in a position to figure out who to balance with or against to try to keep things peaceful. Most of the smaller countries would have to pick sides based on individual and shared interests.

This depends strongly on how the EU develops. All you need in order to work together as such countries is someone to work AGAINST, which is why the USA is so useful for the European Union.

The EU could not have existed without NATO.

You do realise a lot of our Europeans would be happier WITHOUT the EU, right?

Now the French are seeing a chance to create a more autonomous Europe, under French leadership. This should send send warning flags up.

Will you STOP SAYING THAT!? You talk as if the French single-handedly lead the EU, that just isn't right. If I had to point out one country, right now, which dominated the EU most, it'd be Germany.

France has NO chance to create any kind of dominance. Not only are they not matched to German (who not only has more right legally but is a lot more influential in reality as well), not to mention that if France tried to seize any kind of control, the UK would have to step in, and they're big enough to halt any such attempt by France.

And you're completely missing the lesser big countries; Italy, Spain and soon-to-join Poland. These guys can't just be shoved aside, they're major players.

I don't know where you got the idea France = EU anyway. France may've been the face of European policy for the Iraq war, but that was only because Germany chose to back it up. If you look at inter-European policies of the EU, you'll see who holds sway, if anyone did.

 

[DJ Slamák]

Thier language is unique in the world, to some extent they are racially unique as well.

Pardon me for going off on a tangent here, hopefully it will be brief and I don't really have anything insightful to add to the imperialism debate... but why do you think that, CC? I mean I'm not offended, more flattered if anything , but I don't see anything all that unique about our language and racial composition.

Anyway, between New York/London/Berlin/Paris and Moscow/Beijing/Ulaanbaatar/Islamabad, I think it's safe to say we're definitely culturally closer to the former.

 

[John Uskglass]

Slamak? Czech? I would say that you probably have alot more in common with Europe, but still, I belive that your language is effectively Asian, at the very least. Also, are the Czech Slavic or German? I always thought it was a mix.
Godbless Rotterdam, it's like having California in Saudi Arabia, only inverted.
Sander, we consider ourselves British before the Mayflower, but they tend to be a little to balanced teaching history.
Calling Americans uncivilized will not get you any respect from an American. If anything, we have combined the best elements of most European societies- British Government in action, Enlightenment French in theroy, German in work Ethic, Jewish in ambition and Italian in food (alot of the time).
I think the main reason you consider Americans uncultured is that we a throw back to pre-socialist Liberalisim, something you many people have forgotten. Or atleast that is what the Economist says.
Sorry Welsh, you said something about Brazillian so I assumed....sorry.

 

[welsh]

NO, its ok,

Kharn - I am not sure if you are saying that the creation of a united national state in the US was due to wiping out just about everyone else (primarily Indians). If that's your point, the answer is yes. Generally speaking, this was one of the recurring tragedies of imperialism and colonialism (as well as Western advance in the US).

Where it was affordable, indigenous people were wiped out or enslaved. Where it was not affordable to do so, it was not.

Boy that French thing really pisses you off. Ok, well there was a wonderful argument done some years ago by Robert Art about the future of NATO at the time of the fall of Iron Curtain. Wonderful stuff, but focused on the different interests of England, France and Germany. If I can find it, I'll send it your way.

I also agree with you, that Germany should be the leader of Europe and will increasingly take that role. I think there was a delay as the country experienced the pains of reunification, and for awhile France had a chance to show leadership. But I think that most people will be wary of Germany, but less so of France. The Germans are aware of that and thus are less likely to go adventuring elsewhere. While Germany constrains itself, France has a chance. Much of the evolution of the EU seems to have been a French project.

As for smaller countries, no I consider them. But I think in the end they will be pushed around.

You point out that the US plays the role of the major badguy, the adversary that the EU can unify against. COnsidering the amount of trade and investment that cross the Atlantic, I can't really think of this kind of adversarial relations being good for either side.

However, if so, who benefits more? Probably not the small countries that benefit in trade based on the security system in which the US plays a central role. Probably not Germany, which shares that. But then which country has bumped up against US interest repeatedly the last 10 years- France. Who is raising the Anti-US banner- France. Who wanted more of a European force that didn't rely on the US but was based on French and German troops- France.

Don't get me wrong, I like the French.

The point is this, unless a different system which is built around a cooperative organization or institution, you will still have the problem of nations responding to the interests of national constitutents. The amount of trade probably won't matter. There was a hot of cross-national trade before World War I but that didn't stop people from shooting. As long as nations think of their own interests first, then you will have rivalries, and when that happens, things get scary.

 

[Brother None]

Slamak? Czech? I would say that you probably have alot more in common with Europe, but still, I belive that your language is effectively Asian, at the very least. Also, are the Czech Slavic or German? I always thought it was a mix.

Actually, there's a language group which stretches effectively from the USA to...Asia (as in Russia), I believe, called the euro-asian language group. This includes all European countries, except for Finland and Bulgaria (who have their own language group, isn't that just great? The Finn-Bulgarian language group!)

Effectively, most European languages are tied together. As far as I know, Czech belongs to that group.

Godbless Rotterdam, it's like having California in Saudi Arabia, only inverted.

Uhm, oh...

*has no particular affinity for Rotterdam, by the way*

I also agree with you, that Germany should be the leader of Europe and will increasingly take that role. I think there was a delay as the country experienced the pains of reunification, and for awhile France had a chance to show leadership. But I think that most people will be wary of Germany, but less so of France. The Germans are aware of that and thus are less likely to go adventuring elsewhere. While Germany constrains itself, France has a chance. Much of the evolution of the EU seems to have been a French project.

Perhaps, but this is in the past now. Germany is pretty much officially the biggest power in the EU (it has the highest number of seats on the Parliament). To what extent Germany chooses to use this power depends more on whether or not it agrees with France...

You point out that the US plays the role of the major badguy, the adversary that the EU can unify against. COnsidering the amount of trade and investment that cross the Atlantic, I can't really think of this kind of adversarial relations being good for either side.

Not that kind of a bad guy, more like a political counter-weight. Europe and America are too closely tied together for the EU to consider the US "the major badguy"

The point is this, unless a different system which is built around a cooperative organization or institution, you will still have the problem of nations responding to the interests of national constitutents. The amount of trade probably won't matter. There was a hot of cross-national trade before World War I but that didn't stop people from shooting. As long as nations think of their own interests first, then you will have rivalries, and when that happens, things get scary.

That all depends, then, on whether or the EU turns out to have common interests in the most important cases. Iraq showed some definitive rifts, though, so you might well be right.

 

[John Uskglass]

Whaaaat?
Bulgarian is Slavic, Indo-European streaches from all of the Americas to Iran/India down to much of Dravidian India, and Czech is one of three languages in Europe (Hungarian, Czech, Finnish, arguably Turkish) that are not Indo-European.

 

[Brother None]

Ah, so Czech belongs to the Finnish group? It's freaky-deaky, then.

I used to have this great language group page, but I lost it...

 

[DJ Slamák]

Slamak? Czech? I would say that you probably have alot more in common with Europe, but still, I belive that your language is effectively Asian, at the very least.

What makes you believe that? Czech is a West-Slavic language, and the Slavic languages are a subset of the Indo-European language family, no less or no more than Germanic, Greek, Celtic or Italic languages, and many other groups.

Also, are the Czech Slavic or German? I always thought it was a mix.

I seem to remember (but don't quote me on this anywhere) a study that described the Czech gene pool as over 50% Slavic, about 30% Germanic, 15% Celtic and the rest falls under "Other".

 

[John Uskglass]

Whooops, sorry there Slamak. I thought that Czech was related to Magyar. Never thought that you where linguisticalyl Slavic because I assumed that the majority of the "Southern Slavic" people where in Yugoslavia, and maybe a few other reasons I forgot.
How closely related is it to Slavonic/Serbo-Croation?
The German, is that from before the Slavic incursions or during the Austrian and Austro-Hungarian control of Bohemia?
Also, I belive that Bohemian/Hungarian relations where quite close after the Magyars settled down.......how much Hungarian influence?

 

[DJ Slamák]

In Europe, the Hungarians are only related to the Estonians and Finns (and probably some minority nations here and there). Their languages are from the Uralic or Ungro-Finnic family (and I do mean family).

The Avars, the ancestors of Hungarians, came to where they are today at the end of the 10th century and with their arrival, destroyed the Slavic-ruled Moravian Empire. They haven't had much influence on Czechs (though we do have some common history), but the Slovaks spent nearly 1,000 years under Hungarian rule, so the influence there was bigger (but in some aspects, like the language, it was mutual - Hungarian has some Slovak loan words).

