Three whales of US policy: What is the main mistake
The United States has always divided the world into allies, obedient to their will, and opponents who must be crushed. America considered the USSR to be the main and almost the only rival. Now the world has changed, but the United States has by no means abandoned plans for world domination. Why is this strategy wrong?
In the past 10–20 years, we have increasingly heard American rhetoric of hegemony. The world gendarme actually continues to be. This is evidenced by at least a very recent example of Venezuela, where Washington literally appointed its protege Juan Guaydo as president. We can recall how the United States, through NATO, placed under its control all the armed forces of Europe and even the leaders of European countries.
There are lessons of the Arab spring - Libya, Syria, Iraq. There are examples in Europe - the merciless bombardment of Yugoslavia and the precedent from Kosovo. There are attempts to “curb” Russia, turning Eastern Europe, as well as Ukraine and Georgia into militarist bridgeheads against our country, which in Washington is already almost as afraid as the USSR was at one time.
Today, a new life has found such a tool as sanctions. They are used by the world gendarme, who represents the very "owners of money", that is, the dollar, to strangle the economy of a disagreeable country - Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and a number of others around the world. There is also an undermining of international institutions: members of the UN Security Council vote on the orders of the United States, the OPCW is being turned into a tool for distributing political slaps for alleged chemical attacks.
It would seem that this strategy must give its results - there should no longer be those who disagree with the will of the “Washington Regional Committee”. But this does not happen, because the process of transformation and adaptation of the world is underway. In the United States, meanwhile, new hypotheses are emerging about who Washington should suppress in order to achieve its goal. The US National Intelligence in the updated strategy calls Russia and China their main opponents. At the same time, America is pointed out to a greater number of enemies.
Three opponents of America
As the American journal Foreign Affairs writes in a large analytical article, as many as 25 years after the end of the Cold War, peace and order reigned in the world along with unshakable US military, political and economic hegemony. Countries lived in peace, did not maliciously against each other and did not prepare for war. But then everything changed, and three specific powers allegedly bear responsibility for it.
The conclusion from this provision is that America today needs a fundamentally different policy in three directions at once - the containment of Russia, China and Iran. It was proposed to look for a clue in the recent past, when the United States allegedly successfully held back the USSR, could “stop its aggression” and “limit the political influence of Moscow”. All three powers are called "revisionist" and create their own spheres of influence, separated from the American world order.
The sin of Russia, China and Iran is also that they build "dictatorships that threaten American values." With their help, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran allegedly destroy the economic system that the United States has been creating for decades.
The task of America in the modern world, continues publication, has become even easier. None of these countries allegedly possesses the intimidating and crushing military might that the USSR had had before. Moreover, none of them transmits to the world any idea that could be opposed to American democratic ideals. Russia abandoned communism, China is building socialism with a capitalist face, and Iran is attractive only within the Muslim world, and even among the Shiite minority, the magazine says.
The conclusion in American way here sounds like this - the power of Washington in coalitions, since their members a priori must accept the order that the United States establish. This means that the “revisionist” powers will not have ideological dominance.
Divide and rule
What exactly should America do? The magazine honestly writes - to lie, deceive, push for their interests. The US must lure allies into a coalition against isolated opponents. What will it give? This will create the appearance of legitimacy of US policy, because so many countries share it. This would indicate that America does not act for itself and for its own sake, but as if protecting the universal interests of peace and harmony, of international order.
By the way, the advance of NATO to the east, to the borders of Russia, is not called a very good move. Forign Affairs recalls that the United States united with the USSR in World War II, and then "found a common language with Maoist China to defeat Moscow." Now it was possible to consider an alliance with Russia against China and Iran, but the bet was placed on NATO, and, despite the objections of Moscow, "the armies of other countries stood on its threshold."
In three directions there are three tasks. "Russian aggression" must be restrained by ground forces in Europe. In East Asia, America must have a powerful naval presence to repel China, protect its allies — Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan — and ensure freedom of navigation.
Finally, in the Middle East, the United States needs air force to secure oil supplies from the Persian Gulf to Europe and Asia, as well as to contain Iran’s nuclear program. By the way, the Americans do not need land forces there (let's recall here Trump’s decision to withdraw the contingent from Syria). On the ground, local armed groups that support Washington or are not friendly with Iran should fight.
So, we have the following option. Ground forces - against Russia in Europe, naval forces - against China in Asia, and air forces - to bomb objects in the Middle East. All three strategies can be implemented simultaneously, since in each region the United States has its own coalition, according to Foreign Affairs.
In fact, the American journal is right and wrong at the same time. Of course, Russia, China and Iran are to some extent opposing US policy today. However, this is not happening to destroy certain American values, as they see it in Washington. This is done in order to stop the war, the supply of democracy on the armor of tanks, a violation of international law.
Is the appointment of Venezuelan President Juan Guaydo in compliance with international law? And the bombing of Syria and the American presence in this country in general without a UN mandate and an invitation from Damascus - is this also according to the law? Is militarization of Europe and unilateral sanctions against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea also legal? Therefore, it is not clear what kind of global order created by the United States can be discussed.
Russia is an obvious military-political opponent of the USA and a player comparable to them. Russia demonstrated this in Syria, and it became the property of the whole world. Russia is in the foreground here, it is the main enemy. China is also obvious. In the US foreign policy doctrine, it is written that the leadership of other countries is unacceptable in anything. Iran is included as one of the leaders of the Islamic world. For a long time, the Islamic project was the only one opposing the strategy of the American monopolar world.
Such an approach on the part of the United States means that there are still decades of bipolar confrontation. If earlier it was based on rivalry between the USA and the USSR, today it will be coalitions. Some will support the line of Washington, others on equal partnership rights to oppose them. At the same time, a coalition that opposes Washington will be more balanced: the principle of "two keys" will be implemented in it. Decisions will be made, for example, by China and Russia, and not by just one. At the same time, the idea of the American monopolar world is a global brake for all mankind.
Talk about changing the vector of foreign policy has been going on for more than a year. However, the US foreign policy machine is very heavy and inert. The problem is that such a course today contradicts the declared line of US President Donald Trump.
The establishment, which is holding back Trump, believes that America has enough resources to contain literally everyone at the same time. Trump won the election with the installations of the so-called realist political scientists, who believe that the United States is not able to simultaneously deal with all opponents. Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Nixon-Kissinger doctrine, only the opposite: to improve relations with Russia and worsen as much as possible with China.
China’s weak side is maritime trade, because almost all trade routes go by sea. Therefore, the US wants the region to have an advantage at sea to block these economic arteries. Iran is not given much space, because in Washington it is considered dependent on Russia and China. At the same time, the United States acts according to a primitive scenario, since their attempts to split the alliance of Russia, China and Iran only unite it, the political scientist noted. Russia, in the new multipolar world, has a special role.
It is already clear that America is not a leader, but one of the leaders. Gradually, as the United States weakens, as the US-Chinese confrontation intensifies, the value of Russia will increase, both in China’s eyes and in America’s eyes. They can still begin to compete for a strategic alliance with Moscow and against each other.
Thus, the geopolitical current US strategy is fundamentally wrong. If the idea of a successful confrontation to all opponents would be well-off, then, probably, America would not have the desire to suppress Iran, and after him someone else. In a broad sense, this means that multipolarity, based on the national, cultural, political, and economic identity of nations has already taken place, and the policy of US hegemony is failing.
At the same time, the transformation of American landmarks will take time. And the most important thing is that it should pass without military conflicts and major wars, which are so actively called for in Washington, not wanting to lose imaginary hegemony, from which nothing is left.