Putin: ‘The Situation Is, to a Certain Extent, Revolutionary’

Putin in fact did nail where we are: on the edge of a Revolution.

October 31, 2022

Global Research,

By Pepe Escobar

In an all-encompassing address to the plenary session of the 19th annual meeting of the Valdai Club, President Putin delivered no less than a devastating, multi-layered critique of unipolarity.

From Shakespeare to the assassination of Gen Soleimani;

from musings on spirituality to the structure of the UN;

from Eurasia as the cradle of human civilization to the interconnection of BRI, SCO and the INSTC;

from nuclear dangers to that peripheral peninsula of Eurasia “blinded by the idea that Europeans are better than others”, the address painted a Brueghel-esque canvas of the “historical milestone” facing us, in the middle of “the most dangerous decade since the end of WWII.”

Putin even ventured that, in the words of the classics, “the situation is, to a certain extent, revolutionary” as “the upper classes cannot, and the lower classes do not want to live like this anymore”. So everything is in play, as “the future of the new world order is being shaped before our eyes.”

Way beyond a catchy slogan about the game the West is playing, “bloody, dangerous and dirty”, the address and Putin’s interventions at the subsequent Q&A should be analyzed as a coherent vision of past, present and future. Here we offer just a few of the highlights:

“The world is witnessing the degradation of world institutions, the erosion of the principle of collective security, the substitution of international law for ‘rules’”.

“Even at the height of the Cold War, nobody denied the existence of the culture and art of the Other. In the West, any alternative point of view is declared subversive.”

“The Nazis burned books. Now the Western fathers of ‘liberalism’ are banning Dostoevsky.”

“There are at least two ‘Wests’. The first is traditional, with a rich culture. The second is aggressive and colonial.”

“Russia has not and does not consider itself an enemy of the West.

Russia tried to build relations with the West and NATO – to live together in peace and harmony. Their response to all cooperation was simply ‘no’.”

“We do not need a nuclear strike on Ukraine, there is no point – neither political nor military.”

“In part” the situation between Russia and Ukraine can be considered a civil war: “When creating Ukraine, the Bolsheviks endowed it with primordially Russian territories – they gave it all of Little Russia, the entire Black Sea region, the entire Donbass. Ukraine evolved as an artificial state.”

Russia and China Haven’t Even Started to Ratchet Up the Pain Dial. Pepe Escobar

“Ukrainians and Russians are one people – this is a historical fact. Ukraine has evolved as an artificial state. The only country that can guarantee its sovereignty is the country which created it – Russia.”

“The unipolar world is coming to an end. The West is incapable of single-handedly ruling the world. The world stands at a historical milestone ahead of the most dangerous and important decade since World War II.”

“Humanity has two options – either we continue accumulating the burden of problems that is certain to crush all of us, or we can work together to find solutions.”

What do we do after the orgy?

Amidst a series of absorbing discussions, the heart of the matter at Valdai is its 2022 report, “A World Without Superpowers”.

The report’s central thesis – eminently correct – is that “the United States and its allies, in fact, no longer enjoy the status of dominant superpower, but the global infrastructure that serves it is still in place.”

Of course all major interconnected issues at the current crossroads were precipitated because” Russia became the first major power which, guided by its own ideas of security and fairness, chose to discard the benefits of ‘global peace’ created by the only superpower.”

Well, not exactly “global peace”; rather a Mafia-enforced ethos of “our way or the highway”. The report quite diplomatically characterizes the freezing of Russia’s gold and foreign currency reserves and the “mop up” of Russia’s property abroad as “Western jurisdictions”, “if necessary”, being “guided by political expediency rather than the law”.

That’s in fact outright theft, under the shadow of the “rules-based international order”.

The report – optimistically – foresees the advent of a sort of normalized “cold peace” as “the best available solution today” – acknowledging at least this is far from guaranteed, and “will not halt the fundamental rebuilding of the international system on new foundations.”

The foundation for evolving multipolarity has in fact been presented by the Russia-China strategic partnership only three weeks before imperially-ordered provocations forced Russia to launch the Special Military Operation (SMO).

In parallel, the financial lineaments of multipolarity had been proposed since at least July 2021, in a paper co-written by Professor Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai.

The Valdai report duly acknowledges the role of Global South medium-sized powers that “exemplify the democratization of international politics” and may “act as shock absorbers during periods of upheaval.” That’s a direct reference to the role of BRICS+ as key protagonists.

On the Big Picture across the chessboard, the analysis tends to get more realistic when it considers that “the triumph of ‘the only true idea’ makes effective dialogue and agreement with supporters of different views and values impossible by definition.”

Putin alluded to it several times in his address. There’s no evidence whatsoever the Empire and its vassals will be deviating from their normative, imposed, value-laden unilateralism.

As for world politics beginning to “rapidly return to a state of anarchy built on force”, that’s self-evident: only the Empire of Chaos wants to impose anarchy, as it completely ran out of geopolitical and geoeconomic tools to control rebel nations, apart from the sanctions tsunami.

So the report is correct when it identifies that the childish neo-Hegelian “end of history” wet dream in the end hit the wall of History: we’re back to the pattern of large scale conflicts between centers of power.

And it’s also a fact that “simply changing the ‘operator’ as it happened in earlier centuries” (as in the U.S. taking over from Britain) “just won’t work.”

China might harbor a desire to become the new sheriff, but the Beijing leadership definitely is not interested. And even if that happened the Hegemon would fiercely prevented it, as “the entire system” remains “under its control (primarily finance and the economy).”

So the only way out, once again, is multipolarity – which the report characterizes, rather vaguely, as “a world without superpowers”, still in need of “a system of self-regulation, which implies much greater freedom of action and responsibility for such actions.”

Stranger things have happened in History. As it stands, we are plunged deep into the maelstrom of complete collapse. Putin in fact did nail where we are: on the edge of a Revolution.

This article was first published by Strategic Culture Foundation

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Pepe Escobar, Global Research, 2022

Pepe Escobar : Interview with The Press Project

May 22, 2022

From a unipolar to a multipolar world.  This is my itvw with the wonderful folks at The Press Project in Greece.  In English, with Greek subtitles.

روسيا والصّين وخطاب قوى المقاومة

الصين تتريَّث حالياً في دخول معترك ملفات المشرق العربي السياسية وتعقيداتها

الجمعة 26 نوفمبر 2021

المصدر: الميادين نت

عمرو علان

كاتب وباحث سياسي في العديد من المنافذ الإخبارية العربية ، ومنها جريدة الأخبار ، وقناة الميادين الإخبارية الفضائية ، وعربي 21 ، وراي اليوم

أُجبِر الكيان الصهيوني سابقاً على الانسحاب من قطاع غزة في العام 2005، وقبل ذلك من جنوب لبنان في العام 2000. وفي كلتا الحالتين، كان انسحابه من دون قيدٍ أو شرطٍ.

لعلَّ من أبرز تجلِّيات حقبة “القطب الواحد” التي عاشها العالم خلال العقود الثلاثة الماضية، والتي يشارف العالم على الخروج منها إلى “نظام عالمي” جديد ما زالت ملامحه قيد التشكل، حيث تجلَّت ملامح “القطب الواحد” باستفراد الولايات المتحدة الأميركية بالتأثير في قضايا منطقتنا العربية، إذ كانت روسيا مشغولة بعملية استعادة توازنها بعد انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي، وكانت الصين في مرحلة بدايات بناء قوتها الاقتصادية العالمية، أما أوروبا، فكان تأثيرها قد بدأ بالتراجع في ملفات السياسة الدولية لمصلحة الولايات المتحدة الأميركية منذ مشروع “مارشال”. 

أما اليوم، ونظراً إلى التحولات العميقة التي تجري في “النظام العالمي”، والتي تتمثل بعودة روسيا لتكون لاعباً دولياً رئيساً في الساحة الدولية من جهة، ولا سيما في منطقة المشرق العربي، وأيضاً في صعود الصين المطرد كعملاق اقتصادي دولي من جهة أخرى، نجد أنَّ الباب يُفتح مجدداً لهذه القوى الدولية للانخراط بشكل أكبر في ملفات المنطقة العربية، وعلى رأسها القضية الفلسطينية، القضية الأم والأكثر تعقيداً من بين قضايا المنطقة، إذ يفرض عليها التواجد الروسي العسكري في منطقتنا التعامل مع مسألة الصراع العربي الصهيوني، فكما صرَّح الرئيس الروسي فلاديمير بوتين مؤخراً: “روسيا عملت وستعمل كوسيط نزيه لتسوية النزاعات في الشرق الأوسط ولتحقيق الاستقرار في المنطقة… من أجل تطبيع الوضع في الشرق الأوسط. من المهم مبدئياً دفع عملية التسوية الفلسطينية الإسرائيلية”.

