Good article, except when it affirms who shot down MH17. I know we heard various things on this, but I seriously doubt we can ever be certain about who shot down an aircraft over a region in civil war.
A reasonable point. However, I have learned that when reading such articles you have to be extremely careful to notice exactly what is, and isn't said. The article mentions
"...the war in eastern Ukraine, which has taken the lives of 10,000 people, including the 298 passengers and crew of Malaysian Flight 17, shot down by a separatist missile in July 2014 over Ukraine".
There is no suggestion that any of the hacked emails mention MH17, so that part was just thrown in by NBC to spice up the copy a little. It was a tempting opportunity to insert some slimy innuendo, which many unsuspecting readers will accept as fact.
As we know, of course, there is no certainty even as to how MH17 was shot down. It may have been a SAM, or it may have been intercepted by a fighter - which would have to be Ukrainian. Even if it was shot down by a SAM, there is no certainty as to what type of SAM it was, to whom it belonged, or who fired it. There is some evidence that, if it was a BUK, it must have been fired from a Westerly direction, which would rule out the Novorossians.
Note also the way in which the 10,000 deaths just appear, without being attributed to any particular agency. The overwhelming majority of them were Donbass civilians deliberately killed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and their allies, the Nazi "battalions".
"Later, at the Academy of Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for "Agitprop" (Agitation and Propaganda)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The NBC article cites some of what, no doubt, NBC took to be the juiciest and most scandalous bits. I quote:
'There is a list of casualties in the Donbass region of Ukraine sent from a high-ranking separatist official, and a list of candidates for office in a sham election. One email notes that the individuals with asterisks next to their name were "checked by us" and are "especially recommended." Days later, those same names were announced as having been "elected."
'There are expense reports and a proposal for a government press office in Donetsk, scene of some of the fiercest fighting -- a three-person operation for separatist propaganda, with an editor, reporter and webmaster'.
Ooooh, a list of casualties in Donbass! That certainly proves Russian culpability beyond a shadow of doubt. Unless it just shows that the government of Russia was concerned about the number of Russian-speaking civilians of Russian descent who were being killed by the illegal Kiev regime. (If you don't agree that the regime is illegal, please note that "president" Petro Poroshenko has publicly admitted as much: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...).
A list of candidates in "a sham election". Well, the word "sham" was certainly added by the Ukrainians or NBC. The election was perfectly legitimate, in a region of Ukraine where the reggime had ceased to pay salaries, pensions and benefits and which its armed forces were bombarding (a war crime). It's hardly surprising that the local people decided to hold their own elections. "[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security". Sound familiar, at all? Read the rest of the Declaration of Independence, with its long list of grievances and accusations against King George III - and I think you will find that it amounts to a hell of a lot less than the residents of Donbass have suffered at the hands of the Kiev regime.
As for the Russians saying which candidates they vouched for and approved of, it's hardly surprising that the Donbass voters were happy to accept that advice. Russia, after all, was (and is) their only hope for survival when the Kiev regime was doing its level best to exterminate them.
Expense reports! Perhaps the most eagerly sought-after secret information in the world of spies and spooks. (Unless of course Russian officials don't cheat on their expenses).
And plans for a press office in a foreign country where there is fighting going on! Thank goodness the USA never funds press offices or other media initiatives in foreign countries where there is fighting - like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria... or even Ukraine. (Are there any American press offices or media personnel in Ukraine? Does a camel have fleas?)
Definitely far more damning than some emails showing how the agents of a supposedly democratic party worked to change the results of a presidential election. Let me know when the people in Moscow whose emails were stolen are indicted by the FBI, as Mrs Clinton is about to be.
The following (translated) quotation describes this syndrome perfectly.
"The great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil... therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big".
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1971; original version 1925), Vol. 1, chapter 10, p.231
Where is this free Linux cloud service where I can stand up entire enterprise architectures and applications securely
You can stop your rant right there. If you want security and to be sure your data and operations will continue predictably, don't use a cloud service at all. Why does it make sense to entrust your crown jewels to a bunch of complete strangers, who use computers you know nothing about in a place that you don't even necessarily know, if you can't run them yourself? Besides, as you know full well, it is FOSS software that is (mostly) free of charge. No one has ever pretended that the necessary hardware and services came free - to do so would be ridiculous. But if you really want to run your software on someone else's equipment, why not go to AWS? Then you'll be using tried and tested FOSS, professionally operated for you. (Although I would never entrust really vital data to any remote service; basic risk analysis will show you why).
