Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Geopolitics, Globalization and The World Order

   
   
       
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,377

    Geopolitics, Globalization and The World Order



    FEDERICO PIERACCINI | 19.12.2016 | OPINION


    Part 1: Geopolitics, Globalization and World Order

    www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/19/geopolitics-globalization-and-world-order.html



    Understanding the objectives and logic that accompany the expansion of nations or empires is always of paramount importance in helping one draw lessons for the future


    In this series of four articles I intend to lay a very detailed but easily understandable foundation for describing the mechanisms that drive great powers. To succeed, one must analyze the geopolitical theories that over more than a century have contributed to shaping the relationship between Washington and other world powers. Secondly, it is important to expound on how Washington’s main geopolitical opponents (China, Russia and Iran) have over the years been arranging a way to put a stop to the intrusive and overbearing actions of Washington. Finally, it is important to take note of the possibly significant changes in American foreign policy doctrine that have been occurring over the last twenty years, especially how the new Trump administration intends to change course by redefining priorities and objectives.

    The first analysis will therefore focus on the international order, globalization, geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and what controlling a country’s sovereignty means.

    Before examining geopolitical theories, it is important to understand the effects of globalization and the changing international order it entails, a direct consequences of US strategy that seeks to control every aspect of the economic, political and cultural decisions made by foreign countries, usually applying military means to achieve this objective.

    Globalization and the International Order

    It is important to first define the international order among nations before and after the collapse of the Berlin wall, especially focusing on the consequences of existing in a globalized world.

    For the first half of the twentieth century the world found itself fighting two world wars, then, during the Cold War, lasting from 1945 to 1989, the balance of power maintained by the US and USSR held the prospect of a third world war at bay. With the dissolution of the USSR, the United States, the only remaining world superpower, thought it could aspire to absolute domination over the globe, as was famously expressed through the Project for A New American Century. Putting aside for a moment perpetual wars, one of the key strategies towards fulfilling this objective was the so-called experiment of globalization, applied especially in trade, economics and finance, all of course driven by American interests.

    Having achieved victory in the Cold War over its socialist rival, the world went from a capitalist system to a turbo-charged capitalist system. US corporations, thanks to this model of world globalized economy, have experienced untold riches, such as Apple and other IT corporations generating amounts of cash flow equivalent to that of small countries.

    Banks and US financial institutions such as Wall Street incrementally increased their already considerable influence over foreign nations thanks to the rise of computer technology, automation and accounting deceptions such as derivatives, just to give one example. The FED implemented policies that took advantage of the role of the dollar in the globalized economy (the dollar is the premier world reserve currency). Over the years this has caused economic crises of all kinds all over the world, defrauding the entire economic system, consisting of schemes such as being able to print money at will, allowing for the financing massive wars, even going so far as lowering interest rates to 0% to keep banks and big corporations from failing – all a repudiation of the most basic rules of capitalism. All this was made possible because the US being the sole world power after 1989, allowing Washington to write the rules of the game in its favor.

    Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Wall Street, Big Oil and military corporations, health-care providers, the insurance and agricultural industries slowly replaced national governments, managing to dictate agendas and priorities. A political form of globalization has led to an expropriation of national sovereignty in Europe, with the creation of the Euro and the Lisbon Treaty signed by all EU nations in 2007.

    Globalization has forced the concept of sovereign states directed by their citizens to be replaced with an international superstructure led by the United States, driving away even more citizens from the decision-making process. The European Union, and in particular the European Commission (not elected, but appointed), is unpopular not only for the decisions it has taken but also for the perception that it is an imposter making important decisions without ever having been elected.

    Basically, with the end of the USSR, the international order went from a relationship between states made up of citizens to a relationship between international superstructures (NATO, UN, IMF, WTO, World Bank, EU) and citizens, with the weight of the balance of power decisively in favor of the globalists with the economic burden resting on the people.

    The international order and globalization are therefore to be interpreted according to the logic of Washington, always looking for new ways to dominate the globe, preserving its role of world superpower.

    It is also for this reason that it is important to understand some geopolitical theories that underlie US strategic decisions in the pursuit of world domination. These theories are some of the most important with which Washington has, over the last 70 years, tried to pursue total domination of the planet.


    MacKinder + Spykman + Mahan = World Domination



    Heartland

    The first geopolitical theory is the so-called
    Heartland theory, drawn up in 1904 by English geographer Sir Halford Mackinder. The basic principle was the following:

    «Heartland or Heartlands (literally: the Heart of the Earth) is a name that was given to the central zone of the Eurasian continent, corresponding roughly to Russia and the neighboring provinces, by Sir Halford Mackinder, the English geographer and author of Democratic Ideals and Reality; the Heartlands of the theory was submitted to the Royal Geographical Society in 1904.

    The Heartland was described by Mackinder as the area bounded to the west by the Volga, the Yangtze River to the east, from the Arctic to the north and south from the western Himalayas. At the time, this area was almost entirely controlled by the Russian Empire.

    For Mackinder, who based his theory on the geopolitical opposition between land and sea, Heartland was the "heart" button of all the earth civilization, because logistically unapproachable by any thalassocracy. Hence the phrase that sums up the whole concept of Mackinder’s geopolitics: ‘Who controls East Europe commands the Heartland: Who controls the Heartland commands the World-Island: Who controls the World-Island commands the world’».

    In terms of countries, the Heartland consists mainly of Russia, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, the Central Asian countries, and parts of Iran, China, Belarus and Ukraine.
    Rimland

    The second geopolitical theory, another important lodestar for US foreign policy, was developed in the 1930s by the American Nicholas J. Spykman, also a student of geography as well as a scholar of MacKinder’s theory. Spykman, thanks to advancing naval technology, added to the definition of the Heartland theory the
    Rimland theory. The Rimland is divided into four main areas: Europe, North Africa, Middle East and Asia.

    «For ‘world island’ it means the Eurasian region, ranging from Western Europe to the Far East. If for Mackinder the Tsarist empire represents the aforesaid area-pin, Spykman instead focuses on the area around Heartland, i.e. Rimland, recognizing it as a strategic point of great importance. The Rimland is characterized by the presence of rich countries, technologically advanced, with great availability of resources and easy access to the seas. Its size at the same time makes sea and land attacked by both sides. On the other hand this means that its dual nature as a possible mediating zone between the two world powers: the United States and Russia. The greatest threat from the geopolitical point of view lies in the union between Heartland and Rimland under one power».

    The Rimland essentially consists of Europe (including eastern Europe), Turkey, the Middle East, the Gulf States, India, Pakistan, Southeast Asia (Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines*, Thailand, Vietnam) and Japan.

    As one can see from observing a map, the United States is not physically close to either the Rimland or the Heartland. They are both on the other side of two 6,000-mile oceans. The US is undeniably protected in this way, almost impervious to attack, with an abundance of resources and powerful allies in Europe. These are all characteristics that have favored the rise of the American superpower throughout the twentieth century.

    But world domination is a different matter and, given the geographical location of the US compared to the Heartland and Rimland, first requires a large capacity to project power. Of course with two oceans in between, it is naval power through which power has been conveyed, especially in the early part of the last century.

    Mahan and Maritime Power

    The third geopolitical theory is based on the importance given to maritime (or naval) power. The author of this theory, propounded towards the end of 1800, was US Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan.

    «Mahan was a ‘precursor’ to international organizations. He assumed that through a union between the United States and Britain, being two maritime powers, they could unite to share the conquest of the seas. The key concept is that ‘the maritime powers are united in opposition to those continental.’ Mahan explains the concept of naval doctrine, which is the policy that states pursue in the maritime and military arenas. In order for a state to have a naval doctrine, it must possess a substantial navy, as well as of course access to the sea, adequate projection capability, adequate means, and have strategic objectives to be protected (such as security zones exposed to risk)».
    As one can easily understand, these three doctrines are central to controlling the whole world. Dominating the Heartland is possible thanks to the control of the Rimland, and in order to conquer the Rimland it is necessary to control shipping routes and dominate the seas, relying upon the Mahan theory of maritime supremacy.

    In this sense, seas and oceans of great geographic importance are those that encircle the Rimland: The East and South China Seas, the Philippine Sea, the Gulf of Thailand, the Celebes Sea, the Java Sea, the Andaman Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and finally the Mediterranean.

    In particular, straits such as Malacca, between Indonesia and Malaysia, or the Suez Canal, are of strategic importance due to their role as a transit route and connection between all the seas adjacent to the so-called Rimland.

    A bit of history. Route to global domination

    It was Hitler's Germany during World War II that tried to put into practice the theory of geopolitics MacKinder was describing, managing to seize the Heartland but ultimately amounting to nothing with the final victory of the Red Army, who rebuffed and destroyed the Nazis.

