Un imperio está en problemas cuando su intelectualidad renuncia a los hechos y el análisis se reduce a la repetición de slogans. Algo de todo esto aflora hoy en quien fuera un fino analista estratégico del Imperio: Zbigniew Brzezinski (foto), hoy uno más de la nube gaseosa contando ángeles en cabezas de alfileres. Leemos en el sitio web Katehon.com:
Título: Brzezinski
details the elites' desperate and hopeless imperial strategy against Russia and
China
Texto: Famous American
political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski once again frightened mankind by saying
that "the end of America's global role ... would most probably be global
chaos". To avoid this, the supporter of the American hegemony of the
United States suggested Global Realignment. That's the name of his article in
the Journal The American Interest. So, what is the American Interest according
to Brzezinski?
To briefly
summarize the content of Brzezinski's article, it boils down to two theses:
1) The United
States is no longer a global imperial power.
2) As was already
mentioned above - the probable chaos as a result of the collapse of the US
imperial hegemony. In order for the United States to maintain its power,
Brzezinski offers several recipes:
a) Make the main
geopolitical rivals of America - Russia and China - work towards US interests.
This is supposed to use the crisis in the Middle East as a source of supposed
common threats to all three powers.
"America can
only be effective in dealing with the current Middle Eastern violence if it
forges a coalition that involves, in varying degrees, also Russia and
China".
"The political
prospect for China in the near future is to become America's principal partner
in containing global chaos, of the sort that is spreading outward (including to
the northeast) from the Middle East. If it is not contained, it will
contaminate Russia's southern and eastern territories as well as the western
portions of China".
b) Making the
Islamic world work towards US interests. To do this, Brzezinski once again
recalls his doctrine of "global democratic awakening", which
justifies US involvement in Arab Springs. The gist of it is simple: use the
anti-American forces to strengthen US domination through the various mechanisms
of influence and direct infiltration. Brzezinski states that special attention
should be focused on the non-Western world's newly politically aroused masses,
and this can be understood only in the context of his theory of global
democratic awakening. The emergence of ISIS, and before that the color
revolutions of the Muslim Brotherhood, in the Islamic world can be regarded as
the practical application of this particular strategy. These forces
"surprisingly" create problems for anyone except the United States.
c) To maintain
the US military presence in the Middle East by any means. The text states that
this is crucial for the United States, as withdrawal will immediately trigger
the collapse of American hegemony:
"A
comprehensive US pullout from the Muslim world favored by domestic
isolationists, could give rise to new wars (for example, Israel vs. Iran, Saudi
Arabia vs. Iran, a major Egyptian intervention in Libya) and would generate an
even deeper crisis of confidence in America's globally stabilizing role. In
different but dramatically unpredictable ways, Russia and China could be the
geopolitical beneficiaries of such a development even as global order itself
becomes the more immediate geopolitical casualty. Last but not least, in such
circumstances a divided and fearful Europe would see its current member states
searching for patrons and competing with one another in alternative but
separate arrangements among the more powerful trio".
In other words,
Brzezinski offers the following strategy, where the Middle East is playing a
key role:
1. To foment
chaos and war in the region, relying on the strength of "global democratic
awakening."
2. Declare war on
terrorism and to shift the burden onto Russia and China, drawing them into a
hopeless conflict in the region.
3. Maintain or
even increase its military presence under the pretext of preserving stability
in the Middle East.
Of course, all of
this is masked by the theses of the struggle against terrorism and paying
attention to the suffering of Muslims and the inhabitants of the Third World in
general, and because the main actors in the crisis in the Middle East chessboard
of Eurasia - Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Europe, and Saudi
Arabia - are invited to participate in it. The pretext is that they are all
interested in resolving the conflict, but in fact it will only lead to a
conflict of interest and increase the chaos.
"The overall
threat of Islamic terrorism" is not a "threat" per se. The US
was seriously hit by Islamism only once in its history, on September 11th,
2001. In the US, Muslims consist of around 1% of all citizens, as opposed to
the multi-million Muslim populations of Russia and China. And unlike these two
countries, there is no region in the US where the threat of Islamist separatism
may emerge.
The US is
separated from the conflict region by the Atlantic Ocean. Thus, the US can afford
to play at two tables at once - to covertly support extremists and combat
terrorism, drawing Russia and China into the conflict and subsequently
weakening the Islamic world as well.
America hopes to
use the US-grown Islamic extremists to re-engage Russia into their orbit, as
has been noted - probably post-Putin. It will be the threat of Islamism that
will be used in order to engage Russia in an America-centric system. Brzezinski
openly declared that this pro-Western strategy relies on Russian nationalism,
or on Russia's transition from the Byzantine imperial expansionist ideology to
the concept of Russian national bourgeois European states as part of the
Western world:
"Russia's
own future depends on its ability to become a major and influential nation-state
that is part of a unifying Europe".
It is significant
that Brzezinski, in accordance with the classical geopolitical tradition,
considers the main US enemy to be Russia, not China:
"And that is
why it behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of
the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for
regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least
predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the
more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be
China".
Brzezinski's
analysis is based on a manipulation of facts and outright lies, designed to
hide the rough edges of his vision.
Firstly, he is
absolutely wrong when he assesses Russia's position. From the point of view of
Brzezinski, this country is in the latest convulsive phase of its imperial
devolution. Meanwhile, Russia reunified with Crimea in 2014, and before that in
2008, conducted a successful military campaign in Georgia. In 2015-2016, for
the first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia launched a military
campaign overseas - in Syria. Russia demonstrates not imperial devolution, but
imperial renaissance. Even if Russia tries to become a nation-state, is will
only push it to expand, as millions of Russians live in the territories of
Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic countries, and Kazakhstan. Both imperial and truly
national versions of Russia do not fit into the Brzezinski's vision of Russia -
as one of the states of the European Union.
Secondly,
Brzezinski did not take into account the new rising superpowers: India, Brazil,
and South Africa. Indirectly, this may mean that the United States dropped them
off, hoping to overthrow their independent elite by color revolutions and
coups, like what is currently happening in Brazil. However, their demographic,
economic, and, as in the case of India, ideologically anti-Western potential is
extremely high.
Thirdly, he
overlooks the potential for disintegration within the " European
Union". The migration crisis, the collapse of the Schengen, diametrically
opposite positions between leaders of states on key issues, and the growth of
Euroscepticism, are all problems in the euro zone. This is not a Union that
Russia would like to enter. This is not a Union where Brzezinski's ideas may
promote the globalist agenda: "play a constructive role in taking the lead
in regard to transnational threats to global wellbeing and even human
survival".
Fourthly,
Brzezinski demonstrates thinking within the neorealist paradigm of
"hegemonic stability". The collapse of US hegemony in his opinion
would mean the collapse of the world order as such. But, first of all, the US
does in no way contribute to the preservation of world order, turning the whole
world into a zone of controlled chaos using the theory by another American
analyst - Steven Mann. Why would it be a factor of stability in the future?
Secondly, a number of neo-realists believe that the bipolar world will have a
greater equilibrium than a unipolar one. Thirdly, there is a model of a
multipolar world as a world divided by the imperial "big spaces",
which takes into account the diversity of the world's civilizations. It is also
not chaos, but the most adequate alternative to American unilateralism.
It may be
concluded that Brzezinski's article demonstrates the desperate attempts of the
American elite to maintain its hegemony in the world. At the same time it is
full of propaganda clichés, and in many cases its assessment of the situation
does not correspond to reality.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario