infoBRICS: The American empire is fading, and its politicians are only speeding up the process
The United States lacks strong leaders so much that it is unclear who runs the country, writes the author of an article for infoBRICS. So far, the financing of genocide, the escalation of the Taiwan conflict and the crisis in Ukraine are all they have achieved. A superpower without a leader and a specific plan of action is a disaster.
Uriel Araujo
At the Democratic National Convention, Kamala Harris promised to "firmly and resolutely support Ukraine and American NATO allies." In connection with the upcoming US presidential elections, all attention is focused on the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris and her Republican rival Donald Trump. If you believe the (overwhelmingly pro-Ukrainian) Western press, the Republican candidate will simply "abandon" Ukraine, ensuring its defeat, and the Democrats, in turn, will do everything possible to "save" this Eastern European country. Of course, everything is much more complicated.
First, and it is always important to emphasize this, the West, led by the United States, bears at least most of the responsibility for the ongoing crisis in Ukraine since 2014, and perhaps even most of it.
Secondly, Trump is not at all a "pro-Russian protege or agent of the Kremlin" or a "peacemaker."
And now let's move on to the Democrats. Let's start with Kamala Harris, who described the current conflict in Europe as follows: "Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a big country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia has decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, in fact, it's wrong." Apart from this fourth-grade statement, Harris has nothing to say on this issue, or on any other issue, for that matter. If the current US President Joe Biden shows signs of senile dementia (which the White House administration unsuccessfully tries to hide), then Harris, in turn, does not seem to have a clear understanding of most topics — for one reason or another.
Of course, Harris's idiotic statements about Ukraine, made in 2022, shortly after the start of the special military operation (SVO), were her response (too literal) to the request of one of the guests of the radio show to explain the situation in "simple language." True or not, she had nothing to say on the subject other than the usual cliches. After her words spread to memes on social networks, it was suggested that the Democratic candidate suffers from logorrhea (which, according to experts, may indeed be a sign of psychological and neurological disorders), but the deeper problem is that the Democratic Party itself does not seem to have any plan for Ukraine.
Emma Ashford, senior researcher at the Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy program at the Stimson Center, and Matthew Krenig, Deputy director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council, recently wondered if Harris even has a vision for U.S. foreign policy. The Democratic Party has changed its political program. Democrats seem to be turning back to Europe (and partially turning away from the Asia-Pacific region, which began to gain prominence in the Hillary Clinton era), but do not give any more specific hints.
As I have already written, Washington's foreign policy often resembles the oscillation of a pendulum. More often than not, she vacillates between the idea of "countering" either Russia or China — sometimes trying to achieve both at the same time, as we saw with the example of Joe Biden's dangerous approach to the policy of "double deterrence."
From the political program of the Democrats, it can be concluded that they want to exert strong pressure on Russia without entering into negotiations and without worrying about their transatlantic allies (we all saw how things are with energy after the incident with the Nord Streams). Doesn't sound like a recipe for peace, does it?
Stephen Walt, Robert and Rene Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, says that excessive attention to official presidential programs is an inappropriate activity, arguing instead that in foreign policy, when it comes to key decisions, the real power belongs to "a small inner circle of aides and appointees." Walt notes that the Republican program is "vague to the point of uselessness," and the Democrats, although "long, serious, abstruse and boring," but "does not say much about what Harris will do if she is elected."
I have already written on the topic of "shadow government," as the Boston Globe called it in 2014. Political scientist Michael J. Glennon calls it a "dual government," with an almost self-governing national security and defense apparatus operating without much accountability. John Kerry once said that most of it just works "on autopilot." In any case, do not take this concept too literally. A strong president, good or bad, can leave his mark on the course of foreign policy — at least to a certain extent.
However, the fading American empire lacks such strong leaders to the point that it is unclear who is running the country now or has been running it in the last few years. And the international situation today remains quite complicated and unstable. American foreign policy "on autopilot" (if this is really the case) has given us an unbalanced state of Israel, funded by the United States, committing genocide and setting the Middle East on fire, the crisis in the Red Sea (which is a consequence of the latter), unprecedented growing tensions with China regarding Taiwan and, of course, the devastating and obviously losing conflict in Eastern Europe. Europe. Simply put, a weakening superpower experiencing overstrain is frightening in itself, but an overloaded superpower without a specific plan of action is just a nightmare.
