Exactly my comment. What kills me is people in Europe, including scholars and “experts,” who still treat Trump as a statesman, a guy with a vision (however ugly) for the US. The truth is much more banal: “policy” and “ideology” are purely instrumental to the ongoing bank robbery.

It’s because it’s not US foreign policy anymore. They’re not even trying to sell it as pursuit of national interest. It’s just Trump and the vultures around him.

Tutto molto bello

This has applied to military writing for centuries and still does today. That reminds me of Harald Høiback's admonishment on military doctrine:
Avoid surrendering to "verbal and rhetorical pollution, long-range screwdriving and glorious bullshitting".

Anche tí ta ghè resún…
No, non per ora. Però c’è un upgrade in vista. Spero di trasferirmi dalla California del Sud—in de midol if nouèr—alla Pennsylvania, più vicino alla civiltà e al verde.

@paolomas.bsky.social Now do Negroni or Pastis.

While I’m at it, gonna leave this little work of mine here for self promotion: #GrandStrategy isn’t “dead”, everyone! As long as you handle the concept carefully. thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2...

While I’m at it, gonna leave this little work of mine here for self promotion: #GrandStrategy isn’t “dead”, everyone! As long as you handle the concept carefully. thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2...

Nuh-uh! I grew tired of grand strategy—particularly the way the idea is used in IR and applied history. (Yes, I’m one of those grumpy stratégistes!) So much so that I changed dissertation topic from GS to intellectual history and epistemology of strategic thought. [Thx for letting me vent out] :)

Past soldier writers knew better than most of today’s academics in the policy-relevance business that military theory and history are educational and interpretive tools to help us think autonomously—not grab bags of applied models, instructions, theories of victory, grand strategies, etc.

In the case of China and Sun Tzu, Western commentary is beyond unserious. I submit that this kind of naïveté owes to a common belief that people read strategic thought searching for applicable models and analogies.

And your team would be playing the Champions League final vs “my” AC Milan.

Yes I did note it thanks

Hi again. Google Books shows only parts of the piece. Could you please confirm that the text of your thesis corresponds to the published chapter? While we're at it, am I representing your point correctly? Thanks

I read your diss. chapter, i’ll search for the related article. And yeah, even philosophy in general, is not too traveled a road.
I’m arguing that C. created a philosophy of science by playing with ontology, metaphysics, and epistemology.

Ended up here a little late and by chance while searching "Clausewitz + ontology" (I do these searches here sometimes...) That's definitely research I wanna read.