أما الصين التي يظهر أنها تتريَّث حالياً في دخول معترك ملفات المشرق العربي السياسية وتعقيداتها، فعلى الأرجح أن تجد نفسها مضطرة إلى الانخراط في هذه الملفات بقدرٍ أو بآخر، إما عاجلاً وإما آجلاً، ولا سيما أنها تسعى بشكل حثيث للاستثمار الاقتصادي في المنطقة الشرقية لحوض المتوسط، لكونها حلقة وصل رئيسية في مشروعها الاستراتيجي “الحزام والطريق”.

تطرح هذه المستجدات سؤالاً على فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية حول الكيفية الأنسب للتعامل مع دول بحجم روسيا والصين العائدتين لأداء أدوار في قضايا منطقتنا، ولا سيما أنَّ منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية كانت قد ارتضت الدخول في خديعة “عملية السلام” التي أفضت إلى الاعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني المزعوم، وقبلت التنازل عن الحق العربي والإسلامي الأصيل في الأراضي المحتلة العام 1948، وما تبع ذلك من القبول بتقسيم القدس إلى شرقيةٍ وغربيةٍ، وتمييع حق العودة المقدس للاجئين الفلسطينيين، إلى درجةٍ توازي التنازل عنه عملياً، وباتت دول العالم اليوم – اللهم إلا الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران – تنظر إلى تنازلات المنظمة على أنها السقف المقبول فلسطينياً. 

الصين مثلاً، التي كانت ترفض الاعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني، والتي كانت من أواخر دول العالم التي اعترفت بهذا الكيان المصطنع، لم تقْدِم على الاعتراف به إلا بعدما اعترفت منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية به أولاً، وكان حال الصين في ذلك حال العديد من دول العالم الأخرى التي كانت تناصر الحقوق العربية والفلسطينية.

لكن قوى وفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية، مع باقي قوى المقاومة الحية في وطننا العربي والإسلامي، على عكس منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، ما زالت ترفع لواء تحرير كامل التراب الفلسطيني المحتل، بصفته الحل العادل والمنطقي للقضية الفلسطينية، ناهيك بكونه الحل الوحيد الحقيقي المتاح للصراع العربي الصهيوني، وذلك إذا ما وُضع أصل فكرة نشأت ووظيفة الكيان الصهيوني في سياقه الصحيح والأشمل ضمن الصراع مع قوى الاستعمار الغربي.

لذلك، يمكن لفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية بناء خطابها مع هذه الدول على أساس فكرة وجوب انسحاب الاحتلال من الأراضي التي احتلها في العام 1967 من دون قيدٍ أو شرطٍ، فكل قرارات الأمم المتحدة تؤكد أن هذه الأراضي هي أراضٍ محتلة، وعلى أي احتلال الانسحاب من الأراضي التي احتلها من دون قيدٍ أو شرطٍ، ومن دون منحه أية مكافآت مقابل انسحابه هذا، وهي مسألة لا يستطيع أحدٌ المحاججة فيها بالقانون الدولي أو بغيره.

 أما الاحتلال الصهيوني، فهو حرٌ بأن يسمي هذا الانسحاب “إعادة انتشار” أو “فك ارتباط من طرف واحد” أو أي شيء آخر يريحه، فالجوهري هنا أن يكون هذا الانسحاب من دون قيدٍ أو شرطٍ، ومن دون أي تفاهماتٍ مع هذا المغتصب، وبعدها يكون لكل حادثٍ حديثٌ. 

لقد أُجبِر الكيان الصهيوني سابقاً على الانسحاب من قطاع غزة في العام 2005، وقبل ذلك من جنوب لبنان في العام 2000. وفي كلتا الحالتين، كان انسحابه من دون قيدٍ أو شرطٍ، ومن دون أن يحصل على أية تفاهمات مع المقاومة التي دحرته عن الأراضي التي كان يحتلها، وهذه التجربة يمكن تكرارها في الأراضي المحتلة العام 1967. 

أما عقيدة حركات المقاومة القائمة على تحرير كامل التراب الفلسطيني المحتل من رأس الناقورة إلى أم الرشراش، فهذا أمرٌ لا شأن للقوى الدولية به، ولا تجب مناقشته مع أيٍّ من هذه الدول، فإن أرادوا التضامن مع الشعب العربي ومساعدته على استعادة حقوقه، فعليهم الضغط على المحتلّ كي ينسحب من دون قيدٍ أو شرطٍ من الأراضي التي يحتلّها باعتراف القانون الدولي، وحجّة فصائل المقاومة في هذا قوية، فتكفي الإشارة إلى تجربة منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية على مدى العقود الثلاثة الماضية، وما سمي بـ”عملية السلام” وما انتهت إليه.

يرى البعض هذا الخطاب خطاباً متماسكاً، ويَصلح لمحاججة القوى الدولية الصاعدة به، فهو يضع الكرة في ملعبها، ولا يقدم في المقابل أي تنازلات عن الثوابت العربية والإسلامية في القضية الفلسطينية، ناهيك بكونه يتجاوز التنازلات التي قدّمتها منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، والتي بات العالم يطالب الفلسطينيين بالالتزام بها، عوضاً عن مطالبة الاحتلال بالانسحاب دون قيدٍ أو شرطٍ من الأراضي التي احتلها العام 1967، بناءً على الشرعية الدولية التي تؤمن بها هذه القوى.

ويمكن القول ختاماً إنّ أيّ خطابٍ آخر تتبناه فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية لا يلحظ فكرة وجوب انسحاب الاحتلال من دون قيدٍ أو شرطٍ، لا بد من أن يُدخِل الفصائل الفلسطينية في دوامةٍ تشبه دوامة خديعة “السلام”، إن لم تكن أسوأ. إذاً، ليخرج الاحتلال من الأراضي التي يحتلّها من دون قيدٍ أو شرطٍ أولاً. وعندها، يخلق الله ما لا تعلمون.إن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً

الغياب التدريجي للعصر الأميركي أصبح قريباً

د. وفيق إبراهيم

غياب الدول يبتدئ بمؤشرات وهنٍ تظهر بشكل تدريجي ككل كائن، فتفتك بصاحبها حتى يتولاه التاريخ ويسجنه في صفحاته الصفراء.

هكذا حال الولايات المتحدة الأميركية التي تسطع منذ 1945 وتضع يدها منذ ثلاثة عقود على العالم بأسره بما يحتويه من سياسة واقتصاد وثقافة.

هذه الإمبراطورية تتعرّض اليوم لانتفاضة ضخمة من أقلياتها السوداء التي تشعر بغبن جراء ثقافة عنصريّة تشكل اساس النظام التاريخي الأميركي مع حرمان اقتصادي يجمّدها في أسفل السلم الاجتماعي وتدهور إضافي بسبب جائحة كورونا أوصل العاطلين عن العمل الى 50 مليوناً تقريباً.

لكن هذه الانتفاضة السوداء تتوسّع بأعمال عنف تضرب عشرات الولايات وتتسبب بأضرار مادية مع سقوط قتلى اغتالهم مجهولون لإثارة الهلع في صفوف المتظاهرين، هؤلاء يتّجهون الى تصعيد “انتفاضتهم” وتزويدها بشحنات سياسية قوية عنوانها ما فعلوه بحصار البيت الابيض الأميركي مقر الرؤساء، ومنهم بالطبع الحالي دونالد ترامب الذي يبدو مذعوراً يهدّد المتظاهرين بالكلاب والجيش.

هناك عنصر ثانٍ يدعم انتفاضة الأقليات السوداء وهم ذوو الأصول اللاتينية الذين بدأوا ينخرطون في الحركات الاحتجاجيّة الى جانب كتل وازنة من الأميركيين البيض يسجلون بدورهم استياءهم من سياسات ترامب التي يصفونها بالحمقاء المدمّرة للدولة.

إن انهيار الإمبراطوريات يحتاج عادة لتضافر عوامل داخلية وخارجية. وهذا ما يجري تماماً على الصعيد الأميركي.

خارجياً تتعرّض القطبية الأحادية الأميركية لمنافسة بنيوية عميقة مع نظام اقتصادي صيني نجح في مدة بسيطة من التهام قسم هام من اسواق العالم بوسائل جاذبة قامت على رخص سعر السلعة وجودتها مع الاستفادة من نظام العولمة الذي فتح الحدود السياسية للدول امام التبادلات التجارية.

كان المعتقد أن العولمة سلاح أميركي للمزيد من هيمنة الاقتصاد الأميركي على العالم، وبالفعل هذا ما حدث إنما بمشاركة صينية يابانية وألمانية أدّت الى تراجع الاقتصاد الأميركي نسبياً.

الملاحظ هنا أن هناك تزامناً بين الخارج والداخل في دفع الهيمنة على الأسواق، هذا ما يصيب ترامب بالجنون، فيبدأ بتحميل الصين وزر الكورونا والسطو على الاختراعات الأميركية والاعتداء على هونغ كونغ ودعم كوريا الشمالية ومحاولات التحرش ببوارج أميركية في بحر الصين الجنوبي، لكن ما يطالب به برامب يفضح ما يريده وهو وقف تدفق السلع الصينية الى أسواق بلاده أولاً وتحالفاتها ثانياً. وهذا يعني تسديد ضربة قاتلة للاقتصاد الصيني.

قد يعتقد البعض ان القوة النووية الأميركية كافية لإرهاب الصين، لكن الكرة الأرضية لا تحتاج الى آلاف الاسلحة النووية الأميركية لتدميرها، لربما فإن ما تملكه الصين من أعداد قليلة منها أكثر من كافية لإثارة الذعر الأميركي والابتعاد عن اللجوء إليه.

كذلك فإن الروس عادوا الى التمدد الاستراتيجي في دول تشكل بالنسبة إليهم رؤوس جسور لعودتهم الى فضاءاتهم السوفياتية السابقة.

أما الضربة الثالثة فهي كورونا التي شلت الاقتصاد الأميركي بحركتيه الداخلية والخارجية، وأنتجت حتى الآن خمسين مليون عاطل عن العمل من أبناء الطبقات الفقيرة والوسطى، ولولا المساعدات الاجتماعيّة الحكوميّة لانفجر الوضع منذ أكثر من شهر.

هناك اذاً ظروف خارجية وأخرى تتعلّق بجائحة كورونا تضع الدولة الأميركيّة في وضع صعب.

لقد استلزم الأمر “قشة” صغيرة تقصم ظهر البعير الأميركي. وهذا ما حدث باغتيال مواطن أميركي من ذوي البشرة السمراء خنقه بركبته ضابط شرطة أميركي في ولاية مينيابوليس فهبّت الأقلية السمراء في عشرات الولايات في أكبر انتفاضة شعبية تنفذها الأقلية السمراء بشكل غاضب أحرق مقارّ رسمية وممتلكات خاصة في تظاهرات لم تتوقف حتى الآن وتذهب نحو مزيد من التصعيد؛ يكفي ان الشرطة الأميركية اعتقلت حتى الآن 1400 أميركي أسمر البشرة في سبع عشرة ولاية ولم تتمكن من تفريق متظاهرين يطوقون البيت الأبيض الرئاسي محاولين اقتحامه.

المشكلة هنا، تتمحور في أن ترامب يريد من حكام الولايات إنزال الحرس الوطني لقمع التظاهرات. وهذا من صلاحيات مناطقهم الفدراليّة، وذلك كي يهرب من اللجوء الى صلاحياته الرئاسية باستخدام الجيش، لأن ما يفكر فيه هو الانتخابات الرئاسية في تشرين الثاني المقبل.

وقد يذهب لتأجيج الصراع بين أبناء الطبقات الفقيرة والمتوسطة البيضاء ومع الاقلية السمراء وذلك لكسب أصوات فقراء أميركا المحسوبين تاريخياً مع الحزب الديمقراطي المنافس.

بذلك ينجح ترامب بأصوات بيضاء صافية من أغنياء أميركا في حزبهم الجمهوري والفقراء من البيض الذين يوهمهم ترامب ان الأقليّة السمراء تحاول التهام ما يتمتعون به من امتيازات.

إن هذا النمط من التعامل هو أسلوب اتسم به الرئيس ترامب من طريق تحريض البيض من كل التنوّعات الاقتصادية على السود والمسلمين واللاتينيين ذوي الأصول الصينية والمكسيكية، حتى أنه هو أكثر من حرّض على الدين الإسلامي لكسب أصوات اليهود الأميركيين مُهدياً ما تبقى من فلسطين المحتلة للإسرائيليين المحتلين.

هذه العوامل مجتمعة، تجب إضافتها الى اهتزاز الهيمنة الأميركية في مشروعها الفاشل في الشرق الأوسط.

فبعد فشله في سورية والعراق وغزة واليمن، وإيران وعودة منظمة طالبان الى الحرب على حلفاء الأميركيين في موقفه من الاتفاق النووي مع إيران وانسحابهم من منظمة الصحة الدولية، وبيعهم الضفة الغربية لكيان المحتل، وخروجهم من اتفاق الأجواء المفتوحة، هذا الخروج الذي يضع العالم على كف عفريت اسمه ترامب.

كل هذه العناصر المجتمعة في آن واحد تكشف ان انتفاضة الأقليات الأميركية السمراء او اللاتينية مع تأييد قسم وافر من البيض الأميركيين، هي مقدمة تراجع بنيوي تدخل فيها الامبراطورية الأميركية إنما بشكل تدريجي، لأن قوتها الاقتصادية لا تزال قوية وأولى بين اقتصادات الدول وتتمتع بقدرات عسكرية هائلة توازي إمكانات روسيا.

لذلك فإن تعميق التحالف الصيني – الروسي واستمرار انتفاضة الأقليات الأميركية، هي عناصر دفع الهيمنة الأميركية الى تدهور سريع على أساس سيادة قطبية جديدة وإعادة العمل بالقانون الدولي كمرجع للخلافات الدولية، وتسديد ضربة للنظام العنصري الأميركي خصوصاً والغربي عموماً، قد لا تكفيه، لكنها تمنعه من ممارساته الوحشية وتؤسس لتدريس وبناء نظام ثقافي عالمي جديد لا يميز بين البشر على أساس ألوانهم ومستوى ثرواتهم.

ألكسندر دوغين: أيّ حرب كبرى ستؤدي إلى نهاية إسرائيل

(هيثم الموسوي)

سوريا المقابلة 

وليد شرارة 

الخميس 27 شباط 2020

واقعيّة إردوغان ستدفعه إلى التراجع

مقالات مرتبطة

الحلّ في تحالف روسي إيراني سوري تركي يضمّ قوى المقاومة
واشنطن قد تلجأ إلى الاغتيال بعد سابقة سليماني

هل انتهى ما درج البعض على تسميته «الانزياح الاستراتيجي» لتركيا نحو الكتلة الأوراسية بعيداً من الرابطة الأطلسية؟ التورّط المباشر للجيش التركي في معارك الشمال السوري، والتصريحات النارية للمسؤولين في أنقرة، والمواقف الأميركية الودّية تجاه «دولة حليفة»، جميعها عناصر قد تشجّع على الجواب بالإيجاب عن هذا السؤال. غير أن ألكسندر دوغين، المفكر القريب من دوائر صنع القرار في روسيا، وأحد رواد الفكرة «الأوراسية» في هذا البلد، في مرحلة طغى فيها الهوى الغربي على ما عداه بعد سقوط الاتحاد السوفياتي، مقتنع بأننا أمام أزمة من الممكن تجاوزها، وهي لن توقف عملية الانزياح المذكورة. الرجل الذي يعرف القيادات التركية جيداً، والذي كشف سابقاً لـ«الأخبار» أنه حذّر الرئيس التركي رجب طيب إردوغان من المحاولة الانقلابية التي كانت تُعدّ ضده ساعات قبل وقوعها، يجزم بأن مسار إخراج الولايات المتحدة من الإقليم يتسارع، وأن حسم معركة إدلب خطوة في هذا الاتجاه. لدوغين عشرات المؤلفات، أبرزها: «نحو نظرية للعالم المتعدد الأقطاب»، «نداء أوراسيا»، و«من أجل كتلة تقليدية».

ساهم ألكسندر دوغين، عبر سنوات من التفاعل مع النخب السياسية والعسكرية في تركيا، في الحوار بينها وبين تلك الروسية، والذي أفضى إلى تقارب متزايد بين البلدين في السنوات الأخيرة. لكن التطورات الميدانية الناجمة عن احتدام المعركة في منطقة إدلب والشمال الغربي السوري، والتي تشارك فيها تركيا وروسيا في معسكرين متقابلين، والمواقف الأميركية الصادرة بالتزامن معها والمؤكدة «التضامن الأطلسي» مع تركيا، وكذلك تلك التركية التي طلبت مثل هذا التضامن والدعم، عزّزت الاقتناع بأن مسار التقارب المذكور بين أنقرة وموسكو هشّ وقابل للارتداد.
دوغين، من جهته، يرى أن فهماً أدقّ للوضع الشديد التعقيد الحالي، ولمآلاته المحتملة، يتطلّب إدراكاً لطبيعة «الاستراتيجية العامة الروسية في سوريا، المُوجّهة أساساً ضدّ السيطرة الأحادية الأميركية والأطلسية في هذه المنطقة. الغاية الكبرى لهذه الاستراتيجية هي المساعدة على دخول الشرق الأوسط في عصر التعدّدية القطبية الذي سيتيح لشعوبه أن تقرّر مصيرها ومستقبلها وتحافظ على سيادتها. لا يتعلق الأمر باستبدال النفوذ الأميركي بآخر روسي أو هيمنة أحادية بأخرى. غاية روسيا هي توفير الظروف المناسبة لتشكّل منظومة إقليمية متعدّدة الأقطاب تضمّ الدول والقوى السياسية المناهضة للأحادية الأميركية. في سوريا، سعت روسيا إلى تدمير داعش والقوى المتطرفة المدعومة من السعودية، وبشكل غير مباشر من الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل، والتي كانت بمثابة الوكلاء لهذه الدول، ولدعم سوريا كي تستعيد سيادتها واستقرارها. وفي سبيل ذلك، هي تعاونت مع الدولة السورية والإيرانيين، وتقاربت أيضاً مع تركيا. العمل على كسب تركيا وإبعادها عن المشروع الأميركي هما تحدّيان مهمّان بالنسبة إلى روسيا، لأن نجاحها في تحقيق غايتها المشار إليها سابقاً منوط بهما. ومن الممكن القول إن الإنجازات التي تمّت حتى اليوم على الأرض في سوريا، وكثمرة للتعاون بين روسيا والدولة السورية وإيران، وكذلك للتفاهمات مع تركيا، والتي تؤدّي إلى الخروج التدريجي للأميركيين، كانت ستكون أصعب على التحقيق لولا هذه التفاهمات. لكن لهذه التفاهمات أثمان، ونحن ندفعها اليوم بمعنى ما، لأن لإردوغان التزامات حيال بعض فصائل المعارضة السورية. روسيا تجد نفسها الآن في موقف صعب، لأننا من دون تركيا لن نتمكّن من الوصول إلى غاية إنهاء الهيمنة الأحادية الأميركية على الشرق الأوسط، واستعار المواجهة الدائرة حالياً قد يفضي إلى إعادة النظر في التفاهمات معها. لا أعتقد بأن إردوغان يستطيع الاعتماد على دعم الولايات المتحدة أو القوى الغربية. هؤلاء معادون له، وقد تراجعت العلاقات الاستراتيجية بينهم وبين إردوغان بشكل جدي. هو حالياً يناور لأن من الصعب عليه القبول بالفشل، ويهدّد باللجوء مجدداً إلى حلفاء هم ليسوا كذلك بالنسبة إليه في الواقع. المطلوب هو إقناعه بعقم مثل هذه التكتيكات، وبالاستمرار في مشاركته في بناء منظومة إقليمية جديدة».

الأكلاف الباهظة لأيّ حربٍ ستعني أيضاً نهاية ترامب سياسياً

غير أن مستجدات أخرى، بعضها تركي داخلي وسابق للتصعيد في الشمال السوري، دعمت فرضية محاولة إردوغان إعادة الدفء إلى علاقاته بالأميركيين، ومنها مثلاً إزاحته مجدّداً لعدد من القادة العسكريين المحسوبين على التيار الأوراسي في الجيش التركي، والذين دعموه عندما تعرّض للمحاولة الانقلابية عام 2016. «لا أعتقد بأن هذا التحليل صائب. أنا أعرف جيداً جداً الوضع الداخلي التركي، وحقيقة دعم التيارات القومية العلمانية وقطاعات إسلامية معادية للغرب لإردوغان. أما الليبراليون، بجناحَيهم العلماني والإسلامي، وجميع القوى الغربية الهوى، بما فيها تلك الموجودة داخل حزب إردوغان، فهم يناصبونه العداء. أنصار الخيار الأوراسي، أكانوا من العلمانيين أم من الإسلاميين، هم القاعدة الموالية لإردوغان. وعلينا ألّا ننسى معطى آخر في غاية الأهمية، وهو الدعم الأميركي النوعي والممتدّ زمنياً للأكراد، وهم الخطر الأكبر من منظور إردوغان وقطاع وازن من النخب التركية. لدى إردوغان ما يكفي من الذكاء ومن الحسّ الواقعي لعدم الوقوع في الفخ المنصوب له. هو يريد من روسيا المزيد من المرونة حياله حتى لا يفقد ماء الوجه في الشمال السوري، مع ما يترتّب على ذلك من انعكاسات على صعيد العالم الإسلامي وشبكات الإخوان المسلمين. ما يجب إدراكه هو أن بوتين مستعد لأخذ مصالح تركيا الاستراتيجية بالحسبان، لكنه لن يقبل بتلبية طموحات إردوغان المرتبطة بأجندة أيديولوجية إسلامية. ولا يمكن الحصول على أيّ شيء من بوتين عبر استخدام القوة. مَن يعرف بوتين يدرك ذلك جيداً. سيضطر إردوغان، نظراً الى واقعيته التي أشرت إليها، إلى التراجع خطوات عدة إلى الخلف لأنه لن يتمتّع بدعم كافٍ من الغرب الذي لا يثق به، ولا من حلفاء الغرب في الداخل التركي، والذين يريدون استقالته الفورية ونهاية دوره السياسي. صِدام مباشر مع روسيا وإيران والجيش السوري ستكون له نتائج كارثية بالنسبة إليه وإلى تركيا. وأظن، إضافة إلى ذلك، أنه لا ينسى أن الدعم الروسي له في أصعب لحظة في حياته السياسية، خلال المحاولة الانقلابية، كان حاسماً لإنقاذه من نهاية مأسوية، وتجنيب تركيا الانزلاق نحو مآل تدميري. التحليل المنطقي والعقلاني للخيارات المتاحة أمامه، وواقع أنه لا يملك أوراق قوة، يفترض أن يحملاه على التراجع والقبول بالحوار مع الرئيس الأسد والتخفّف من أعباء دعم مجموعات غالبيتها سلفية، تحالف معها في مرحلة سابقة وانطلاقاً من اعتبارات لم يعد لها أساس راهناً. ومعركة إدلب تأتي في سياق استكمال عملية استعادة الدولة السورية سيادتها على أراضيها، وارتفاع حدّة الصراع مع الولايات المتحدة على نطاق الإقليم بعد اغتيال اللواء قاسم سليماني، ما يشي بأن التراجعات غير واردة وبأن هذه المعركة ستحسم».
ولكن ألا يمكن قراءة الموقف التركي كمحاولة للاستفادة من ارتفاع حدّة هذا الصراع، والحديث المتواتر عن احتمالات حرب كبرى بين أفرقائه؟ «الحرب محتملة دائماً. هذه قاعدة في العلاقات الدولية. بعد اغتيال اللواء سليماني، شاهدنا البرلمان العراقي يُصوّت على إخراج القوات الأميركية، وإعلان أطراف كثيرة داخل هذا البلد وخارجه نيّتها مقاومة هذه القوات. في النهاية، سيتحرّر العراق من الاحتلال الأميركي في الفترة إياها التي تتمّ فيها استعادة سيادة سوريا على أراضيها بعد هزيمة المشروع الأميركي. نحن نرى بالفعل ارتفاعاً لحدّة الصراع، لكن أيّ حرب كبرى ستؤدي إلى نهاية إسرائيل، مهما كانت نتائجها في الجبهة المقابلة، وإلى نهاية الوجود الأميركي في الإقليم. ينبغي الالتفات إلى أن الهيمنة الأميركية دخلت في طور الأزمة والضمور في مناطق عديدة من الكوكب. الأكلاف الباهظة لأيّ حرب ستعني أيضاً نهاية ترامب سياسياً. لقد شكّل اغتيال اللواء سليماني سابقة خطرة في نظر الكثيرين، بِمَن فيهم إردوغان مثلاً، فتجرّؤ الأميركيين على اغتيال مسؤول أساسي في دولة ذات سيادة يعني أن من المحتمل أن يكرّروا مثل هذا الفعل غداً ضدّ مسؤول تركي أو صيني… السياسة الأميركية تُعمّم الفوضى، والحلّ هو في تحالف روسي ــــ إيراني ــــ سوري ــــ تركي يضمّ أيضاً قوى المقاومة، ويؤمّن الشروط الضرورية لقيام نظام إقليمي مستقرّ يسمح بتحقيق تطلّعات الشعوب»، يختم دوغين.

المفكّر الروسي

US Global Power: The Trump Period, The End of Unipolarity

Global Research, May 02, 2019


US global power in the Trump period reflects the continuities and changes which are unfolding rapidly and deeply throughout the world and which are affecting the position of Washington.

Assessing the dynamics of US global power is a complex problem which requires examining multiple dimensions.

We will proceed by:

  • Conceptualizing the principles which dictate empire building, specifically the power bases and the dynamic changes in relations and structures which shape the present and future position of the US.
  • Identifying the spheres of influence and power and their growth and decline.
  • Examining the regionsof conflict and contestation.
  • The major and secondary rivalries.
  • The stable and shifting relationsbetween existing and rising power centers.
  • The internal dynamics shaping the relative strength of competing centers of global power.
  • The instability of the regimes and states seeking to retain and expand global power.

Conceptualization of Global Power

US global power is built on several significant facts.  These include:  the US victory in World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five continents.

The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial rulers imposed following independence.

US global power was built around encircling the USSR and China, undermining their economies and defeating their allies militarily via regional wars.

Post WWII global economic and military superiority created subordinated allies and established US global power, but it created the bases for gradual shifts in relations of dominance.

US global power was formidable but subject to economic and military changes over time and in space.

US Spheres of Power:  Then and Now

US global power exploited opportunities but also suffered military setbacks early on, particularly in Korea, Indo-China and Cuba. The US spheres of power were clearly in place in Western Europe and Latin America but was contested in Eastern Europe and Asia.

The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980’s.

US ideologues declared the coming of a unipolar empire free of restraints and challenges to its global and regional power. The US turned to conquering peripheral adversaries.  Washington destroyed Yugoslavia and then Iraq – fragmenting them into mini-states. Wall Street promoted a multitude of multi-national corporations to invade China and Indo-China who reaped billions of profits exploiting cheap labor.

The believers of the enduring rule of US global power envisioned a century of US imperial rule.

In reality this was a short-sighted vision of a brief interlude.

The End of Unipolarity: New Rivalries and Global and Regional Centers of Power: An Overview

US global power led Washington into  ‘overreach’, in several crucial areas:  it launched a series of costly prolonged wars, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had three negative consequences:  the destruction of the Iraq armed forces and economy led to the rise of the Islamic State which overtook most of the country; the occupation in Afghanistan which led to the emergence of the Taliban and an ongoing twenty year war which cost hundreds of billions of dollars and several thousand wounded and dead US soldiers; as a result the majority of the US public turned negative toward wars and empire building

The US pillage and dominance of Russia ended, when President Putin replaced Yeltsin’s vassal state.  Russia rebuilt its industry, science, technology and military power.  Russia’s population recovered its living standards.

With Russian independence and advanced military weaponry, the US lost its unipolar  military power.  Nevertheless, Washington financed a coup which virtually annexed two thirds of the Ukraine.  The US incorporated the fragmented Yugoslavian ‘statelets’ into NATO.  Russia countered by annexing the Crimea and secured a mini-state adjacent Georgia.

China converted the economic invasion of US multi-national corporations into learning experiences for building its national economy and export platforms which contributed which led to its becoming an economic competitor and rival to the US.

US global empire building suffered important setbacks in Latin America resulting

from the  the so-called Washington Consensus.  The imposition of neo-liberal policies privatized and plundered their economies, impoverished the working and middle class, and provoked a series of popular uprising and the rise of radical social movements and center-left governments.

The US empire lost spheres of influence in some regions (China, Russia, Latin America, Middle East) though it retained influence among elites in contested regions and even launched new imperial wars in contested terrain.  Most notably the US attacked independent regimes in Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Sudan via armed proxies.

The change from a unipolar to a multi polar world and the gradual emergence of regional rivals led US global strategists to rethink their strategy.  The Trump regime’s aggressive policies set the stage for political division within the regime and among allies.

The Obama – Trump Convergence and Differences on Empire Building

By the second decade of the 21stcentury several new global power alignments emerged:  China had become the main economic competitor for world power and Russia was the major military challenger to US military supremacy at the regional level.  The US replaced the former European colonial empire in Africa.  Washington’s sphere of influence extended especially in North and Sub Sahara Africa:  Kenya, Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia.  Trump gained leverage in the Middle East namely in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Jordan.

Israel retained its peculiar role, converting the US as its sphere of influence.

But the US  faced regional rivals for sphere of influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Algeria.

In South Asia US faced competition for spheres of influence from China, India, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In Latin America sharp and abrupt shifts in spheres of influence were the norm.  US influence declined between 2000 – 2015 and recovered from 2015 to the  present.

Imperial Power Alignments Under President Trump

President Trump faced complex global, regional and local political and economic challenges.

Trump followed and deepened many of the policies launched by the Obama- Hillary Clinton policies with regard to other countries and regions . However Trump also radicalized and/or reversed policies of his predecessors. He combined flattery and aggression at the same time.

At no time did Trump recognize the limits of US global power.  Like the previous three presidents he persisted in the belief that the transitory period of a unipolar global empire could be re-imposed.

Toward Russia, a global competitor, Trump adopted a policy of ‘rollback’.  Trump imposed economic sanctions, with the strategic ‘hope’ that  by impoverishing Russia, degrading its financial and industrial sectors that he could force a regime change which would convert Moscow into a vassal state.

At the beginning of his Presidential campaign Trump flirted with the notion of a business accommodation with Putin. However, Trump’s ultra-belligerent appointments and domestic opposition soon turned him toward a highly militarized strategy, rejecting military – including nuclear – agreements, in favor of military escalation.

Toward China, Trump faced a dynamic and advancing technological competitor. Trump resorted to a ‘trade war’ that went far beyond ‘trade’ to encompass a war against Beijing’s economic structure and social relations.  The Trump regime-imposed sanctions and threatened a total boycott of Chinese exports.

Trump and his economic team demanded China privatize and denationalize its entire state backed industry.  They demanded the power to unilaterally decide when violations of US rules occurred and to be able to re-introduce sanctions without consultations.  Trump demanded all Chinese technological agreements, economic sectors and innovations were subject and open to US business interests.  In other words, Trump demanded the end of Chinese sovereignty and the reversal of the structural base for its global power.  The US was not interested in mere ‘trade’ – it wanted a return to imperial rule over a colonized China.

The Trump regime rejected negotiations and recognition of a shared power relation: it viewed its global rivals as potential clients.

Inevitably the Trump regime’s strategy would never reach any enduring agreements on any substantial issues under negotiations.  China has a successful strategy for global power built on a 6 trillion-dollar world-wide Road and Belt (R and B) development policy, which links 60 countries and several regions. R and B is building seaports, rail and air systems linking industries financed by development banks.

In contrast, the US banks exploits industry, speculates and operates within closed financial circuits.  The US spends trillions on wars, coups, sanctions and other parasitical activities which have nothing to do with economic competitiveness.

The Trump regime’s ‘allies’ in the Middle East namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are parasitic allies who buy protection and provoke costly wars.

Europe complains about China’s increase in industrial exports and overlook imports of consumer goods.  Yet the EU plans to resist Trump’s sanctions which lead to a blind alley of stagnation!


The most recent period of the  peak of US global power, the decade between 1989-99 contained the seeds of its decline and the current resort to trade wars, sanctions and nuclear threats.

The structure of US global power changed over the past seven decades.  The US global empire building began with the US command over the rebuilding of Western European economies and the displacement of England, France, Portugal and Belgium from Asia and Africa.

The Empire spread and penetrated  South America via US multi-national corporations. However, US empire building was not a linear process as witness  its unsuccessful confrontation with national liberation movements in Korea, Indo China, Southern Africa (Angola, Congo, etc.) and the Caribbean (Cuba).  By the early 1960’s the US had displaced its European rivals and successfully incorporated them as subordinate allies.

Washington’s main rivals for spheres of influence was Communist China and the USSR with their allies among client state and overseas revolutionaries.

The US empire builders’ successes led to the transformation of their Communist and nationalist rivals into emergent capitalist competitors.

In a word US dominance led to the construction of capitalist rivals, especially China and Russia.

Subsequently, following US military defeats and prolonged wars, regional powers proliferated in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Regional blocs competed with US clients for power.

The diversification of power centers led to new and costly wars.  Washington lost exclusive control of markets, resources and alliances.  Competition reduced the spheres of US power.

In the face of these constraints on US global power the Trump regime envisioned a strategy to  recover  US dominance – ignoring the limited capacity and structure of US political , economic and class relations.

China absorbed US technology and went on to create new advances without following each previous stage.

Russia’s recovered from its losses and sanctions  and secured alternative trade relations to counter the new challenges to the US global empire.  Trump’s regime launched a ‘permanent trade war’ without stable allies. Moreover, he failed  to undermine China’s global infrastructure network; Europe demanded and secured autonomy to enter into trade deals with China, Iran and Russia.

Trump has pressured many regional powers who have ignored his threats.

The US still remains a global power.  But unlike the past, the US lacks the industrial base to ‘make America strong’.  Industry is subordinated to finance; technological innovations are not linked to skilled labor  to increase productivity.

Trump relies on sanctions and they have failed to undermine regional influentials.  Sanctions may temporarily reduce access to US markets’ but we have observed that new trade partners take their place.

Trump has gained client regimes in Latin America, but the gains are precarious and subject to reversal.

Under the Trump regime, big business and bankers have increased prices in the stock market and even the rate of growth of the  GDP, but he confronts severe domestic political instability, and high levels of turmoil among the branches of government.  In pursuit of loyalty over competence, Trump’s appointments have led to the ascendancy of cabinet officials who seek to wield unilateral power which the US no longer possesses.

Elliot Abrams can massacre a quarter-million Central Americans with impunity, but he has failed to impose US power over Venezuela and Cuba.  Pompeo can threaten North Kore, Iran and China but these countries fortify alliances with US rivals and competitors.  Bolton can advance the interests of Israel but their conversations take place in a telephone booth – it lacks resonance with any major powers.

Trump has won a presidential election, he has secured concessions from some countries but he has alienated regional and diplomatic allies.  Trump claims he is making America strong, but he has undermined lucrative strategic multi-lateral trade agreements.

US ‘Global Power’ does not prosper with bully-tactics.  Projections of power alone, have failed – they require recognition of realistic economic limitations and the losses from regional wars.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Russia and China Are Containing the US to Reshape the World Order

Russia and China Are Containing the US to Reshape the World Order

Russia and China Are Containing the US to Reshape the World Order

Fortunately the world today is very different from that of 2003, Washington’s decrees are less effective in determining the world order. But in spite of this new, more balanced division of power amongst several powers, Washington appears ever more aggressive towards allies and enemies alike, regardless of which US president is in office.

China and Russia are leading this historic transition while being careful to avoid direct war with the United States. To succeed in this endeavor, they use a hybrid strategy involving diplomacy, military support to allies, and economic guarantees to countries under Washington’s attack.

The United States considers the whole planet its playground. Its military and political doctrine is based on the concept of liberal hegemony, as explained by political scientist John Mearsheimer. This imperialistic attitude has, over time, created a coordinated and semi-official front of countries resisting this liberal hegemony. The recent events in Venezuela indicate why cooperation between these counter-hegemonic countries is essential to accelerating the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar reality, where the damage US imperialism is able to bring about is diminished.

Moscow and Beijing lead the world by hindering Washington

Moscow and Beijing, following a complex relationship from the period of the Cold War, have managed to achieve a confluence of interests in their grand objectives over the coming years. The understanding they have come to mainly revolves around stemming the chaos Washington has unleashed on the world.

The guiding principle of the US military-intelligence apparatus is that if a country cannot be controlled (such as Iraq following the 2003 invasion), then it has to be destroyed in order to save it from falling into Sino-Russian camp. This is what the United States has attempted to do with Syria, and what it intends to do with Venezuela.

The Middle East is an area that has drawn global attention for some time, with Washington clearly interested in supporting its Israeli and Saudi allies in the region. Israel pursues a foreign policy aimed at dismantling the Iranian and Syrian states. Saudi Arabia also pursues a similar strategy against Iran and Syria, in addition to fueling a rift within the Arab world stemming from its differences with Qatar.

The foreign-policy decisions of Israel and Saudi Arabia have been supported by Washington for decades, for two very specific reasons: the influence of the Israel lobby in the US, and the need to ensure that Saudi Arabia and the OPEC countries sell oil in US dollars, thereby preserving the role of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

The US dollar remaining the global reserve currency is essential to Washington being able to maintain her role as superpower and is crucial to her hybrid strategy against her geopolitical rivals. Sanctions are a good example of how Washington uses the global financial and economic system, based on the US dollar, as a weapon against her enemies. In the case of the Middle East, Iran is the main target, with sanctions aimed at preventing the Islamic Republic from trading on foreign banking systems. Washington has vetoed Syria’s ability to procure contracts to reconstruct the country, with European companies being threatened that they risk no longer being able to work in the US if they accept to work in Syria.

Beijing and Moscow have a clear diplomatic strategy, jointly rejecting countless motions advanced by the US, the UK and France at the United Nations Security Council condemning Iran and Syria. On the military front, Russia continues her presence in Syria. China’s economic efforts, although not yet fully visible in Syria and Iran, will be the essential part of reviving these countries destroyed by years of war inflicted by Washington and her allies.

China and Russia’s containment strategy in the Middle East aims to defend Syria and Iran diplomatically using international law, something that is continuously ridden roughshod over by the US and her regional allies. Russia’s military action has been crucial to curbing and defeating the inhuman aggression launched against Syria, and has also drawn a red line that Israel cannot cross in its efforts to attack Iran. The defeat of the United States in Syria has created an encouraging precedent for the rest of the world. Washington has been forced to abandon the original plans to getting rid of Assad.

Syria will be remembered in the future as the beginning of the multipolar revolution, whereby the United States was contained in military-conventional terms as a result of the coordinated actions of China and Russia.

China’s economic contribution provides for such urgent needs as the supply of food, government loans, and medicines to countries under Washington’s economic siege. So long as the global financial system remains anchored to the US dollar, Washington remains able to cause a lot of pain to countries refusing to obey her diktats.

The effectiveness of economic sanctions varies from country to country. The Russian Federation used sanctions imposed by the West as an impetus to obtain a complete, or almost autonomous, refinancing of its main foreign debt, as well as to producing at home what had previously been imported from abroad. Russia’s long-term strategy is to open up to China and other Asian countries as the main market for imports and exports, reducing contacts with the Europeans if countries like France and Germany continue in their hostility towards the Russian Federation.

Thanks to Chinese investments, together with planned projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the hegemony of the US dollar is under threat in the medium to long term. The Chinese initiatives in the fields of infrastructure, energy, rail, road and technology connections among dozens of countries, added to the continuing need for oil, will drive ever-increasing consumption of oil in Asia that is currently paid for in US dollars.

Moscow is in a privileged position, enjoying good relations with all the major producers of oil and LNG, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia, and including Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria. Moscow’s good relations with Riyadh are ultimately aimed at the creation of an OPEC+ arrangement that includes Russia.

Particular attention should be given to the situation in Venezuela, one of the most important countries in OPEC. Riyadh sent to Caracas in recent weeks a tanker carrying two million barrels of oil, and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has taken a neutral stance regarding Venezuela, maintaining a predictable balance between Washington and Caracas.

These joint initiatives, led by Moscow and Beijing, are aimed at reducing the use of the US dollar by countries that are involved in the BRI and adhere to the OPEC+ format. This diversification away from the US dollar, to cover financial transactions between countries involving investment, oil and LNG, will see the progressive abandonment of the US dollar as a result of agreements that increasingly do away with the dollar.

For the moment, Riyadh does not seem intent on losing US military protection. But recent events to do with Khashoggi, as well as the failure to list Saudi Aramco on the New York or London stock exchanges, have severely undermined the confidence of the Saudi royal family in her American allies. The meeting between Putin and MBS at the G20 in Bueno Aires seemed to signal a clear message to Washington as well as the future of the US dollar.

Moscow and Beijing’s military, economic and diplomatic efforts see their culmination in the Astana process. Turkey is one of the principle countries behind the aggression against Syria; but Moscow and Tehran have incorporated it into the process of containing the regional chaos spawned by the United States. Thanks to timely agreements in Syria known as “deconfliction zones”, Damascus has advanced, city by city, to clear the country of the terrorists financed by Washington, Riyadh and Ankara.

Qatar, an economic guarantor of Turkey, which in return offers military protection to Doha, is also moving away from the Israeli-Saudi camp as a result of Sino-Russian efforts in the energy, diplomatic and military fields. Doha’s move has also been because of the fratricidal diplomatic-economic war launched by Riyadh against Doha, being yet another example of the contagious effect of the chaos created by Washington, especially on US allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Washington loses military influence in the region thanks to the presence of Moscow, and this leads traditional US allies like Turkey and Qatar to gravitate towards a field composed essentially of the countries opposed to Washington.

Washington’s military and diplomatic defeat in the region will in the long run make it possible to change the economic structure of the Middle East. A multipolar reality will prevail, where regional powers like Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran will feel compelled to interact economically with the whole Eurasian continent as part of the Belt and Road Initiative.

The basic principle for Moscow and Beijing is the use of military, economic and diplomatic means to contain the United States in its unceasing drive to kill, steal and destroy.

From the Middle East to Asia

Beijing has focussed in Asia on the diplomatic field, facilitating talks between North and South Korea, accelerating the internal dialogue on the peninsula, thereby excluding external actors like the United States (who only have the intention of sabotaging the talks). Beijing’s military component has also played an important role, although never used directly as the Russian Federation did in Syria. Washington’s options vis-a-vis the Korean peninsular were strongly limited by the fact that bordering the DPRK were huge nuclear and conventional forces, that is to say, the deterrence offered by Russia and China. The combined military power of the DPRK, Russia and China made any hypothetical invasion and bombing of Pyongyang an impractical option for the United States.

As in the past, the economic lifeline extended to Pyongyang by Moscow and Beijing proved to be decisive in limiting the effects of the embargo and the complete financial war that Washington had declared on North Korea. Beijing and Moscow’s skilled diplomatic work with Seoul produced an effect similar to that of Turkey in the Middle East, with South Korea slowly seeming to drift towards the multipolar world offered by Russia and China, with important economic implications and prospects for unification of the peninsula.

Russia and China – through a combination of playing a clever game of diplomacy, military deterrence, and offering to the Korean peninsula the prospect of economic investment through the BRI – have managed to frustrate Washington’s efforts to unleash chaos on their borders via the Korean peninsula.

The United States seems to be losing its imperialistic mojo most significantly in Asia and the Middle East, not only militarily but also diplomatically and economically.

The situation is different in Europe and Venezuela, two geographical areas where Washington still enjoys greater geopolitical weight than in Asia and the Middle East. In both cases, the effectiveness of the two Sino-Russian resistance – in military, economic and diplomatic terms – is more limited, for different reasons. This situation, in line with the principle of America First and the return to the Monroe doctrine, will be the subject of the next article.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Munich Conference Showed That America Is Losing Ground


February 18, 2019

Munich Conference Showed That America Is Losing Ground

by Ruslan Ostashko

Translated by Scott and captioned by Leo.

The annual Security Conference, traditionally hosted by Germany in Munich, this time was not attended by neither the leader of Russia nor by the head of the United States. The latter was replaced by Vice President Mike Pence, who tried to convince the audience that America is strong. This came out not very convincing.

It has been 12 years since Vladimir Putin delivered his famous “Munich speech.” It was dubbed the starting point for a new “Cold War” between Russia and the West. A year and a half later an “Olympic war” commenced and ended with bringing Georgia to its senses despite it being pumped up by the “most advanced” American weapons. And going on further, everything following was deepening of the conflict.

Now, after 12 years, we can sum up some results. The first and the main result: a “unipolar world” has been destroyed. Flown in from Washington, the Vice President of the United States, of course, puffed up his cheeks. But his demands weren’t concerning Russia, but the European vassals of America, who reacted to Pence’s demands without usual enthusiasm. Here’s what was written on this by my friend and colleague Ivan Danilov.

“By and large, on the Munich stage, the world was shown a completely different America, its new image only seen so far by very few people: it’s an image of a Hegemon affronted by the entire world, which is experiencing mental suffering from the fact that its desires are no longer fulfilled like before. Pence presented Germany in particular and the European Union as a whole a fairly large list of grievances that cause irritation in Washington. Vice President of the US criticized the Nord Stream 2 and virtually accused Germany that support for this project, Berlin contributes to the increasing dependency of the EU on Russia.’We cannot protect the West if our allies depend on the East,’ he said. The European Union was required to immediately abandon attempts to circumvent American sanctions against Iran and possibly join them.”

The fact that Pence did not want to talk about cooperation, and demanded submission, has been noticed even by the American media. The New York Times wrote  that the Vice President of the United States “focused on the list of requirements for American allies.”

How exactly these same allies took Pence’s demands is clearly demonstrated in the title of the German magazine Spiegel: Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz Trumps Bauchrednerpuppe. l

“America is not the leader, it is losing ground,” the newspaper writes in response to Pence’s words that ‘the US has become the leader of the free world.’ If we translate from politically correct into Russian, the German journalists actually declared that the “king of democracy” is naked.

The Russian delegation, that had enough of the slogan “America is the strongest,” was adding fuel to the fire. This is what Deputy foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said:

“The West, with its self-conceit, self-aggrandizement, and its belief in the infallibility of its own approaches to civilization, world development, values, should stop and think for a moment: if you value your world order so much, can you increase the risks of your existence for the sake of the pursuit of ephemeral establishment of a universal, God forbid, New Order for the rest of the world?”

It sounds sarcastic and in its form and in its content. Actually, our delegation headed by Sergey Lavrov, focused on shaking the “Euro-Atlantic unity” in Munich. For example, the Russian Foreign Minister sarcastically pointed to the duality of the behavior of representatives of the EU. They were publicly stigmatizing Moscow, but in private whined about the fact that they needed the normalization of relations with Russia.

“Apparently, while this has not happened, they somehow have to be guided by their mutual responsibility and follow the course, which is fixed in the European Union under the pressure of an aggressive Russophobic minority. But we patiently explain our readiness to resume relations on an equal basis to the extent and with such speed in which it will be convenient to our partners.”

That is, the second result of the “Cold War 2.0” can be formulated as follows: “the US sustainable sovereignty over the EU is no more.” Sergey Lavrov used constructive terms to describe the situation:

“The common European house needs major repairs. The tasks are really large-scale. They can only be effectively addressed together, on a universal basis.”

The participants of the conference who listened to these words burst into thunderous applause. They only applauded more to Angela Merkel, while Mike Pence did not receive any applause at all.

*Clip plays*

I thank you for your attention, and I’m ready to answer your questions.

*Loud applause*

Finally, about the third result of the Cold War 2.0. It’s the fact that the plan to strangle Russia with the notorious “isolation” failed. Moreover, as admitted by the same Lavrov before leaving for Moscow, Russian diplomats would not mind a bit of “isolation.”

“We would even like to see some isolation, because the negotiations went back-to-back for more than two dozen meetings. Our entire delegation worked without a break.”

What is 12 years on the historical scale? Nothing. To destroy in such a short period of time all that the United States has built up over the decades since the creation of NATO and to the peak of its power at the beginning of the XXI century – is something remarkable. It will take another 12 years to compare the “overhaul” of the world order with the situation today. Do you have any predictions about what our country will achieve by February 2031?

State of Denial: Will The American Empire Die Before It Wakes Up?

By Michael Howard


At the start of a 1986 essay for The Nation, in which he had the chutzpah to tell the truth about Israel and American Zionism, Gore Vidal gave his prescription for the moribund American empire, its once-unrivaled economy having been caught up to by Tokyo and Beijing. “For America to survive economically in the coming Sino-Japanese world,” he wrote, “an alliance with the Soviet Union is a necessity. After all, the white race is a minority race with many well deserved enemies, and if the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere don’t band together, we are going to end up as farmers—or, worse, mere entertainment—for the more than one billion grimly efficient Asiatics.”

Needless to say, the empire didn’t take his advice. The Russkis remained an “existential threat” until the fall of the Soviet Union, at which point NATO (aka Washington) set off on its belligerent march eastward. Said march is still going strong: Montenegro was gobbled up in June of last year, while Ukraine, Georgia and Macedonia have been tagged “aspiring members.” Ukraine and Georgia were promised future membership in 2008.

Cursory inspection of a map of Europe demonstrates why sane people are worried about this. As things stand, three countries—Norway, Estonia and Latvia—have the special distinction of sharing a border with Russia and belonging to a military alliance openly hostile to Russia. Ukraine and Georgia, should NATO make good on its promise, would bring that number up to five. The West is not prepared to rest until Russia is completely hemmed in. Recent military conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine (all Moscow’s fault, naturally) can only be understood in that context.

For those without access to a map, or whose brains have been permanently damaged by the US propaganda machine, a quick thought experiment. Suppose a Russian-led military alliance which has been expanding steadily westward for the past twenty-odd years, bombing and dismembering countries along the way, included most of Central America and had plans to incorporate Canada and Mexico. Suppose, moreover, that this hypothetical entity was in the process of surrounding the United States with a system of missile defense interceptors. Last, suppose Russia had a nasty habit of unilaterally invading and attacking sovereign countries, and a military budget eleven times the size of the United States’.

You could be forgiven for (1) feeling disconcerted and (2) concluding that Russia was a outlaw state, led by a gang of reckless thugs, that represented a grave threat not only to the US but to the whole planet. And the US could be forgiven for doing everything in its power to protect itself against Russia’s malignant behavior—would have an obligation to, in fact.

The reverse situation is what we now find ourselves in. It’s another Cold War, only without the parity that characterized the first one: today there’s no equivalence between US and Russian power (reminder: the Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991), nor is there any between their actions and intentions. Washington wants world domination; Moscow wants national security and a multi-polar world order. Russia is not a rival of, let alone a threat to, the United States. China, on the other hand, is. Having already surpassed the US as the world’s largest economy, Beijing is now in a position to challenge the American empire’s claim to global primacy. No amount of jailed Chinese executives is going to change that.

Which means that Vidal’s words are as relevant as ever, more than thirty years after they were written. If the US intends to hold on to its major-power status, a friendlier relationship with Russia is essential. (It’s also essential if we intend to avoid a nuclear exchange, but no one seems to care very much about that.) Demonizing and provoking Russia is a counterproductive waste of time—it will serve only to push Moscow closer to Beijing, as well as other, smaller countries being bullied by Washington.

Consider the case of Iran, on whose economy Washington has once again declared war. Europe may be spineless enough to play along, but what incentive does Moscow have to stop trading with Tehran? None at all. As George Galloway noted after Venezuela (also under economic attack) announced it would no longer use the dollar, it doesn’t make a bit of sense for countries like Iran, China and Russia to trade in dollars when that very currency is being weaponized against them. They have every reason to rebuff the US and, by extension, the petrodollar. By sanctioning everyone in sight, the US is undermining its own interests and contributing to its own decline.

Don’t count on the movers and shakers in Washington to recognize this any time soon. They’re determined to make as many enemies as possible. Caspar Milquetoast’s evil twin, The Honorable John Bolton (THJB), evinced this in a recent speech outlining the Trump regime’s new policy toward Africa. Going forward, THJB warned, the US will work to push back against China and Russia’s “predatory practices” on the continent. Per THJB, “China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in Africa captive to Beijing’s wishes and demands. Its investment ventures are riddled with corruption, and do not meet the same environmental or ethical standards as US development projects.”

Trump’s strategy to counteract this? Blackmail.

“The United States will no longer provide indiscriminate assistance across the entire continent, without focus or prioritization,” THJB said. “And we will no longer support unproductive, unsuccessful, and unaccountable UN peacekeeping missions.” Elaborating, he added: “We want something more to show for Americans’ hard-earned taxpayer dollars”—like illegal Israeli settlements, for example.

In other words, Africa must choose between being exploited by China and being exploited by the United States. This continent ain’t big enough for two geopolitical rapists. So pick, and pick wisely, or you can kiss your peacekeeping missions goodbye. A fine example of Washington’s impeccable “ethical standards.”

As for them Russians, THJB says they export weapons and energy to Africa in exchange for votes at the UN that keep “strongmen in power, undermine peace and security, and run counter to the best interests of the African people.” The Trump regime, needless to say, is opposed to strongmen, in favor of peace and security, and has the African people’s best interests at heart. This trio of principles accounts for our humanitarian intervention in Libya, now a failed state marked by widespread violence, terrorism and human trafficking. It also accounts for AFRICOM, the Pentagon’s shady operation in West Africa. AFRICOM’s express purpose is—you guessed right—to fight terrorism and ensure regional security (they’re doing a bang-up job). Back in 2008, however, Vice-Admiral Robert Moeller let slip a grain of truth: one of AFRICOM’s “guiding principles” is to facilitate “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market.” Shocking!

China, we’re told, uses “bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt” to get what it wants in Africa. The United States uses soldiers. Africa, would you prefer to be strangled or stabbed to death?

The gangsters in DC evidently think that they can have the entire continent of Africa to themselves. That’s the level of delusion on which the United States is operating. The more vulnerable it becomes, the more convinced it is of its invulnerability. As it runs out of steam, it moves the throttle up a notch. It’s an acute case of verleugnung. We’re into Norma Desmond territory at this point.

The empire is on its death bed—it will die, and it will be an ugly death. That is, unless we wake up to the blindingly obvious reality that the world is no longer ours to rule, and that, in order to soften the blow of our impending collapse, we must make nice with old enemies. We can start with the Russians. After all, according to THJB, their hobbies include shoring up dictators, disrupting peace and security, and taking advantage of third world countries. We’ll get along famously.

Seven Days of Failures for the American Empire

By Federico Pieraccini


On November 25, two artillery boats of the Gyurza-M class, the Berdiansk and Nikopol, one tugboat, the Yany Kapu, as well as 24 crew members of the Ukrainian Navy, including two SBU counterintelligence officers, were detained by Russian border forces. In the incident, the Russian Federation employed Sobol-class patrol boats Izumrud and Don, as  well as two Ka-52, two Su-25 and one Su-30 aircraft.

Ukraine’s provocation follows the advice of several American think-tanks like the Atlantic Council, which have been calling for NATO involvement in the Sea of Azov for months. The area is strategically important for Moscow, which views its southern borders, above all the Sea of Azov, as a potential flash point for conflict due to the Kiev’s NATO-backed provocations.

To deter such adventurism, Moscow has deployed to the Kerch Strait and the surrounding coastal area S-400 batteries, modernized S-300s, anti-ship Bal missile systems, as well as numerous electronic-warfare systems, not to mention the Russian assets and personnel arrayed in the military districts abutting Ukraine. Such provocations, egged on by NATO and American policy makers, are meant to provide a pretext for further sanctions against Moscow and further sabotage Russia’s relations with European countries like Germany, France and Italy, as well as, quite naturally, to frustrate any personal interaction between Trump and Putin.

This last objective seems to have been achieved, with the planned meeting between Trump and Putin at the G20 in Buenos Aires being cancelled. As to the the other objectives, they seem to have failed miserably, with Berlin, Paris and Rome showing no intention of imposing additional sanctions against Russia, recognizing the Ukrainian provocation fow what it is. The intention to further isolate Moscow by the neocons, neoliberals and most of the Anglo-Saxon establishment seems to have failed, demonstrated in Buenos Aires with the meeting between the BRICS countries on the sidelines and the bilateral meetings between Putin and Merkel.

On November 30, following almost two-and-a-half months of silence, the Israeli air force bombed Syria with three waves of cruise missiles. The first and second waves were repulsed over southern Syria, and the third, composed of surface-to-surface missiles, were also downed. At the same time, a loud explosion was heard in al-Kiswah, resulting in the blackout of Israeli positions in the area.

The Israeli attack was fully repulsed, with possibly two IDF drones being downed as well. This effectiveness of Syria’s air defenses corresponds with Russia’s integration of Syria’s air defenses with its own systems, manifestly improving the Syrians’ kill ratios even without employing the new S-300 systems delivered to Damascus, let alone Russia’s own S-400s. The Pantsirs and S-200s are enough for the moment, confirming my hypothesis more than two months ago that the modernized S-300 in the hands of the Syrian army is a potentially lethal weapon even for the F-35, forbidding the Israelis from employing their F-35s.

With the failed Israeli attack testifying to effectiveness of Russian air-defense measures recently deployed to the country, even the United States is finding it difficult to operate in the country. As the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War confirms:

“Russia has finished an advanced anti-access/area denial (A2AD) network in Syria that combines its own air defense and electronic warfare systems with modernized equipment. Russia can use these capabilities to mount the long-term strategic challenge of the US and NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East, significantly widen the geographic reach of Russia’s air defense network. Russia stands to gain a long-term strategic advantage over NATO through its new capabilities in Syria. The US and NATO must now account for the risk of a dangerous escalation in the Middle East amidst any confrontation with Russia in Eastern Europe.”

The final blow in a decidedly negative week for Washington’s ambitions came in Buenos Aires during the G20, where Xi Jinping was clearly the most awaited guest, bringing in his wake investments and opportunities for cooperation and mutual benefit, as opposed to Washington’s sanctions and tariffs for its own benefit to the detriment of others. The key event of the summit was the dinner between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump that signalled Washington’s defeat in the trade war with Beijing. Donald Trump fired the first shot of the economic war, only to succumb just 12 months later with GM closing five plants and leaving 14,000 unemployed at home as Trump tweeted about his economic achievements.

Trump was forced to suspend any new tariffs for a period of ninety days, with his Chinese counterpart intent on demonstrating how an economic war between the two greatest commercial powers had always been a pointless propagandistic exercise. Trump’s backtracking highlights Washington’s vulnerability to de-dollarization, the Achilles’ heel of US hegemony.

The American-led world system is experiencing setbacks at every turn. The struggle between the Western elites seems to be reaching a boil, with Frau Merkel ever more isolated and seeing her 14-year political dominance as chancellor petering out. Macron seems to be vying for the honor of being the most unpopular French leader in history, provoking violent protests that have lasted now for weeks, involving every sector of the population. Macron will probably be able to survive this political storm, but his political future looks dire.

The neocons/neoliberals have played one of the last cards available to them using the Ukrainian provocation, with Kiev only useful as the West’s cannon fodder against Russia. In Syria, with the conflict coming to a close and Turkey only able to look on even as it maintains a strong foothold in Idlib, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States are similarly unable to affect the course of the conflict. The latest Israeli aggression proved to be a humiliation for Tel Aviv and may have signalled a clear, possibly definitive warning from Moscow, Tehran and Damascus to all the forces in the region. The message seems to be that there is no longer any possibility of changing the course of the conflict in Syria, and every provocation from here on will be decisively slapped down. Idlib is going to be liberated and America’s illegal presence in the north of Syria will have to be dealt with at the right time.

Ukraine’s provocation has only strengthened Russia’s military footprint in Crimea and reinforced Russia’s sovereign control over the region. Israel’s recent failure in Syria only highlights how the various interventions of the US, the UK, France and Turkey over the years have only obliged the imposition of an almost unparalleled A2AD space that severely limits the range of options available to Damascus’s opponents.

The G20 also served to confirm Washington’s economic diminution commensurate with its military one in the face of an encroaching multipolar environment. The constant attempts to delegitimize the Trump administration by America’s elites, also declared an enemy by the European establishment, creates a picture of confusion in the West that benefits capitals like New Delhi, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran who offer instead stability, cooperation and dialogue.

As stated in previous articles, the confusion reigning amongst the Western elites only accelerates the transition to a multipolar world, progressively eroding the military and economic power of the US.

%d bloggers like this: