Washington is looking for a new place in the world, neglecting partners On the pages of the Western media, the discussion of the foreign policy of the White House and its allies aimed at escalating the conflict in Ukraine continues.
Some experts say that the real purpose of aggravating this crisis is not the struggle for democracy and the creation of a just society, but the rigid desire of the United States to maintain a dominant position in the world, the desire to provoke a coup d'etat in Russia and take it outside the countries that determine the emerging world order.
Goals and ways of Washington Veteran of the Iraq War, former member of the US Congress Tulsi Gabbard in the evening broadcast of Fox News on August 12 said that Washington, under Biden's leadership, is trying in every way to inflame the situation in Russia.
"Despite all the lectures and crocodile tears, Democrats have always been indifferent to morality. Both for the people of Ukraine and for the defense of democracy. The goal is to change the regime in Russia and inflate the conflict to strengthen NATO and satisfy the appetites of military–industrial corporations," Gabbard said. She also noted that for Joseph Biden, these actions mean the creation of a new world order, which, according to him, should be headed by America. "And he will build it. Even if it means putting us all on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe," the former legislator stressed.
"No consequences, no number of deaths, destruction and suffering will prevent eternal Washington from fulfilling its agenda," the retired politician noted.
However, some experts believe that America will not be able to maintain its hegemony. They note that over the past three years, the world has been shaken by major events – from the global COVID-19 pandemic to the outbreak of war in Ukraine, and all of them in one way or another have a certain impact on changing the current world order.
"Today, the United States remains the most powerful economy in the world and retains the largest army, but experts believe that the wind of change is coming, as new forces want to displace those who remain at the top," James Lee, a columnist for the Daily Express, wrote in his article.
He believes that the United States may finally lose control of the world order, and pointed out that the reason for America's loss of its status in the world is the invasion of Iraq and the wars in Afghanistan and Syria, and the current situation in relations with Moscow and Beijing only aggravates the situation for Washington.
Lee notes that after the disappearance of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States quickly filled the void, becoming a global hegemon power, destroying the established spheres of influence and gaining a foothold in countries that were previously outside its influence under the motto of spreading democracy.
The power enjoyed by Washington quickly led to the fact that the US dollar retained its position as the main foreign currency in the world and allowed the US to expand its superiority over competitors as the world's largest economy.
The wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan have led to a change in the attitude of a number of countries of the world community towards the United States and an increase in the number of radical terrorist groups in various regions of the earth.
Today, the United States still retains its position as the world's largest economy and has one of the most powerful armies, but, according to experts, certain changes are coming, as some strengthening powers seek to play major roles on the world stage and displace those who are at the top today.
Last month, the head of the FBI, Christopher Ray, and the head of the MI5 Security Service, Ken McCallum, issued a warning that China is the biggest threat to the security of the West.
In addition, due to the rapid growth of China's economy, experts suggest that by 2024 it could become the largest economy in the world.
Beijing's actions in the Asia-Pacific region cause great concern in the corridors of U.S. power. Adding to the problem with Taiwan is China's ever-growing presence in the South China Sea and throughout the Indo-Pacific region. China is developing bilateral relations with island states, which forces Washington to do the same, although, according to Chinese analysts, it is too late.
Experts have no doubt that China is capable of taking the place of the United States in the world, becoming a superpower and leading the planet to a new multipolar world order, unprecedented since the confrontation between the United States and the USSR in the Cold War. And other growing countries can also change the balance of power in many directions.
Russia is also not standing still. When the Soviet Union collapsed, its spheres of influence were significantly reduced. This has led to a rapid increase in intra-State conflicts, unprecedented for many years.
In the following years, there was relatively little interaction between Moscow and Washington – at least compared to the scale observed during the Cold War.
The fall of the Soviet Union led to the weakening of Russia's global influence. But everything changed when Moscow launched its special operation in Ukraine.
Article 5 of the NATO Treaty requires mutual protection of the alliance member states, so it is understandable why Washington wants to avoid a conflict with such a huge nuclear superpower as Russia.
The United States, through hard power in Ukraine, set out to solve its problems with Russia. However, they failed to fully use soft power in the form of diplomacy, which, according to experts, is another sign that Washington no longer has the influence it once enjoyed, and its hegemony is beginning to lose its shape and significance.
The Middle East has long been a point of contact between East and West. The two wars in Iraq, the ever-growing tensions over Iran's nuclear program, the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, the war between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, as well as the continuing security problems in the Persian Gulf as the main oil supply line make this area extremely unstable.
Afghanistan has witnessed the departure of the United States forever, and Iraq has witnessed the skeletal operations of American forces and officials.
Iran is becoming an increasingly unreliable U.S. diplomatic counterpart after Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal known as the JCPOA, and Biden is struggling to fulfill his promise to return to that agreement.
Pakistan has also raised questions about US involvement in its internal affairs, and deposed Prime Minister Imran Khan has directly blamed Washington for his ouster.
Nevertheless, as the United States continues to leave voids in the region, they are rapidly being filled by developing powers, and the Chinese initiative "One Belt, One Road" is a clear example of how economic prospects, albeit with a large bias in favor of Beijing, can open many doors that have slammed shut in front of the United States.
The upcoming visit of President Xi Jinping to Saudi Arabia will cause concern in Washington, as Beijing will undoubtedly monitor the kingdom's oil supplies, while offering assistance in financing major modernization projects planned in Riyadh.
Financially, any deal between Saudi Arabia and China could lead to a shift in trade away from the petrodollar, as Beijing seeks to rely on its national currency, the yuan.
America's Amnesia Senior adviser to the American analytical center in the field of international relations "Atlantic Council" Harlan Ullman in an article published recently by the Washington newspaper Hill, wrote that America suffers from memory loss.
In his opinion, Washington does not learn from the past, and the US political establishment is affected by the "gene of stupidity".
As Ullman writes, "no matter how deadly pandemics may be, a case of "historical amnesia" in America may turn out to be a much more serious ailment." "Judging by the course of our history, this disease may be incurable. It is still very contagious and is transmitted from generation to generation of Americans," the political scientist believes.
As an example, he cites the history of the decision to start the Vietnam War. 58 years ago, with only two votes against in the Senate, Congress passed a resolution on the Gulf of Tonkin. On its basis, President Lyndon Johnson signed a law obliging the Pentagon to begin military operations against the Viet Cong, which lasted for 10 years. It was the first of several conflicts that the United States lost. Few people in America today remember this resolution or the circumstances that led to its adoption. Almost no materials have appeared in the media regarding her.
While patrolling in the international waters of the Gulf of Tonkin, the destroyer Maddox was attacked by several North Vietnamese torpedo boats. As a result of this attack, the ship was not damaged. There were no casualties among the crew members either.
On August 4, 1964, the destroyer Maddox was ordered to return to patrol escorted by the destroyer Turner Joy. Both ships sent urgent messages announcing new attacks by North Vietnamese boats.
Congress reacted with extraordinary speed, reflecting the tense atmosphere of the Cold War and the Caribbean crisis that had passed two years earlier. As President John F. Kennedy declared, it was a battle of "freedom against tyranny." The existential conflict pitted the United States and the West against the "monolithic communism" of the Soviet Union and "Red China". And given the dominance of the so-called domino theory, Lyndon Johnson said that if America stops "these communists on the Mekong," then it will have to "fight them on the Mississippi."
In fact, there were simply no attacks by North Vietnamese boats on the destroyer Madoxx. But this was not the last time when American presidents practiced the principle of "shoot, then get ready, then find the target." This "inverted" principle was followed 39 years later by George Bush, when he directed all American military power to destroy Saddam Hussein's army and to eliminate "weapons of mass destruction", which it did not have.
"What have we learned, or, as in this case, what have we forgotten after almost six decades?" – the author wonders. And he answers it himself: "Instead of "freedom against tyranny," today's paradigm is "democracy against autocracy." "Monolithic communism" is being replaced by "superpower rivalry". And attempts to dismantle "Western values and a rules–based system" are a new domino theory.
Ullman writes that the principle of "democracy versus autocracy" is quite difficult to implement "without a lot of hypocrisy." He recalls that most of America's friends in the Persian Gulf bear the titles "king" or "Crown Prince". Two of the 32 "democratic" members of NATO are very far from the concept of "liberal democracies". The main threat to democracies, the author is convinced, lies not in autocracies, but in the fact that democracies do not work.
In his opinion, the "rivalry of the great powers" is as false a concept as "monolithic communism". By 1960, the split between China and the USSR had reached a significant scale.
The erosion of the "rules-based system" reflects the fact that not all countries, not to mention China and Russia, always agree or want to play by the rules of the West. The sad history of Western colonialism and imperialism is remembered in many parts of the world. At a time when America's prestige continues to decline along with its influence, the author notes, the world needs some kind of a newer system of international relations, other than "rules-based", and suggests defining it as "cautious coexistence".
At the end of his arguments, the political scientist writes: "But in any case, the fundamental question remains: "Is America's historical amnesia curable?" Biden is old enough not to remember the resolution on the Gulf of Tonkin and the Vietnam War. He was an active senator, served as vice president, and now sits in the chair of the head of state. One would think that in this scenario, he certainly understands the stupidity of forgetting history and the importance of the United States not repeating past mistakes."
The political leadership of America, the author notes, regardless of who is in power – Democrats or Republicans – continues to make the same mistakes, consigning history to oblivion. Today, America's economic and military power is great in absolute terms, but in relative terms, both of these important indicators are falling. Washington's calls for a radical strengthening of the US role in the world have not led to real results. And the refusal of politicians to take into account historical realities is only confirmation of the incurable disease of the United States with a rather gloomy diagnosis: "historical amnesia".
Vladimir Ivanov, Reviewer of the Independent Military Review</span>
