Barack Obama Goes on Talking

Just some days ago Mr. Obama gave a considerable interview to CNN, in which he put some things pretty straight, though sometimes using kind of a diplomatic speech.

Lucky things we are: there is the freedom of speech in the world, at least somewhere and for some, and we can get more from Mr. President of the USA. From the recently published interview he gave to people from the Vox.com. They covered many, many topics in their conversation, and I am absolutely sure there is plenty of gems in his words. Yet I am interested only in the part devoted to Obama's "foreign-policy realism".

Just some extracts: if you have enough time, you can read (and/or watch) full interview: the link is just above.

... we've got to have the strongest military in the world, and we occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn't do what we need them to do if it weren't for the various economic or diplomatic or, in some cases, military leverage that we had — if we didn't have that dose of realism, we wouldn't get anything done, either.

He who is more powerful, is always right. Just because the good always wins over the evil, doesn't it?

And we're going to have to have some humility in recognizing that we don't have the option of simply invading every country where disorder breaks out. And that to some degree, the people of these countries are going to have to, you know, find their own way. And we can help them but we can't do it for them.

You mean "... if this country is pretty close to Russia or China", don't you?

Well, American leadership, in part, comes out of our can-do spirit. We're the largest, most powerful country on Earth. As I said previously in speeches: when problems happen, they don't call Beijing. They don't call Moscow. They call us. And we embrace that responsibility. The question, I think, is how that leadership is exercised. My administration is very aggressive and internationalist in wading in and taking on and trying to solve problems.

I thought he would blow up from proudness somewhere here; he didn't. By the way, some estimated in the end of the last year China had become — economically — the most powerful country in the world. What a disappointment, isn't it?

What we've learned in Iraq is you can keep a lid on those sectarian issues as long as we've got the greatest military on Earth there on the ground, but as soon as we leave, which at some point we would, we'd have the same problems again.

Who on Earth could think of it before? Luckily for the world, there is a President who can think of it at least after.

I think the real challenge for the country not just during my presidency but in future presidencies is recognizing that leading does not always mean occupying. That the temptation to think that there's a quick fix to these problems is usually a temptation to be resisted. And that American leadership means wherever possible leveraging other countries, other resources, where we're the lead partner because we have capabilities that other folks don't have.

This or that way, America rules the world. Just because it has capabilities. There's one big challenge, though: the world is bigger than even the most powerful power can digest.

I'm dealing with it every day. That's what I wake up to each morning. I get a thick book full of death, destruction, strife, and chaos. That's what I take with my morning tea.

Looks like the result of the American leadership since WW2 in the world, which is considered to be monopolar since 1991, is not that perfect. How comes?

... My first job is to protect the American people. It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris... And despite the incredible valor of our troops — and I'm in awe of them every single day when I work with them — you know, the strategy that was crafted in Washington didn't always match up with the actual threats that were out there.

Shit happens, man. especially when your right hand does not know what the left one is doing. Looks like you are not that good at your first job, are you?

... The countries we're negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with. And if we don't write the rules out there, China's going to write the rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or we will be deeply disadvantaged. Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged. So when I hear, when I talk to labor organizations, I say, right now, we've been hugely disadvantaged... And what we have the opportunity to do is to set long-term trends that keep us in the game in a place that we've got to be.

The USA are to write the rules for the world, we know, no China can be tolerated as a rules writer. What I don't understand is if you "will be" or "have been" disadvantaged already. And, frankly speaking, I am not sure what that place you've got to be is.

Our successes will happen in fits and starts, and sometimes there's going to be a breakthrough and sometimes you'll just modestly make things a little better. And sometimes the play you run doesn't work and you've got to have a plan B and a plan C. But the overall trajectory, the overall goal, is a world in which America continues to lead, that we're pushing in the direction of more security, more international norms and rules, more human rights, more free speech, less religious intolerance. And those efforts over time add up, and I'm confident that there's a way for us to maintain our idealism, be hardheaded in assessing what's out there, confronting the dangers that we face without exaggerating them. America, I'm pretty certain, is going to be the indispensable nation for the remainder of this century just like it was the last one.

"More security, more international norms and rules, more human rights, more free speech, less religious intolerance." Sounds great indeed. Especially the free speech.

It evidently does mean I am absolutely free to state that I do not think it would do good for the world if the USA keep the leading position and the world remains a monopolar freak. The States have evidently failed in their leadership; it's too much of a burden even for that great nation, and world is not that perfect palce to live in even for that 'golden billion'.

We will see.

Hopefully, it will be the brighter, safer and wealthier future that at least our grandchildren will see.