I assumed that the majority of the "Southern Slavic" people where in Yugoslavia,

You assumed that well (provided you mean former Yugoslavia, the big one ), but we aren't south-slavic.

The Slavic languages (and with them, the nationalities) are divided into three subgroups, which are East (Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian and Rusyn), South (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian), and West (Czech, Slovak, Polish, Sorbian, Kashubian).

As for the Germanic genetic influence, I'd assume it came gradually, but the Hapsburg rule probably aided it the most. Don't really know how this kind of thing works, though, so I could easily be wrong.

How closely related is it to Slavonic/Serbo-Croation?

If I look at a Croatian text I'll understand about 30 - 40% and probably get an idea what it's probably about, I can tell verbs from substantives etc. For this I need to know several "tourist phrases" (hello, please, ice cream etc.) and the differences in morphology ("o" at the ends of words instead of "l", "g" instead of "h", etc.) and orthography (e.g. that they use "h" to write the "kh" sound that English doesn't have, while we use it for "h" etc.), plus a few words that exist in both languages but have different meanings ("zrak" means "eyesight" in Czech, but "air" in Croatian).

It probably doesn't exactly work both ways, though - other Slavic languages often use words that are archaic in Czech (and therefore known but not normally used by Czechs) or loaned from German or Latin (or, in Serbian, Turkish), while Czech has its own equivalents.

 

[John Uskglass]

The Avars where eventually annihalated by the Magyars, as the Avars where from the time of the Abbasids, the Magyars where from the time right before Manzekirt.
True, I would expect both had influence, but the Hungarians refer to their language as "Magyar", and I have herd more then once Hungarian culture called Magyar.
DJ Slamak, I thought that some of the German influence predated the Hapsburgs, because Bohemia was one of the principal members of the Holy Roman Empire, and Bohemia had several German provinces (although Bohemia was allowed certain modecrium of independance, even by HRE standards- which I belive is why was called the Kingdom of Bohemia).
Interesting though. But the way you described it it sounds like Czech has more in common with Croation/Slovenian then with Polish, which is frankly what I would have expected.

 

[DJ Slamák]

The Avars where eventually annihalated by the Magyars, as the Avars where from the time of the Abbasids, the Magyars where from the time right before Manzekirt.

Eep. Seems I'm forgetting hi-school history after all. Sorry sztupy

DJ Slamak, I thought that some of the German influence predated the Hapsburgs, because Bohemia was one of the principal members of the Holy Roman Empire, and Bohemia had several German provinces (although Bohemia was allowed certain modecrium of independance, even by HRE standards- which I belive is why was called the Kingdom of Bohemia).

Yes, a lot of the Germanic influence does predate the Hapsburg era. As for the "Sudetenland", the German population there was for the most part established in the 13th century when German settlers were invited into the land by Czech kings. As for the relation of the Bohemian Kingdom to the Roman Empire, this was laid down in the Golden Bull of Sicily in 1212 (I'm not sure if any arrangements were made later that annulated part of it, but I'm not sure if that's even possible): Bohemian nobles could elect the King without any lip from the HRE, the title was hereditary and the Kingdom indivisible, and the Kingdom didn't have to pay any tribute to the Empire. So it was practically independent (which it had always officially been, though gradually slipping under HRE influence), but the King was one of the electors of the Roman Emperor.

Still, this later didn't prevent most Hapsburgs from not accepting the crown and subduing the Lands of the Czech Crown to the Austrian throne.

Interesting though. But the way you described it it sounds like Czech has more in common with Croation/Slovenian then with Polish, which is frankly what I would have expected.

No, not really - Polish is even closer. It's just that all Slavic languages are relatively similar to each other. I visit two Polish Fallout websites regularly and comprehend most of what's written there. I'd say the main reason why Polish looks different is that it uses a very different orthography (i.e. assignment of letters to sounds) (compare: Czech, Slovak, Polish, Serbocroatian).

I must apologize again for being vigorously off-topic.

 

[welsh]

Yesterday I heard that some protestor actually committed suicide at the WTO meetings in Cancun.

I mean, "What the fuck?"

Now I am hearing that a group of Third World States, led by Brazil and India, is making a move for getting the developed countries to cut farm subsidies. Things are interesting down there.

What do you folks think of all of this?

Also the Russians are apparently back in the weapons business, and now just for money. Is this a good thing?

