Comes in many forms. All should be contested. Some will say what it constitutes is debatable but as a certain SCOTUS justice once said when trying to define obscenity: I know it when I see it.
The left-wing and Islamic forms are well known and have gotten the most attention. The far right forms are less familiar though and until recently much more fringe and inconsequential. Let's make some attempt to review them.
Neo-Nazis -
People who equate American policy with Jewish policy and thus end up siding with hostile foreign actors like Iran, Russia, and even al Qaeda in the most virulent strains.
Russophiles -
Putin lovers who blame the US for various things. Syria, the refugee crisis, NATO moving east, Ukraine, etc.
Secessionists -
Little need be said here. Wanting to break up the US is about as anti-American as it gets short of blowing the place up.
Rabid neo-con bashers -
These are the types that tend to see any foreign intervention as a neo-con operation. If they don't side with foreign powers outright they certainly attempt to hamstring necessary applications of American power much in the way leftists will try to hamstring the police domestically.
Much of the above stems from foreign policy ignorance - which is common among the general public. But this is weaponized ignorance.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago (edited ago)
NATO moving east is indeed a fact. Russophiles both see it as necessarily bad and usually include the dubious contention that the US promised Russia it wouldn't move east.
One could argue NATO moving east was bad policy. It arguably is not in America's national interests to defend Estonia. But Russophiles view it as an inherently hostile act toward Russia - as if these states in the east have no legitimate concern to fear Russia. They also typically ignore the role of these states wanting NATO membership and just blame the US.
I agree with your view of the savior complex though.
Among both neo-Nazi and Russophile types there is also a strong tendency to scapegoat the US. It's almost as if they think European immigration policy is made in Washington for example. This extends to things like the US troop presence in Europe and somewhat more substantial complaints like American cultural influence in the realm of things like hip hop. I'm unsure if this stuff is more common among the European far right or American. I've observed it on both sides of the Atlantic.
[–] 12225328? 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I have said it before, but I think it would have been smarter to leave the corridor of countries bordering Russia from Finland to Ukraine as mutually assured neutral buffers. That would have left Russia less encroached, and still give a solid, justifiable reason to slap Russia's hand if it overextends.
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
I oppose NATO membership for Ukraine for geographical reasons. It's already too late as the country has been effectively dismembered and is locked in a simmering hot war. Neutrality in the Baltics though would effectively turn them into Russian bitch states as there is no war guarantee if Russia attacks. How is that substantially different from Finland's former position given geographical proximity?
You may be right though. No one wants a nuclear war over Estonia. But it's mostly a Russian attitude problem. Baltic NATO membership does not meaningfully add to the threat against Russia except for a hypothetical ground invasion which is kinda laughable even in theory and virtually impossible in practice. Our forces would get overrun in the Baltic countries in a weekend. We're not doing a Barbarossa on Moscow. And Baltic NATO membership does nothing to enhance our missile deterrent. It's also unclear how much Moscow really resents Baltic NATO membership in separation from the push east in general. I think it is all mostly an excuse for them to complain. They know if we were not there these states would be hostile, scared, and would be looking for other arrangements. Meaning nuclear weapons. We don't need nuclear proliferation in Eastern Europe.