25 years ago I was warning people about the perils of what has come to be known as "hacking", and most of them were completely unaware and unprepared. I told them that the problem had barely even started yet, and wouldn't until serious professional criminals and state actors became aware of the potential and began to exploit it.
That would be about now, and those who entrust their IT to "the cloud" are simply meeting the black hats half way. They may very well get away with for a long time - just as people get away with leaving their houses unlocked, their windows open, and their cars unlocked with the keys in. But it isn't smart.
Yet another practical reason to stop paying Microsoft! There is a plethora of excellent and transparent FOSS, which is growing every day. Because it is open-source and free, instead of continually reinventing the bicycle people can build new and more useful applications on top of infrastructure that already exists and can be freely reused. (As in the Unix software tools philosophy).
With the notable exception of the self proclaimed "caliph" Al-Baghdadi, they're mostly all dead now.
Yeah, we've been hearing that for a good thirty years now - about various terrorist groups. How do you explain that, as the years go back, there are more terrorists, more terrorist groups, and more terrorist victims?
"For months we have been making triumphant retreats before a demoralised enemy who is advancing in utter disorder". - "Wasp", Eric Frank Russell
And yet they seem to have learned nothing from their "studies" other than bomb making and religious nonsense.
I think you will find that it was not Muslims who first started bomb-making. (Well, the Chinese probably began it, but they mostly used their pyrotechnics for celebration). It was European nations and the USA that first mass-produced high explosives for the express purpose of killing as many people as possible. Indeed, they actually went so far as to define civilisation as the possession and use of guns, bombs and warships.
ISIS is "essence of Saudi", leaking out of the Kingdom and spreading slowly across other people's lands to convert them all to Wahhabism (or kill them). Think it through, and you' see that ISIS is just a microcosm of Saudi Arabia. The obvious differences are having a caliph instead of a king, and having no fixed borders. Both great advantages when you are in the conquest'n'conversion business.
Given that 50 percent of the population is female, yet most jobs and management positions are held by males - a correction is in order.
Given that many females still become mothers, a position that entails a huge amount of work no matter how much paid or unpaid help is available... and given that many females still like to run their own households with all the work that entails... and given how many women are emotionally disinclined to give orders and boss other people around... good luck with that.
I am all for female managers, and have seen some very good ones. I have also seen some real Medusas, but nothing worse than many male managers. It's just a question of practicality and feasibility.
Then want to turn the world from one where only merit matters to the same one that existed prior to the civil rights act, equality acts, and so on.
And there it is: that simple little word "merit". It can mean almost anything that anyone wants it to, and thus legitimates almost any act. As far as I can see, in a meritocracy merit is defined as the collection of qualities that enable you to get to the top. Which are probably the same qualities that enable anyone to get to the top of any organization. Which, as we can see by inspection of our top CEOs and political leaders, are entirely compatible with (and maybe identical to) selfishness, the ability to fake friendliness, skill in manipulation, callousness and cold calculation.
"The movie theater business has seen flatline revenue, Hastings said".
That's a truly beautiful example of deceptive speech. He meant that revenue has been "flat" - in other words, they are not always getting more money with every passing year. When you think about it, how bad can that really be? Must everything grow eternally, without limit?
But the word he chose to use was "flatline", a medical term for "the continuous straight line displayed on a heart monitor which indicates cardiac arrest or death". (COED) A "flatliner" is someone who is dead! So, even if you understand his real meaning, there is the connotation of death and decay in the background.
Of course, I suppose it's always possible Hastings was merely following the common instinct to lengthen words by adding extra syllables.
This has happened many times in many countries. The problem is, they didn't choose Linux because it is superior to Windows, they chose it only because Linux is not a product of an American company.
There certainly are many good reasons to dislike the U.S. and American companies, but, business decisions made out of spite rarely work out well.
Come back when you have evidence for your claim that "they didn't choose Linux because it is superior to Windows, they chose it only because Linux is not a product of an American company".
In many cases the decision to switch to FOSS was made on general philosophical grounds. Since as much as possible about the process of government should be transparent, the software used by government should also be available for the citizen to inspect and study - should she wish to do so.
There were also other general considerations such as avoiding license costs and greatly reducing support costs, and completely cutting out all the expensive and restrictive bureaucracy involved in licence administration.
Oh, and many people are becoming very wary of the likelihood that American software contains backdoors or other means by which information may be surreptitiously collected, and possibly handed over to US and other government agencies.
None of those reasons has anything to do with the desire to avoid an American manufacturer, as such.
There's something very odd about some of you Americans. It has often been said that the Puritans who came to America on the Mayflower and other ships fled Europe on account of religious persecution - their complaint being that they were not sufficiently allowed to engage in religious persecution of others. Ever since, Americans seem to have an excess helping of moral superiority and conviction of their own rightness.
Why do you say that I am Russian, and call me "comrade"? Even if I were Russian - which I am not - the USSR dissolved itself over 25 years ago. That's a quarter of a century. Modern Russia resembles the USSR about as much as the modern USA resembles 18th century England. (Actually, perhaps rather less). Most Russians today are highly religious - far more so than Americans - and have democratic values. But that does not mean they are willing to roll over and capitulate to the Master (sorry, "Exceptional and Unique") Nation.
You couldn't be any more wrong if you had worked at it. I have never been within 1,000 miles of Russia. I am an elderly Scots-Irish man who was born in Argentina and have lived most of my life in southern England. I had an English public school education and got a degree from Cambridge University. Most of my working life was spent in employment by an American multinational computer firm. And until a few years ago I had voted Conservative at every single opportunity since I turned 21. (Nowadays I vote UKIP, as I wish the UK to remain an independent nation). I have never been a communist of any description, nor had communist sympathies (except with that long-forgotten and generally despised communist, Jesus Christ, who actually said some pretty sensible things). As for being paid by Russia, I wish. No one pays me for my comments on line. I write what I believe to be true, because I am a free man and I am entitled to speak as I see fit. As an American, I wish you understood that better and conceded my right to free speech.
As for Russia, Ukraine and empires, I have never heard of Daniel Drezner but the remark you quote is as hilariously nonsensical as Sir Halford Mackinder's fever dreams about "the world island" or Alfred Thayer Mahan's theories of world domination through sea power. I know enough to understand that Russia has not the slightest interest in becoming any sort of empire - the Russians leave that to you Americans. Having a country that is already twice the size of the USA or China, and one of the few left that is not overpopulated, the last thing they want is more land to administer.
It's not nearly as simple as that. True, people can always be found to "demand" that the USA "do something". But then, people can always be found to demand that any government "do something". Often that "something" turns out to be profitable for the people who do the demanding. But whether the loud demands are at all representative of what people in general want... that's a different question.
The USA is supposed to fund UN peacekeeping missions - actually, a very inexpensive commitment compared to fighting wars - because all the 193 member nations do so. Likewise with other routine UN functions. Please note that the US government was instrumental and took a leadership role in setting up the UN, which is why its headquarters is in New York. Many of us would prefer it to be in a different, preferably small and non-aligned nation.
The anti-pirate patrols are much appreciated and have done a lot of good. However, there is a strong argument that local nations should indeed perform that role instead; that way they would be more inclined to address the root causes of piracy.
I don't believe anyone ever demanded that the USA become the "World Police", and your rude comment about Europeans is wholly unjustified. Indeed, a study of history suggests that it was far more the choice of Americans and their government to occupy Europe (and Japan) than that of the locals. Of course, as of 1945 the USA was the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation, having remained neutral for the first two years and three months of WW2 in Europe. Thus, when WW2 ended, the USA was the only major nation whose own territory had not been invaded or bombed. Germany was shattered and decimated. Italy was little better. The USSR had lost one in seven of all its people - soldiers and civilians - over 25 million dead. Britain had not suffered so many deaths, but was utterly bankrupt due to the cost of fighting both world wars. (The UK finished repaying its war debts to the USA in 2006).
Under the circumstances, I find the expression "lazy f'kers in Europe" extremely offensive and unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
Good article, except when it affirms who shot down MH17. I know we heard various things on this, but I seriously doubt we can ever be certain about who shot down an aircraft over a region in civil war.
A reasonable point. However, I have learned that when reading such articles you have to be extremely careful to notice exactly what is, and isn't said. The article mentions
"...the war in eastern Ukraine, which has taken the lives of 10,000 people, including the 298 passengers and crew of Malaysian Flight 17, shot down by a separatist missile in July 2014 over Ukraine".