(And no Gwydion and ATPYP, this is not another gun thread)

 

[Gwydion]

Now I am hearing that a group of Third World States, led by Brazil and India, is making a move for getting the developed countries to cut farm subsidies. Things are interesting down there.

What do you folks think of all of this?

Hmm... The current American economy relies heavily on third-world South American countries. The reality is that American companies take advantage of the cheap labor to be found there. For example, Levi's jeans pays Mexican workers a pittance, and ends up selling the finished product down there for $40 a pop. If these countries became determined to look out for their own, it would be a crushing blow to the US economy. However, it's likely their own economies could recover in a relatively short time.

I'm not sure if the American would respond with military force to such an action or not.

I'm not an economist, so I can't tell you the solution to that problem. However, it seems to me that we're going to have to change the way our companies do international business, and the sooner the better.

Also the Russians are apparently back in the weapons business, and now just for money. Is this a good thing?

Small arms, like rifles, or bigger stuff?

(And no Gwydion and ATPYP, this is not another gun thread)

Well, since you brought it up...

 

[welsh]

Now I am hearing that a group of Third World States, led by Brazil and India, is making a move for getting the developed countries to cut farm subsidies. Things are interesting down there.

What do you folks think of all of this?

Hmm... The current American economy relies heavily on third-world South American countries. The reality is that American companies take advantage of the cheap labor to be found there. For example, Levi's jeans pays Mexican workers a pittance, and ends up selling the finished product down there for $40 a pop. If these countries became determined to look out for their own, it would be a crushing blow to the US economy. However, it's likely their own economies could recover in a relatively short time.

I'm not sure if the American would respond with military force to such an action or not.

Military? Eeh Gawd Gwydion- You got to ease up with the violence!
The last time that the developing countries tried something like this was under an idea called the New International Economic Order (NIEO) which involved the developing states using their numbers to bargain with the North. It didn't work because the North states could split them up but also because the demands were fairly one sided.

Kissinger tried to threaten the OPEC states with nuclear weapons during the first Oil Emargo in the 1970s. The OPEC states laughed. The US did support interventions in places like Guatemala, Chili and Iran to support business interests. However, that kind of thing is happily a rarity. I can't see the US invading Brazil over sugar and coffee, or India for grains.

The problem with textile products has been that textiles is usually the first stage of industrialization, that leads other higher levels of industrialization. The textile industry in the US is dieing, and while it hurts those in the trade, it also reflects that US goods are requiring higher skills and more specialization. As you pointed out, it's just not possible for many US companies to compete with those products abroad that are made with cheaper labor in newer factories. But lets also not forget, that many of those companies that use foreign labor are also American.

As for the agricultural issues- simply, the US subsidies its farmers and uety the US manufactures so much agricultural products so cheaply that other countries can't keep up. At the same time much of the world's labor is still dedicated to subsistence agriculture or export crops to the developed nations. Because of declining prices in commodities against increasing prices in manufactured goods and services, these countries are losing in the long term. At the same time commodity prices fluctuate so badly, and so many countries are competing over commodiities that these countries cannot predict the income that any given commodity sector will generate each year. THat creates fiscal uncertainty and instability, leading to more borrowing and debt.

I'm not an economist, so I can't tell you the solution to that problem. However, it seems to me that we're going to have to change the way our companies do international business, and the sooner the better.

yep, but the question is how?
But its not just a matter of business but of government management and dealing with some sectors that do well, while others get hosed.

Agricultural policies are an important political issue. THere is good reason why the French farmers like to protest so loudly, and why they are often heard.

Also the Russians are apparently back in the weapons business, and now just for money. Is this a good thing?

Small arms, like rifles, or bigger stuff?

(And no Gwydion and ATPYP, this is not another gun thread)

Well, since you brought it up...[/quote]

I think the Russians don't have that much future in small arms. It's like textiles, small arms is usually the simplier of the technologies to start. You make guns, then RPGs, then anti-arcraft, then tanks, ships, electronics, aero-space, etc.

Much of the Russian-type weapons is made in Eastern Europe or abroad. Much of the movement in those weapons came from some wars ending and new ones beginning and just shipping from point A to point B.

No the Russians are getting in the business of selling advanced aircraft, ships and probably some armored vehicles. As I recall the Russians could make competitive weapon systems at a cheaper price. Of course the US would continue to buy its own materials which is more expensive. In the end the Russians could be selling to any willing buyers at a fraction of the costs that the US or Europe would sell for.