    After the end of World War II, the United States placed the Soviet Union in its crosshairs, with the intention of conquering the Heartland and thereby dominating the world. Alternatively, Plan B was to prevent other nations from teaming together to dominate the Heartland. This explains the historical conflicts between the US and Iran and between Russia and China, the three most important nations composing the Heartland.

    Russia, since Tsarist times and throughout the Soviet period to today, has always been in the crosshairs of the United States, given its geographical location central to the Heartland.

    Iran also constitutes a valuable piece of the 'Heart of the World', which was gifted to the Anglo-Americans courtesy the Pahlavi monarchy lending itself to the American plan to conquer the heart of the land. It was only after the 1979 revolution, which ousted the Pahlavi monarchy and installed an Islamic Republic, that Tehran became an enemy of Washington.

    The reason why Afghanistan was invaded and Ukraine destabilized, and why the Belarusian leadership is hated almost as much as is the Russian one, is the same, namely, the geographical positions of these countries in composing the Heartland compels the US to conquer them as part of its grand strategy to dominate the world through the control of the Heartland.

    The Republic of China, another constituent part of the Heartland theory, was during the Cold War the great Asian pivot thanks to Kissinger’s policy aimed at curbing the USSR and preventing the birth of a possible alliance between Tehran, Moscow and Beijing that would dominate the Heartland, especially in the late 1980s. The United States, instead of directly attacking China, used it against the Soviet Union. Washington's primary goal, as well as to expand its influence everywhere, was to prevent any kind of alliance that would control the Heartland, specially preventing any alliance or understanding between Moscow and Beijing; but this will be very well explained in my third analysis on how Eurasia reunited to reject the American global empire.

    Control of a nation

    Historically, control of a nation takes place through military power that allows for a variety of impositions. Also, culture is part of the process of conquering a nation. Today, other than militarily, it is mainly economic power that determines the national sovereignty of a nation. In the modern world, especially in the last three decades, if you control the economy of a nation, you control the rulers of that nation. The dollar and neoliberal experiments like globalization are basically the two most powerful and invasive American tools to employ against geopolitical opponents. The application of military force is no longer the sole means of conquering and occupying a country. Obligating the use of a foreign currency for trade or limiting military supplies from a single source, and impeding strategic decisions in the energy sector, are ways the globalist elites are able to dominate a foreign country, taking control over its policies. The European Union and the NATO-member countries are good examples of what artificially independent nations look like, because they are in reality fully dispossessed of strategic choices in the areas mentioned. Washington decides and the vassals obey.

    It is not always possible to employ military power as in the Middle East, or to stage a color revolution as in Ukraine. Big and significant nations like Russia, India, China and Iran are virtually impossible to control militarily, leaving only the financial option available. In this sense, the role of central banks and the de-dollarization process are a core strategic interest for these countries as a way of maintaining their full sovereignty. In going in this direction, they deliver a dramatic blow to US aspirations for a global empire.

    The next article will focus on how the United States has tried to implement these strategies, and how these strategies have changed over the last seventy years, especially over the last two decades
    Last edited by pywong; 2nd January 2017 at 06:07 AM.
    py

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,377
    Part 2: The United States and The Race for Global Hegemony

    FEDERICO PIERACCINI | 23.12.2016 | OPINION


    The previous article focused on the definition of an international order, globalization, geopolitical theories and how this has changed the notion with which a nation exercises control over a foreign country. In this second part I intend to examine the various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States have undertaken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance.

    The Strategy Of Rimland

    Keeping in mind the geopolitical theories discussed in my previous article, we understand that in order to achieve control over the so called-Heartland, Washington has often resorted to the Spykman theory (Rimland). This is because the US has repeatedly found it extremely difficult to directly control the powers that occupy the geographical space described in the Heartland theory of Mackinder, namely Iran, Russia and China.

    The US has repeatedly tried to ensure that nations composing the Inner Circle (Rimland) remained under their control so as to indirectly control the Heartland and encircle it.


    In this sense, Europe was conquered thanks to the Second World War and the American intervention against Nazi Germany. The end of World War II saw Europe become an integral part of the US Atlantic system, an important part of surrounding the Heartland.

