Fake Titles

I recently have had an energetic LinkedIn exchange with someone prancing around New York City claiming that he is "HRH Prince of Yugoslavia".  He voluntarily calls himself that on LinkedIn, a public social media site.  He posted a photo of himself receiving some award from some other "HRH" of Yugoslavia and was quite proud of it.  I had the audacity to comment on his post to say that he should stop using such a title, if for no other reason than because Yugoslavia no longer exists.  And, it is now divided up into various republics which are republics and have no royal families or systems.  He aggressively replied to my comment by claiming that I was an "ignorant American" and didn't know anything about history.  He then professed that "I have ancestors" who were royal family members and, apparently, he thinks that entitles him to continue using a silly title like "HRH Prince of Yugoslavia".  He also said that I needed to better understand "constitutional law".  So, when I asked him to explain exactly why he is entitled to call himself a "HRH Prince of Yugoslavia" and to which constitution he was referring, he continued to throw insults at me, but made no actual arguments for why he should be calling himself by some non-existent title.  Then, he blocked me from his LinkedIn account.  That all was not very convincing.
Next, his cousin (apparently half New Yorker and half "royal family of Yugoslavia") jumps into the discussion.  She argues that I have no business commenting on her cousin's title and that it is a shame that I am so "ignorant" (apparently a favorite word of "royal Yugoslavs").  And, she tried to make a comparison that calling her cousin "HRH Prince of Yugoslavia" was akin to calling Bill Clinton "Mr. Clinton" instead of "President Client.  I told her that there can be no comparison between the titles of democratically elected officials and so-called inherited and unelected titles, especially of a non-existing royal family and royal system.  I also clarified that Bill Clinton is no longer President and so, of course, he is now Mr. Clinton, although ex US officials often love to call themselves by their former positions (e.g., President Clinton, Secretary Clinton, Speaker Gingrich).  When they do that, it is "trafficking in titles" in the same way that "HRH Prince of Yugoslavia" (and countless Prince and Princesses of Nowhere) like to do.  Of course, having no valid argument, she also again called me "ignorant" and blocked me from her LinkedIn account.  This is apparently a favored social media tactic of the "royal family of Yugoslavia".
It is all pretty clear to me.  Any so-called royal system was the result of someone many centuries ago conquering some land, subjugating its people, giving himself and his descendants a bunch of silly titles and declaring that they were the representatives of God on Earth (at least for the area that they controlled).  The fact that someone is a descendent of such a made-up system, especially one that no longer exists, doesn't mean that any of us need to (or should) call them by the silly titles that they have given to themselves.  More to the point, we should oppose that nonsense wherever we find it.

Trump, Russia and China

President-Elect Donald Trump has everyone guessing what his foreign policy will be like, especially in relation to Russia and China.  There is wide-spread concern that a President Trump will be too friendly to Russia.  I find that to be a bit strange in that he has never actually said he liked Russia or Putin or that they are anything other than unfriendly foreign powers. Yes, he may admire Putin's strength or various successes, but there is no evidence that he desires the outcomes of Putin's various activities.  In any event, my calculation is that this "play nice with Russia" approach is one of the biggest head fakes in history. My view is based on a number of realities and then a possible strategy. 
The first reality is that China is a way more important competition to the United States than Russia is.  Russia has a horrible economy, ineffective or non-existent social and other institutions and little prospect for economic growth or global influence outside of its traditional sphere of influence.  Yes, Russia has a capable military to interfere in those areas of traditional influence, but it scarcely has the financial capability to do that, let alone to go beyond those areas.  And, Russia's kleptocratic economy does not bode well for improving Russia's situation, even if Western sanctions are eventually lifted.  China, on the other hand, is a massive economic power with much more room to grow, albeit at a slower growth rate than over the last few decades.  Despite lots of potential pitfalls in China's future (very high levels of debt, inefficiently allocated capital, etc.), there is every reason to believe that China's GDP and GDP per capita will continue to grow. And, consequently, China will be very capable of financing growing political, economic, military and social influences around the world.  Russia and China have no comparison.  The main issue would be that the US would not want to run a fight against both of them at the same time.
As such, my view is that Trump's approach of playing nice with Putin is that Putin and Russia cannot really hurt the U.S. (perhaps other than via cyberspace, which is another thing and I doubt we'll play nice on that front) and so it makes sense to at least pretend to work with Russia for now while the US takes on China on all sorts of issues and levels - South China Sea, North Korea, Chinese cyber attacks, trade, currency, Taiwan and Hong Kong, etc.  The main point is to not be nice to Russia, but to not encourage Russia and China to team up as an anti-US front.  Thus, softening relations with Russia can be explained as preparing for the direct attack on China issues, not anything to do with liking Russia or Putin.