There is no suggestion that any of the hacked emails mention MH17, so that part was just thrown in by NBC to spice up the copy a little. It was a tempting opportunity to insert some slimy innuendo, which many unsuspecting readers will accept as fact.
As we know, of course, there is no certainty even as to how MH17 was shot down. It may have been a SAM, or it may have been intercepted by a fighter - which would have to be Ukrainian. Even if it was shot down by a SAM, there is no certainty as to what type of SAM it was, to whom it belonged, or who fired it. There is some evidence that, if it was a BUK, it must have been fired from a Westerly direction, which would rule out the Novorossians.
Note also the way in which the 10,000 deaths just appear, without being attributed to any particular agency. The overwhelming majority of them were Donbass civilians deliberately killed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and their allies, the Nazi "battalions".
"Later, at the Academy of Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for "Agitprop" (Agitation and Propaganda)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Christian and humanist ideals...".
Hmmmmmm.
... for using Outhouse. No wonder Mr Putin has asked that all Russian government systems be moved to open source as soon as possible.
The NBC article cites some of what, no doubt, NBC took to be the juiciest and most scandalous bits. I quote:
'There is a list of casualties in the Donbass region of Ukraine sent from a high-ranking separatist official, and a list of candidates for office in a sham election. One email notes that the individuals with asterisks next to their name were "checked by us" and are "especially recommended." Days later, those same names were announced as having been "elected."
'There are expense reports and a proposal for a government press office in Donetsk, scene of some of the fiercest fighting -- a three-person operation for separatist propaganda, with an editor, reporter and webmaster'.
Ooooh, a list of casualties in Donbass! That certainly proves Russian culpability beyond a shadow of doubt. Unless it just shows that the government of Russia was concerned about the number of Russian-speaking civilians of Russian descent who were being killed by the illegal Kiev regime. (If you don't agree that the regime is illegal, please note that "president" Petro Poroshenko has publicly admitted as much: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...).
A list of candidates in "a sham election". Well, the word "sham" was certainly added by the Ukrainians or NBC. The election was perfectly legitimate, in a region of Ukraine where the reggime had ceased to pay salaries, pensions and benefits and which its armed forces were bombarding (a war crime). It's hardly surprising that the local people decided to hold their own elections. "[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security". Sound familiar, at all? Read the rest of the Declaration of Independence, with its long list of grievances and accusations against King George III - and I think you will find that it amounts to a hell of a lot less than the residents of Donbass have suffered at the hands of the Kiev regime.
As for the Russians saying which candidates they vouched for and approved of, it's hardly surprising that the Donbass voters were happy to accept that advice. Russia, after all, was (and is) their only hope for survival when the Kiev regime was doing its level best to exterminate them.
Expense reports! Perhaps the most eagerly sought-after secret information in the world of spies and spooks. (Unless of course Russian officials don't cheat on their expenses).
And plans for a press office in a foreign country where there is fighting going on! Thank goodness the USA never funds press offices or other media initiatives in foreign countries where there is fighting - like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria... or even Ukraine. (Are there any American press offices or media personnel in Ukraine? Does a camel have fleas?)
Definitely far more damning than some emails showing how the agents of a supposedly democratic party worked to change the results of a presidential election. Let me know when the people in Moscow whose emails were stolen are indicted by the FBI, as Mrs Clinton is about to be.
The following (translated) quotation describes this syndrome perfectly.
"The great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil ... therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big".
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1971; original version 1925), Vol. 1, chapter 10, p.231
Where is this free Linux cloud service where I can stand up entire enterprise architectures and applications securely
You can stop your rant right there. If you want security and to be sure your data and operations will continue predictably, don't use a cloud service at all. Why does it make sense to entrust your crown jewels to a bunch of complete strangers, who use computers you know nothing about in a place that you don't even necessarily know, if you can't run them yourself? Besides, as you know full well, it is FOSS software that is (mostly) free of charge. No one has ever pretended that the necessary hardware and services came free - to do so would be ridiculous. But if you really want to run your software on someone else's equipment, why not go to AWS? Then you'll be using tried and tested FOSS, professionally operated for you. (Although I would never entrust really vital data to any remote service; basic risk analysis will show you why).
25 years ago I was warning people about the perils of what has come to be known as "hacking", and most of them were completely unaware and unprepared. I told them that the problem had barely even started yet, and wouldn't until serious professional criminals and state actors became aware of the potential and began to exploit it.
That would be about now, and those who entrust their IT to "the cloud" are simply meeting the black hats half way. They may very well get away with for a long time - just as people get away with leaving their houses unlocked, their windows open, and their cars unlocked with the keys in. But it isn't smart.
Yet another practical reason to stop paying Microsoft! There is a plethora of excellent and transparent FOSS, which is growing every day. Because it is open-source and free, instead of continually reinventing the bicycle people can build new and more useful applications on top of infrastructure that already exists and can be freely reused. (As in the Unix software tools philosophy).
Remember, a vote for anything other than (D) or (R) is a wasted vote!
And a vote for (D) or (R) is a wasted vote. The Deep State will continue on its course, completely unaffected.
With the notable exception of the self proclaimed "caliph" Al-Baghdadi, they're mostly all dead now.
Yeah, we've been hearing that for a good thirty years now - about various terrorist groups. How do you explain that, as the years go back, there are more terrorists, more terrorist groups, and more terrorist victims?
"For months we have been making triumphant retreats before a demoralised enemy who is advancing in utter disorder". - "Wasp", Eric Frank Russell
And yet they seem to have learned nothing from their "studies" other than bomb making and religious nonsense.
I think you will find that it was not Muslims who first started bomb-making. (Well, the Chinese probably began it, but they mostly used their pyrotechnics for celebration). It was European nations and the USA that first mass-produced high explosives for the express purpose of killing as many people as possible. Indeed, they actually went so far as to define civilisation as the possession and use of guns, bombs and warships.
What goes around, comes around.
ISIS is "essence of Saudi", leaking out of the Kingdom and spreading slowly across other people's lands to convert them all to Wahhabism (or kill them). Think it through, and you' see that ISIS is just a microcosm of Saudi Arabia. The obvious differences are having a caliph instead of a king, and having no fixed borders. Both great advantages when you are in the conquest'n'conversion business.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap". - Galatians 6:7
How do his advisors think that this will be solved? Pretending that the problem doesn't exist?
Well, that is the standard government approach, and they have accumulated an impressive amount of experience with it.
But... Mars is bigger! 8-)
... of people who should definitely be sent to Mars - especially if there is no chance of their ever coming back again.
It's been my observation that Russians are somewhat less likely to make errors in English grammar than Americans are.
Given that 50 percent of the population is female, yet most jobs and management positions are held by males - a correction is in order.
Given that many females still become mothers, a position that entails a huge amount of work no matter how much paid or unpaid help is available... and given that many females still like to run their own households with all the work that entails... and given how many women are emotionally disinclined to give orders and boss other people around... good luck with that.
I am all for female managers, and have seen some very good ones. I have also seen some real Medusas, but nothing worse than many male managers. It's just a question of practicality and feasibility.
Then want to turn the world from one where only merit matters to the same one that existed prior to the civil rights act, equality acts, and so on.
And there it is: that simple little word "merit". It can mean almost anything that anyone wants it to, and thus legitimates almost any act. As far as I can see, in a meritocracy merit is defined as the collection of qualities that enable you to get to the top. Which are probably the same qualities that enable anyone to get to the top of any organization. Which, as we can see by inspection of our top CEOs and political leaders, are entirely compatible with (and maybe identical to) selfishness, the ability to fake friendliness, skill in manipulation, callousness and cold calculation.
"The movie theater business has seen flatline revenue, Hastings said".
That's a truly beautiful example of deceptive speech. He meant that revenue has been "flat" - in other words, they are not always getting more money with every passing year. When you think about it, how bad can that really be? Must everything grow eternally, without limit?
But the word he chose to use was "flatline", a medical term for "the continuous straight line displayed on a heart monitor which indicates cardiac arrest or death". (COED) A "flatliner" is someone who is dead! So, even if you understand his real meaning, there is the connotation of death and decay in the background.
Of course, I suppose it's always possible Hastings was merely following the common instinct to lengthen words by adding extra syllables.
So, we have a blanket statement about the situation in many foreign countries, unaccompanied by any citations or sources, and posted by an AC.
Well, I'm convinced.
For the slow of understanding: Irony Alert.
This has happened many times in many countries. The problem is, they didn't choose Linux because it is superior to Windows, they chose it only because Linux is not a product of an American company.
There certainly are many good reasons to dislike the U.S. and American companies, but, business decisions made out of spite rarely work out well.
Come back when you have evidence for your claim that "they didn't choose Linux because it is superior to Windows, they chose it only because Linux is not a product of an American company".
In many cases the decision to switch to FOSS was made on general philosophical grounds. Since as much as possible about the process of government should be transparent, the software used by government should also be available for the citizen to inspect and study - should she wish to do so.
There were also other general considerations such as avoiding license costs and greatly reducing support costs, and completely cutting out all the expensive and restrictive bureaucracy involved in licence administration.
Oh, and many people are becoming very wary of the likelihood that American software contains backdoors or other means by which information may be surreptitiously collected, and possibly handed over to US and other government agencies.
None of those reasons has anything to do with the desire to avoid an American manufacturer, as such.
Er, you seem to agree with what I said exactly. I don't really see the reason for your reply, but thanks for backing me up.
There's something very odd about some of you Americans. It has often been said that the Puritans who came to America on the Mayflower and other ships fled Europe on account of religious persecution - their complaint being that they were not sufficiently allowed to engage in religious persecution of others. Ever since, Americans seem to have an excess helping of moral superiority and conviction of their own rightness.
Why do you say that I am Russian, and call me "comrade"? Even if I were Russian - which I am not - the USSR dissolved itself over 25 years ago. That's a quarter of a century. Modern Russia resembles the USSR about as much as the modern USA resembles 18th century England. (Actually, perhaps rather less). Most Russians today are highly religious - far more so than Americans - and have democratic values. But that does not mean they are willing to roll over and capitulate to the Master (sorry, "Exceptional and Unique") Nation.
You couldn't be any more wrong if you had worked at it. I have never been within 1,000 miles of Russia. I am an elderly Scots-Irish man who was born in Argentina and have lived most of my life in southern England. I had an English public school education and got a degree from Cambridge University. Most of my working life was spent in employment by an American multinational computer firm. And until a few years ago I had voted Conservative at every single opportunity since I turned 21. (Nowadays I vote UKIP, as I wish the UK to remain an independent nation). I have never been a communist of any description, nor had communist sympathies (except with that long-forgotten and generally despised communist, Jesus Christ, who actually said some pretty sensible things). As for being paid by Russia, I wish. No one pays me for my comments on line. I write what I believe to be true, because I am a free man and I am entitled to speak as I see fit. As an American, I wish you understood that better and conceded my right to free speech.
As for Russia, Ukraine and empires, I have never heard of Daniel Drezner but the remark you quote is as hilariously nonsensical as Sir Halford Mackinder's fever dreams about "the world island" or Alfred Thayer Mahan's theories of world domination through sea power. I know enough to understand that Russia has not the slightest interest in becoming any sort of empire - the Russians leave that to you Americans. Having a country that is already twice the size of the USA or China, and one of the few left that is not overpopulated, the last thing they want is more land to administer.
It's not nearly as simple as that. True, people can always be found to "demand" that the USA "do something". But then, people can always be found to demand that any government "do something". Often that "something" turns out to be profitable for the people who do the demanding. But whether the loud demands are at all representative of what people in general want... that's a different question.
The USA is supposed to fund UN peacekeeping missions - actually, a very inexpensive commitment compared to fighting wars - because all the 193 member nations do so. Likewise with other routine UN functions. Please note that the US government was instrumental and took a leadership role in setting up the UN, which is why its headquarters is in New York. Many of us would prefer it to be in a different, preferably small and non-aligned nation.
The anti-pirate patrols are much appreciated and have done a lot of good. However, there is a strong argument that local nations should indeed perform that role instead; that way they would be more inclined to address the root causes of piracy.
I don't believe anyone ever demanded that the USA become the "World Police", and your rude comment about Europeans is wholly unjustified. Indeed, a study of history suggests that it was far more the choice of Americans and their government to occupy Europe (and Japan) than that of the locals. Of course, as of 1945 the USA was the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation, having remained neutral for the first two years and three months of WW2 in Europe. Thus, when WW2 ended, the USA was the only major nation whose own territory had not been invaded or bombed. Germany was shattered and decimated. Italy was little better. The USSR had lost one in seven of all its people - soldiers and civilians - over 25 million dead. Britain had not suffered so many deaths, but was utterly bankrupt due to the cost of fighting both world wars. (The UK finished repaying its war debts to the USA in 2006).
Under the circumstances, I find the expression "lazy f'kers in Europe" extremely offensive and unfair.