    The expansion and conquest of other areas of the Rimland (Inner Crescent) continued during the Cold War in Asia through wars in Korea and Vietnam. But its failure left serious doubts about Washington's ability to sustain its military power projection so far away from home, trying to occupy foreign countries with troops on the ground. There were limits to seeking to rule the world.

    In the Middle East, another area of paramount significance, Washington has always had as its primary goal the prevention of post-revolutionary Iran conquering the area. For this reason the Saudis have always been great American allies. They are the chosen regional power, thanks to oil and the financial system of petrodollars, with the purpose of ensuring a constant pressure on Iran and surrounding nations in the interests of Washington’s against Heartland nations such as Iran. In this sense, Turkey is unsurprisingly a NATO member incorporated into the Western system of power.

    The final strategy has always been the same: to control nations neighboring the Heartland (Rimland countries) through direct military intervention, economic and financial terrorism, or cultural soft power -- all for the purpose of putting pressure on Russia, Iran and China.

    The American unipolar moment began in earnest following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, thereby offering the American elite the crazy idea of seeking to achieve total global hegemony by conquering the nations of the Heartland, especially through economic and military means.

    During the Cold War, the more realistic goal was to prevent other nations from forming an alliance that would manage and occupy the heart of the land. With the end of the Soviet Union, the main occupier of the Heartland and main rival to the United States had collapsed. This led to the idea of world domination by Washington becoming reality.

    From Mahan to MacKinder

    The United States has always placed great importance on Mahan’s theory, considering it a complement to physical invasion by land as well as economic domination of the countries composing the Heartland and Rimland. For nearly a century it has been a fundamental pillar of American doctrine in matters of foreign policy.

    The US Navy has often played a decisive role in US victories from the beginning of the twentieth century up to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the First and Second World Wars included. In the years that followed, its decline has had direct consequences for the implementation of the plan for global domination based on the three geopolitical theories analyzed above, practically setting aside Mahan’s theory in particular in order to focus on domination of land.

    From 1990 to 2005, the importance of aircraft carriers and air support during the many US wars have been fundamental. Nevertheless, the bulk of the work has always been done by ground troops. Fighting took place not between countries or between ships or aircrafts but on the ground with the assistance of ships and aircrafts. It is a fundamental difference.

    Since 1989, the influence of Mahan’s theory has been gradually decreasing in the strategies employed by policy-makers in the Pentagon, favoring instead land invasions, such as with Iraq and Afghanistan, or favoring the so-called soft power approach in the form of revolts, coups or armed insurrections as in Ukraine, Libya and Syria. The relative decline of the US naval fleet has therefore been a predictable consequence.
    Forget about Mahan, here is MacKinder + Globalization

    A powerful instrument for subduing the nations of the Heartland, in addition to boot on the ground and the dollar, has been globalization. To work, world globalism requires the absence of sovereignty for individual nations, regardless of whether they are allies or not, as well as massive economic interdependence, dictated by a financial system based on the dollar and completely arranged in favor of Washington and the Federal Reserve. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States forged ​​a global neo-liberal model, based on the concept of consumerism and a parasitic capitalist economy, in combination with the unbridled use of military power.

    With the collapse of the former Soviet republics, Washington began to move closer to the Heartland, mainly over land, increasingly moving up to the borders of the Russian Federation. The EU widened the membership of these countries in 2004, then incorporated them into NATO.

    To achieve global domination Russia has to be controlled in virtue of the position it occupies in the Heartland. Given the military power of the United States in 1989, lacking any credible rivals, the MacKinder theory began to take shape in terms of a strategic approach from Washington’s perspective. This happened to the detriment of the Spykman theory, which preferred focusing on the Rimland countries and seas and oceans surrounding them using the Mahan theory of sea power to control the commerce and routes of rimland countries, thereby indirectly controlling the Heartland. This change in approach, with less naval power and more boots on the ground, together with economic power, continued to expand until the Obama administration.

    With the ultimate goal of controlling Russia, the economic war by the Western elites in the early 1990s, thanks to Gorbachev and Yeltsin, ought to be revisited. This attitude revealed the intentions of Western elites, and only after a blatant refusal by Putin in 2000 to surrender the sovereignty of Russia to bow down before Washington, relations plummeted. Putin opposes economic and financial globalization, a western ploy to obtain a military surrender by getting the gobalists’ hands on the most valuable piece of the Heartland: Russia. With this concept in mind, it is easy to understand why Putin is so misrepresented by the Western media, all owned by large publishing groups, part of the international financial oligarchies.

    The war in Afghanistan, the opening of NATO bases around Russia’s borders, the use of soft power in Ukraine for regime change through a coup, and destabilization using terrorism in Asia and in the center of the Caucasus, are part of a wider strategy to encircle and contain Russia, with goal of forcing Moscow to cry uncle and be incorporated into the Atlanticist network, by hook or by crook.

    The ultimate goal always leads back to the question of being able to control the heart of the earth and its resources, represented largely by Russia, Iran and China. The ultimate goal is to gain a stranglehold on the rest of the continents, from Europe to Asia, enabling virtual control of the entire globe. The mission is always the same. It never changes. It is world domination. The approach alone changed once the Berlin Wall fell. The United States’ confidence in its own cultural, economic and military resources from 1989 has led it to construct an international system based on the principle of corrupt turbo-capitalism in combination with a strong dose of military bullying. Washington’s neoliberal ideas have often enjoyed strong momentum and huge support thanks to the military. Washington found itself in a position to intervene in almost every global situation using tools like soft power in regime change (Ukraine), the Arab Spring (Tunisia and Egypt), and even resorting to hard power through military aggression in so-called nation-building projects (Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan).

    The aim, as always, is to put the Heartland under pressure coming from every direction, until its economic collapse and the final military conquest.


    Even the US military bases follow this logic, surrounding the Heartland through the nations of the Rimland. Not surprisingly, Iran, China and Russia appear to be completely surrounded in a land-based approach a la MacKinder. Another example is the ABM Systems (Anti-Ballistic Missile) targeting China, Russia and Iran in order obviate their ability to inflict casualties on the United States in the event of war.

    In this sense, another vital nation for US Interests is Japan, which represents a formidable containment towards China. On the island of Okinawa alone, about 400 kms from the Chinese coast, about thirteen US military bases are hosted. Similarly, all the countries overlooking the seas bordering the Rimland are strategically important countries for Washington. No wonder panic has been induced by Duterte’s victory in the Philippines. Special attention continues to be given to the nations of Southeast Asia, like Vietnam and Malaysia. Washington fears having fewer allies in its strategy of subduing the Rimland in order to contain China.

    Looking at a map it is easy to see how the American empire pushes towards the Heartland from all directions, directly or indirectly, together with its allies. Against the Republic of China there is pressure from the south-east, courtesy of Japan and the US naval presence in the China Sea. From the west pressure is exerted against Russia by expanding NATO/EU. From the south-west, pressure is brought to bear on Iran through the Saudis, Qatar, and US bases in the Middle East. To the south, in addition to NATO member Turkey, Washington would like to team up with India to complete the encirclement of Russia, representing a huge missing piece that makes clear the importance of New Delhi in American strategy.

    The last twenty-five years were dominated by policy makers in the US who, firstly, had the idea that direct conquest of the Heartland nations (and some Rimland nations) was possible and, secondly, that it was preferable to pursue a conquest by land of the relevant area and that this was the perfect historical moment to do so. Hitler thought the same way. Not only cultural and economic control was being suggested, but a real military approach to impose a solution acceptable to the elites in Washington. The countless wars since 1989 -- Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Iraq -- have been a strategic choice employing ground forces for the purpose of conquest. At the same time we must not forget the soft power used during the Arab Spring and in Ukraine. These are complementary approaches, updating a hundred years later the theory designed by MacKinder to the technology now at our disposal, while offering the military option to conquer the nations of the Heartland. This doctrine has placed to the side the naval approach, theorized by Mahan, which provided the use of ships to block commercial routes, and using the supremacy of the seas to contain the Rimland, thereby dominating the Heartland and mastering the world.

    The most recent doctrines, from the administrations of Bush to Obama, have used a mix of MacKinder’s theory in combination with the latest tactics that apply human rights, known as soft power. The consequences of this approach have led to unimaginable disaster for the United States, where we see the Middle East sinking deeper into chaos and increasingly pushing countries of the region into a Shia alliance. This has led to increasingly united objectives for nations like Iran, China, India and Russia (a complete failure of the the Cold War objective that aimed to prevent an alliance between China and Russia). More generally, India still remains an ally of Moscow and on good terms with Washington, deciding not to openly side with one or the other.

    The next article will focus on the reactions that Iran, China and Russia have adopted over the years to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty, and how the American drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of America's unipolar moment, giving birth to the multipolar reality in which we live. The fourth and last article will focus on the new Trump administration, and how it will probably change the approach to US foreign policy that has prevailed over the last 30 years – a throwback to the last century.

    Tags: China Russia US
    py

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    13,377




    FEDERICO PIERACCINI | 01.01.2017 | WORLD

    Part 3: How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing The World - For the Better


    The two previous articles have focused on the various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance. This segment will describe how Iran, China and Russia have over the years adopted a variety of economic and military actions to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a multipolar world.

    From the moment the Berlin Wall fell, the United States saw a unique opportunity to pursue the goal of being the sole global hegemon. With the end of the Soviet Union, Washington could undoubtedly aspire to planetary domination paying little heed to the threat of competition and especially of any consequences. America found herself the one and only global superpower, faced with the prospect of extending cultural and economic model around the planet, where necessary by military means.

    Over the past 25 years there have been numerous examples demonstrating how Washington has had little hesitation in bombing nations reluctant to kowtow to Western wishes. In other examples, an economic battering ram, based on predatory capitalism and financial speculation, has literally destroyed sovereign nations, further enriching the US and European financial elite in the process.

    Alliances to Resist

    In the course of the last two decades, the relationship between the three major powers of theHeartland, the heart of the Earth, changed radically.

    Iran, Russia and China have fully understood that union and cooperation are the only means for mutual reinforcement. The need to fight a common problem, represented by a growing American influence in domestic affairs, has forced Tehran, Beijing and Moscow to resolve their differences and embrace a unified strategy in the common interest of defending their sovereignty.

    Events such as the war in Syria, the bombing of Libya, the overthrowing of the democratic order in Ukraine, sanctions against Iran, and the direct pressure applied to Beijing in the South China Sea, have accelerated integration among nations that in the early 1990s had very little in common.

    Economic Integration

    Analyzing US economic power it is clear that supranational organizations like the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund and the World Bank guarantee Washington’s role as the economic leader. The pillars that support the centrality of the United States in the world economy can be attributed to the monetary policy of the Fed and the function of the dollar as a global reserve currency.

    The Fed has unlimited ability to print money to finance further economic power of the private and public sector as well as to pay the bill due for very costly wars. The US dollar plays a central role as the global reserve currency as well as being used as currency for trade. This virtually obliges each central bank to own reserves in US currency, continuing to perpetuate the importance of Washington in the global economic system.

    The introduction of the yuan into the international basket of the IMF, global agreements for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and Beijing’s protests against its treatment by the World Trade Organization (WTO) are all alarm bells for American strategists who see the role of the American currency eroding. In Russia, the central bank decided not to accumulate dollar reserves, favoring instead foreign currency like the Indian rupee and the Chinese yuan. The rating agencies - western financial-oligarchy tools -have diminishing credibility, having become means to manipulate markets to favor specific US interests. Chinese and Russian independent rating agencies are further confirmation of Beijing and Moscow’s strategy to undermine America’s role in western economics.

    De-dollarization is occurring and proceeding rapidly, especially in areas of mutual business interest. In what is becoming increasingly routine, nations are dealing in commodities by negotiating in currencies other than the dollar. The benefit is twofold: a reduction in the role of the dollar in their sovereign affairs, and an increase in synergies between allied nations. Iran and India exchanged oil in rupees, and China and Russia trade in yuan.

    Another advantage enjoyed by the United States, intrinsically linked to the banking private sector, is the political pressure that Americans can apply through financial and banking institutions. The most striking example is seen in the exclusion of Iran from the SWIFT international system of payments, as well as the extension of sanctions, including the freezing of Tehran's assets (about 150 billion US dollars) in foreign bank deposits. While the US is trying to crack down on independent economic initiatives, nations like Iran, Russia and China are increasing their synergies. During the period of sanctions against Iran, the Russian Federation has traded with the Islamic Republic in primary commodities. China has supported Iran with the export of oil purchased in yuan. More generally, Moscow has proposed the creation of an alternative banking system to the SWIFT system.

    Private Banks, central banks, ratings agencies and supranational organizations depend in large part on the role played by the dollar and the Fed. The first goal of Iran, Russia and China is of course to make these international bodies less influential. Economic multipolarity is the first as well as the most incisive way to expand the free choice before each nation to pursue its own interests, thereby retaining its national sovereignty.

    This fictitious and corrupt financial system led to the financial crisis of 2008. Tools to accumulate wealth by the elite, artificially maintaining a zombie system (turbo capitalism) have served to cause havoc in the private and public sectors, such as with the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the crisis in the Asian markets in the late 1990s.

    The need for Russia, China and Iran to find an alternative economic system is also necessary to secure vital aspects of the domestic economy. The stock-market crash in China, the depreciation of the ruble in Russia, and the illegal sanctions imposed on Iran have played a profound role in concentrating the minds of Moscow, Tehran and Beijing. Ignoring the problem borne of the centrality of the dollar would have only increased the influence and role of Washington. Finding points of convergence instead of being divided was an absolute must and not an option.

    A perfect example, explaining the failed American economic approach, can be seen in recent years with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), two commercial agreements that were supposed to seal the economic trade supremacy of the US. The growing economic alternatives proposed by the union of intent between Russia, China and Iran has enabled smaller nations to reject the US proposals to seek better trade deals elsewhere. In this sense, the Free Trade Area of ​​the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) proposed by Beijing is increasingly appreciated in Asia as an alternative to the TPP.

    In the same way, the Eurasian Union (EAEU) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have always been key components for Moscow. The function these institutions play was noticeably accelerated following the coup in Ukraine and the resulting need for Russia to turn east in search of new business partners. Finally, Iran, chosen by Beijing as the crossroad of land and sea transit, is a prime example of integration between powers geographically distant but with great intentions to integrate vital structures of commerce.

    The Chinese model of development, called Silk Road 2.0, poses a serious threat to American global hegemonic processes. The goal for Beijing is to reach full integration between the countries of the Heartland and Rimland, utilizing the concept of sea power and land power. With an investment of 1,000 billion US dollars over ten years, China itself becomes a link between the west, represented by Europe; the east, represented by China itself; the north, with the Eurasian economic space; the south, with India; Southeast Asia; the Persian Gulf and Middle East. The hope is that economic cooperation will lead to the resolution of discrepancies and strategic differences between countries thanks to trade agreements that are beneficiary to all sides.

    The role of Washington continues to be that of destruction rather than construction. Instead of playing the role of a global superpower that is interested in business and trade with other nations, the United States continues to consider any foreign decision in matters of integration, finance, economy and development to lie within its exclusive domain. The primary purpose of the United States is simply to exploit every economic and cultural instrument available to prevent cohesion and coexistence between nations. The military component is usually the trump card, historically used to impose this vision on the rest of the world. In recent years, thanks to de-dollarization and military integration, nations like Iran, Russia and China are less subject to Washington's unilateral decisions.

    Military deterrence

    Accompanying the important economic integration is strong military-strategic cooperation, which is much less publicized. Events such as the Middle East wars, the coup in Ukraine, and the pressure exerted in the South China Sea have forced Tehran, Moscow and Beijing to conclude that the United States represents an existential threat.

    In each of the above scenarios, China, Russia and Iran have had to make decisions by weighing the pros and cons of an opposition to the American model. The Ukraine coup d’état brought NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation, representing an existential threat to the Russia, threatening as it does its nuclear deterrent. In the Middle East, the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria has obliged Tehran to react against the alliance formed between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States. In China, the constant pressure on South China Sea poses a serious problem in case of a trade blockade during a conflict. In all these scenarios, American imperialism has created existential threats. It is for this reason natural that cooperation and technological development, even in the military area, have received a major boost in recent years.

    In the event of an American attack on Russia, China and Iran, it is important to focus on what weapon systems would be used and how the attacked nations could respond.
    Maritime Strategy and Deterrence

    Certainly, US naval force place a serious question mark over the defense capabilities of nations like Russia, China and Iran, which strongly depend on transit via sea routes. Let us take, for example, Russia and the Arctic transit route, of great interest not only for defense purposes but also being a quick passage for transit goods. The Black Sea for these reasons has received special attention from the United States due to its strategic location. In any case, the responses have been proportional to the threat.

    Iran has significantly developed maritime capabilities in the Persian Gulf, often closely marking ships of the US Navy located in the area for the purposes of ​​deterrence. China's strategy has been even more refined, with the use of dozens, if not hundreds, of fishing boats and ships of the Coast Guard to ensure safety and strengthen the naval presence in the South and East China Sea. This is all without forgetting the maritime strategy outlined by the PLA Navy to become a regional naval power over the next few years. Similar strategic decisions have been taken by the navy of the Russian Federation. In addition to having taken over ship production as in Soviet times, it has opted for the development of ships that cost less but nevertheless boast equivalent weapons systems to the Americans carrier groups.

