|
|
|
|
|
Two Ways World Order: Multipolar vs. US/NATO Hegemony |
|
|
|
|
“It is a sign of true political power when a great people can determine, of its own will, the vocabulary, the terminology and the words, the very way of speaking, even the way of thinking, of other peoples." -- Carl Schmitt, 1932
""The Great Game" is a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the nineteenth century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central and Southern Asia." -- Wikipedia, 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. A Multi-Polar World Order
Andrew Korybko: "The world is presently in the midst of an epochal transition from unipolarity to multipolarity that is expected to characterize the foreseeable decades of the 21st century, if not its entirety. There are multiple dimensions to this paradigm-shifting process, which can leave observers completely overwhelmed when trying to make sense of it all, and most analysts tend to focus just on one or a couple factors while leaving out the rest of the bigger picture.(..) The author published multiple works that are relevant to the present research and from which most of the forthcoming analysis will be based, so they’ll all be enumerated below in order to provide the reader with the in-depth reference materials that will aid in understanding everything else that follows ..."
"We are wrong to think that the armed conflicts occurring across the world are disconnected one from the other. The reality is that nearly all of them fall within a broader relationship between “the West’s American Empire” on the one hand and, the Brics, an organization of states seeking to establish a countervailing “alternative international order”, on the other. This power struggle is played out using two power bases that are closely connected: the military and finance." 'Russia and China united against the dollar’s empire', 2017, M Dinucci
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.US/NATO World Hegemony
"‘It is a sign of true political power when a great people can determine, of its own will, the vocabulary, the terminology and the words, the very way of speaking, even the way of thinking, of other peoples,’ Carl Schmitt wrote in 1932, at the wick’s end of the Weimar Republic. Schmitt, the most formidable legal and strategic mind in Germany, who would join the Nazi Party the following year, was thinking of America. The US was already the unrivalled hegemon of its hemisphere. Schmitt admired its ample living space and its protected position between two oceans. Americans had cleared out the native populations and intervened as they pleased in the Latin south. It would be harder going for the Germans in Europe.
For Schmitt what was extraordinary about the American empire was the way it added to its geographical advantage by continually refiguring the nature of its triumph. US imperialism would go by other names: Manifest Destiny, Greater America, the American Century, the Free World, Internationalism. Colonies and dependencies were rarely declared outright: Americans knew how to conceal an empire, territorial or otherwise." So it must be for ever, review essay, 2016, Thomas Meaney, LRB
"The deep state, like any other, has its own history. In the contemporary American history, the countdown usually begins with the assassination of President Kennedy. Meyssan, on the other hand, starts counting the new history of the "deep state" from September 11, 2001. In his opinion, on this day, in the United States, a coup d’État took place that brought to power a group of people united by a common idea. The roots of this idea in the early 90’s can be found in the "Defense Policy Guidance" by Paul Wolfowitz- the concept of global leadership and the suppression of any possible competition." Read: What Russian TV is saying about Meyssan’s book, Dec 2017
The US military project for the world, 2017, Thierry Meyssan: "While all experts agree that the events in Venezuela are following the same model as those in Syria, some writers have contested the article by Thierry Meyssan which highlights their differences from the interpretation in the anti-imperialist camp. Here, our author responds. This is not a quarrel between specialists, but an important debate about the historic change we are experiencing since 11 September 2001, and which is influencing all our lives."
'The anti-imperialist camp: splintered in thought', 2017, Thierry Meyssan: "The US is not looking to reverse progressive governments (Libya and Syria), nor to steal the region’s oil and gas. Its intent is to decimate States, to send people of these countries back to a pre-historic time where “man did not love his neighbour as God loved him but would pounce like a wolf upon his neighbour. () Has toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and the regime of Gaddafi brought peace back to these states? No! () It is a basic observation that rocks our understanding of contemporary imperialism. This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-Sept. 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq— in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon’s New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented."
' The US Grand Strategy': "Mikhail Leontiev devoted his column on the first Russian television channel to Thomas Barnett’s theory. What appeared to be an intellectual lucubration in 2001 is currently being realized. Everyone must now rethink their vision of the wars of the past sixteen years." September, 2017, by Mikhail Leontyev [first Map below]
The Globalization of NATO, 2012, Mahdi D. Nazemroaya: "The Atlantic Alliance’s ultimate aim is to fix and fasten the American Empire. NATO has clearly played an important role in complementing the US strategy for dominating Eurasia. This includes the encirclement of Russia, China, Iran, and their allies with a military ring subservient to Washington. The global missile shield project, the militari-zation of Japan, the insurgencies in Libya and Syria, the threats against Iran, and the formation of a NATO-like military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region are components of this colossal geopolitical project. NATO’s globalization, however, is bringing together a new series of Eurasian counter-alliances with global linkages that stretch as far as Latin America. (...) Yugoslavia was a turning point for the Atlantic Alliance and its mandate. The organization moved from the guise of a defensive posture into an offen-sive pose under the pretext of humanitarianism." - "Nazemroaya’s book is a must-read." From Foreword Denis J. Halliday, UN Assistant Secretary-General (1994-98)
Post-Brexit EU: Between Regional Breakdown and Full-Blown Dictatorship, 2016, Korybko: "The Eurocratic elites have already announced a plan to create an “EU Army”, which would serve the effect of fully trampling on the remnants of “national sovereignty” still present in the continental bloc, and it can be expected that any resistance that this plan comes up against from the patriotic citizenry will be confronted by pro-Brussels Colour Revolutions in whatever the given state(s) may be."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'China's' Eurasia Silkroad
Western Power Strategy
Thierry Meyssan
From Syria to Burma?, Oct 17 Meyssan: "If this plan is followed through with, all the forces fighting against Syria will be displaced to South-East Asia. Peace would then be able to move into Syria, these combatants no longer blocking its entry."
'British collusion with sectarian violence: Part two': Dan Glazebrook: "What we want is not a united Arabia: but a weak and disunited Arabia split up into little principalities so far as possible under our suzerainty, but incapable of coordinated action against us” - so claimed a memorandum written by the Foreign Department of the British Government of India in 1915. - A more succinct summary of British policy towards the Arab world – both then and now - would be hard to find." [2016]
|
