Aggressive US Strategy
The US strategy is based on aggression. They incite a struggle between other countries and conduct surveillance or benefit from the conflict, Sabah writes. Such a policy can lead to tragic consequences. The US understands this, but is still ready to do it.
If we try to give a name to the new US strategy regarding Europe, then we can largely call it a strategy of "shifting costs to others."
It is inherently based on aggressive logic. But this is not expansionist aggression, but aggression that benefits from the damage of others. While others are fighting with each other, the US is watching on the sidelines and finds itself in a relative gain. The second term of Obama, the presidency of Trump and Biden – despite certain differences between them, in essence they rely on this logic.
Obama wanted Turkey to clash with Russia in Syria. He tried to encourage Europe to take on a more significant role in world politics and European security. Trump told his NATO allies: "Every man for himself. America's interests come first." Biden says that "America is back," but in fact he wants to bring the EU into the arena of Eurasia against Russia.
If you look at the American tradition, traces of this are found in the isolationist mentality. The main features of this point of view are the US distancing itself from political and military affairs in the world, as well as the expectation that others will get involved in the fight among themselves, while America will remain on the sidelines and continue to grow. This is how the USA lived the entire XIX century. The same thing happened in the period before the Second World War.
Nowadays they try similar forms. For example, during the Obama period, the isolationist mentality mixed with the liberal tradition. In the Trump era, isolationism was again combined, this time with the tradition of superiority, which gave priority to the growth of America. Now Biden is returning to the Obama formula.
If you ask if this strategy works for America, I suggest you pay attention to the previous examples. The United States entered the scene as a giant force at the end of the XIX century. Meanwhile, in the period after the Second World War, they turned into a superpower unprecedented in history, becoming a global hegemon. Therefore, when viewed from the American point of view, you may think that the strategy of leaving the scene and fomenting a struggle between other countries is working.
However, there is an important difference here. The two previous examples somehow contained elements that could balance each other in world politics. And today it is not easy for the EU to balance Russia without American support and incentives. In the Asia-Pacific region, it is almost impossible for entities such as AUKUS and states such as Japan and Australia to balance China. Moreover, many countries, such as India and Pakistan, seem to avoid going on stage until the last. Under these conditions, the idea that balances will be easily disrupted is spreading. <…>
You might think: "Even if the current power vacuum generates the same consequences as the Second World War, in the end, the United States really becomes stronger." You're right. And Americans probably think so. However, for the world, the result is a terrible tragedy. I think the American side also sees the likelihood of such a tragedy very well and agrees to it anyway. And here we see one of the dirtiest sides of power politics.