    Iran, China and Russia make efficiency and cost containment a tactic to balance the growing aggressiveness of the Americans and the attendant cost of such a military strategy.

    The fundamental difference between the naval approach of these countries in contrast to that of the US is paramount. Washington needs to use its naval power for offensive purposes, whereas Tehran, Moscow and Beijing need naval power exclusively for defensive purposes.

    In this sense, among the greatest weapons these three recalcitrant countries possess are anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic systems. To put things simply, it is enough to note that Russian weapons systems such as the S-300 and S-400 air-defense systems (the S-500 will be operational in 2017) are now being adopted by China and Iran with variations developed locally. Increasingly we are witnessing an open transfer of technology to continue the work of denying (A2/AD) physical and cyberspace freedom to the United States. Stealth aircraft, carrier strike groups, ICBMs and cruise missiles are experiencing a difficult time in such an environment, finding themselves opposed by the formidable defense systems the Russians, Iranians and Chinese are presenting. The cost of an anti-ship missile fired from the Chinese coast is considerably lower than the tens of billions of dollars needed to build an aircraft carrier. This paradigm of cost and efficiency is what has shaped the military spending of China, Russia and Iran. Going toe to toe with the United States without being forced to close a huge military gap is the only viable way to achieve immediate tangible benefits of deterrence and thereby block American expansionist ambitions.

    A clear example of where the Americans have encountered military opposition at an advanced level has been in Syria. The systems deployed by Iran and Russia to protect the Syrian government presented the Americans with the prospect of facing heavy losses in the event of an attack on Damascus. The same also holds for the anti-Iranian rhetoric of certain American politicians and Israeli leaders. The only reason why Syria and Iran remain sovereign nations is because of the military cost that an invasion or bombing would have brought to their invaders. This is the essence of deterrence. Of course, this argument only takes into partial account the nuclear aspect that this author has extensively discussed in a previous article.
    The Union of the nations of the Heartland and Rimland will make the United States irrelevant

    The future for the most important area of ​​the planet is already sealed. The overall integration of Beijing, Moscow and Tehran provides the necessary antibodies to foreign aggression in military and economic form. De-dollarization, coupled with an infrastructure roadmap such as the Chinese Silk Road 2.0 and the maritime trade route, offer important opportunities for developing nations that occupy the geographical space between Portugal and China. Dozens of nations have all it takes to integrate for mutually beneficial gains without having to worry too much about American threats. The economic alternative offered from Beijing provides a fairly wide safety net for resisting American assaults in the same way that the military umbrella offered by these three military powers, such as with the the SCO for example, serves to guarantee the necessary independence and strategic autonomy. More and more nations are clearly rejecting American interference, favoring instead a dialogue with Beijing, Moscow and Tehran. Duterte in the Philippines is just the latest example of this trend.

    The multipolar future has gradually reduced the role of the United States in the world, primarily in reaction to her aggression seeking to achieve global domination. The constant quest for planetary hegemony has pushed nations who were initially western partners to reassess their role in the international order, passing slowly but progressively into the opposite camp to that of Washington.

    The consequences of this process have sealed the destiny of the United States, not only as a response to her quest for supremacy but also because of her efforts to maintain her role as the sole global superpower. As noted in previous articles, during the Cold War the aim for Washington was to prevent the formation of a union between the nations of the Heartland, who could then exclude the US from the most important area of ​​the globe. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, sights were set on an improbable quest to conquer the Heartland nations with the intent of dominating the whole world. The consequences of this miscalculation have led the United States to being relegated to the role of mere observer, watching the unions and integrations occurring that will revolutionize the Eurasian zone and the planet over the next 50 years. The desperate search to extend Washington's unipolar moment has paradoxically accelerated the rise of a multipolar world.

    In the next and final article, I will throw a light on what is likely to be a change in the American approach to foreign policy. Keeping in mind the first two articles that examined the approach by land theorized by MacKinder as opposed to the Maritime Mahan, we will try and outline how Trump intends to adopt a containment approach to the Rimland, limiting the damage to the US caused by a complete integration between nations such as Russia, China, Iran and India.
    py

Visitors found this page by searching for:

Nobody landed on this page from a search engine, yet!
SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •