Ed. I don't really disagree with some of your statements. Obviously, the UN isn't NATO but with three out of the five security council members being founder members of both NATO and the UN and a former member, the Republic of China subsequently replaced by the People's Republic of China, being a strong US ally there has been a culture of the UN often being led by NATO and the US. (Not saying that's right but it is a legacy.) Yes, foreign policies often are short sighted; I'm not sure that's limited to the UK, US - or many other countries. Perhaps with Putin being in power for around two and a half decades Russia has a more strategic foreign policy? But I'm not sure it will end well for Russia or anyone :-(Famine is a consequence of many actions; aside from being a result of foreign policy, haven't some subjects of the British Empire suffered famine as a result of previous government policies to look after the population of Great Britain?Perhaps it's a result of democracy with regular changing governments, or is it changes elsewhere in the world that force many foreign policy changes to be tactical rather than strategic and, hence, short term?Being pragmatic I can see that often an expedient, least worst solution may be preferable to even a satisfactory & sufficient solution, let alone an optimum one to stop a threat escalating? Sometimes a bad decision is better than a late one?Sorry, I'm continuing off topic ...
Michael Ixer ● 66d