| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| Washington prepares to win an already lost war |
| 2023-03-29 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Petr Akopov [RIA] Washington's most important and terrible secret is that it has no strategy towards Russia and China - not against each of the countries individually, much less against them together. What the United States declares and does - "containment of the revisionists" (that is, Moscow and Beijing, who challenged the Atlantic world order) - simply does not work. Or rather, it works exactly the opposite, strategically worsening American global positions and exposing the weak points of the outgoing hegemon. Therefore, one has to pretend that everything is under control and nothing unexpected is happening on the part of the Russians and Chinese. So did Joe Biden , who said over the weekend that notions of the power of a Russia-China alliance are "greatly exaggerated": "Look, I don't take China lightly. I don't take Russia lightly, but I think we're exaggerating that a lot." In support of his words, Biden asked: what has China already done for Russia? "For the past three months, I've been hearing that China is going to provide Russia with significant weapons. They haven't done it yet, but that doesn't mean they won't." Wonderful manipulation: first, come up with and promote the topic of "probability of upcoming deliveries of Chinese weapons to Russia", and then declare that if they are not there, then this means something (China was afraid of American pressure, China does not want to really support Russia, and so Further). And this is despite the fact that neither Moscow nor Beijing have ever said anything about plans to supply weapons - but who cares if you need to demonstrate self-confidence and the ability, if not to rule the world, then to direct it to the right and profitable for yourself side. Biden assures that if China and Russia do create a coalition, then it will not be as strong as the alliances that the US and the West are creating. And in general: the union of Moscow and Beijing will only help the West unite even more and rally even more countries around itself. Does Biden himself believe what he says? It is not so important. The problem is that the West no longer has the influence in the world that it had for centuries - and with the prospect of a further decline in the role of a united West, according to the vast majority of observers in various parts of the world. Including many Western analysts who are trying to steer the American Titanic off a dangerous course. The most famous of the globalist realists (realists not in the sense that their plans are feasible, but in that they come from reality, unlike the Biden team) is, of course, Henry Kissinger. Over the past year, although he abandoned his own opinion about the impossibility of admitting Ukraine to NATO , he has repeatedly warned against betting on crushing and isolating Russia. In excerpts from his conversation with British historian Neil Ferguson published recently in El Mundo, the former secretary of state praises NATO for how it has rallied around support for Ukraine (“remembering past threats from Russia”), but warns: “The question will now be how to end this conflict. In the end, we have to find a place for Ukraine and a place for Russia if we don't want Russia to become China's outpost in Europe." The conversation with Ferguson clearly took place before Xi Jinping's visit to Moscow, but Kissinger's assessment would not have changed. A person who has built the correct (for the United States) ratio in the Moscow-Washington-Beijing triangle, of course, is unpleasant to see how his heirs are doing business, and he wants to believe that not everything is lost and the situation can be corrected. At the same time, out of inertia, even Kissinger continues to talk about the confrontation between the United States and China, and not between the United States and China and Russia. That is, he discusses a more beneficial option for America - however, he speaks about it without any optimism. Now he already agrees that China and the United States are now opponents - until recently there were hopes that they were more competitors - but at the same time he does not support the absolutely speculative and propagandistic thesis that China wants to take the place of the United States: " I don't think that China is thinking about world domination, but it is quite possible that it will become as powerful as we are. And this is not in our interests." Of course, not in American interests, because then the States will lose their hegemony (however, this is already happening). But for Kissinger, the rise of Chinese power is also dangerous because he views it through the prism of the new Cold War—comparing it to the past, the US-Soviet one. And considering it even more dangerous, because China and the United States "now have comparable economic resources, which was not the case in the first cold war, and the technologies of destruction have become even more terrifying, especially with the advent of artificial intelligence." The mistake of Kissinger's analysis is that he compares the new confrontation with the old one without noticing the fundamental difference. Then it all started with the confrontation of just one country, the USSR , against the entire Western world, which was, in fact, the whole world. Yes, Moscow and the socialist countries were active both in Africa and in Asia , they tried to gain a foothold in Latin America, but in general they were a closed and small (albeit noticeable) part of the world community. Now the situation is fundamentally different: in place of the socialist camp will be just the West. Yes, the weight and influence of the States, Europe , the Anglo-Saxon overseas countries ( Canada , Australia , New Zealand ) and Japan are enormous, but the trend of world development is clearly unfavorable for them. The West will remain the first in terms of total power for a long time to come, but already the first among equals (blocs and regional associations), and not an absolute hegemon. Not to mention the fact that it will be very, very difficult to maintain its unity - even if we are talking about the subordination of Europe to the United States - in the medium term. Worse, even Kissinger, who usually doesn't deal with domestic issues, couldn't help pointing out that the US is now "infinitely more divided" than it was during the Vietnam War: "National interest was a meaningful term, not a subject . " discussions. That's a thing of the past now. Every administration now faces unrelenting hostility from the opposition." But the divided States cannot agree on what is in their national interest, simply because most of the elite do not see the future of the United States as a nation state. The globalist-minded part of the establishment staked on maintaining world dominance at any cost, putting at stake, among other things, the preservation of the unity of their own state. As Nikolai Patrushev recalled on Monday , "Russia saved the United States itself at least twice - during the War of Independence and the Civil War. But I believe that this time it is inappropriate to help the States maintain its integrity." |
| Posted by:badanov |