Tat Trumps Tit

The world owes much to the stabilizing effect internationally of its sole super-power. It does provide that edge of security to much of the world. Its sheer power of determination and the power invested in its huge economy, its political system, its tentacled outreach in the form of military outposts across the world, give it that reluctant solidarity position.

Although the countries that form an alliance with the United States love to gripe and to criticize and to emphasize its great flaws as the supreme world leader, they do depend on it. It is a force for good in the world. Despite the proliferation throughout the world of its mindless consumerist capitalism that tends to emphasize the divide between those that succeed in its system and those who fall by the way.

That it is a bastion of freedom, however, is undeniable. That, on the other hand, it often swaggers on the world stage and unilaterally imposes difficulties on a large swath of the world's geographies is also true. The United States singly funds more programs to aid and assist the underprivileged portions of the world than any other country or collection of countries. It has also been responsible for the deaths of many innocents through its military invasions in its struggle for the defence of democracy - and just incidentally its bottom line.

It holds itself up as an example of what a democracy should reflect. Freedom of religion, of association, of speech. Freedom to explore opportunities to advance oneself in a society that bows to egalitarianism. Conflicted within itself, its minorities long emancipated, slavery a shameful thing of the past, racism remains an expression of distrust and of contempt; alive and too well. It still remains a geographic, political icon of a generous and well-meaning people.

Which doesn't at all minimize the grievous missteps and truly dreadful errors in judgement that great country has been responsible for. It's at one time the symbol of a humble force for good in the world with its emphasis on justice and equality (which like most countries officially espousing those sterling values, tending to abuse them) and on other occasions becomes the blandly determined bully whose intervention in world affairs occasionally results in complicating issues beyond resolve.

Still, the alternatives as a world leader of great power aren't all that very compelling. Better the irritable, albeit somewhat predictable beast we know than the one we know would impose upon us something far, far worse. So it is that the United States has signed agreements - some enthusiastically agreed to by the host country, others reluctantly signed on to by the country that would really rather not - enabling it to construct forward bases in its defence, political and resource-based-extraction interests.

Much to the fury of, for example, Russia. Politically and economically resurgent Russia. Itself newly aspiring to assume that pinnacle, so hastily and disastrously (for the Soviet Union) abandoned. Russia is anything but complacent with the unalterable fact of its once-allies now lining up for membership in the European Union, in NATO, and allying themselves with the interests of the United States by allowing it to install military bases on their geographies - let alone ballistic missile installations.

Understandable, perfectly understandable. And then there's the hostility between the United States and Cuba. Cuba, which was and remains a client state of Russia. Where Russia had its own forward base. And where the United States has been installed, through a long-lease agreement with Cuba well pre-dating Fidel Castro, at Guantanamo Bay. A veritable thistle in the saddle of Cuba. Which would far, far prefer to have the U.S. leave, thank you very much, restoring total geographic ownership to Cuba.

How moral and ethical is it in any event, for a foreign country to occupy a signal portion of a relatively small island-state's geography? And so obviously against its grating wishes? How much weight does a long-term agreement hold in view of the problematical relationship between the two countries? In particular, given the long-term trade embargo instituted by the United States which has resulted in a truly deleterious effect on Cuba's economic well-being?

So now that there are hints of Russian plans to potentially resume flights of its long-range bombers to Cuba the clouds above the horizon have suddenly darkened in anger. The result being that the U.S. is now warning Russia of repercussions should the move proceed. "We should stand strong and indicate that that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America", huffed General Norton Schwartz before a U.S. Senate hearing.

Well, oh well. When Russia huffed and puffed and complained about the U.S. plans for its missile defence shield in central Europe, right on Russia's doorstep, that just wasn't on. Easily shrugged off by Washington. The Kremlin is simply giving them a little of their own medicine.