Answer to a Question - Unease in the International Scene

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Answer to a Question
Unease in the International Scene

The disgruntlement expressed by the conventional major powers and some of the pivotal continental states such as Germany and Russia, coupled with the voices of some weighty political figures that have been growing louder against US policies, such as Jeremy Corbyn who has recently expressed his resentment towards his country's heteronomy to the US and who had succeeded in thwarting the attempt of the Labour party's centrist movement led by Tony Blair to prevent him from winning the leadership of the party, all this has been evoked by the unprecedented American blackmailing of the rest of the world. 

America used to compel the European states to proceed along with her and adopt her stances or execute her volition without burdening them with the full cost of her initiatives; and she used to pillage the riches of the Gulf States without emptying their coffers or relying on their revenues to tackle her problems and shore up her political leadership. 

However, when Donald Trump took office, America adopted the policy of burdening the other states with the liabilities of her initiatives, interests and policies without taking into account the repercussions those states and systems affiliated to her or proceeding in her orbit may suffer. And although international relations may be affected and the progress of some issues may be to a certain extent disconcerted, the international situation America has been unilaterally dominating since the collapse of the Soviet Union remains, however, untroubled. Furthermore, the international situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future due to the absence of the causes leading to its change, especially the regression of the leading superpower and the emergence of a rival ideological power, free from American shackles and capable of effectively partaking in shaping international decision-making. 

Dislodging the leading superpower does not materialise through military might alone. In fact, the military option to reverse the international situation is a non-starter despite the presence of nuclear weapons in the hands of the major powers; it rather becomes plausible through influence in vital areas such as the Middle East and through economic independence at least at a minimum level such as a non-reliance of the rivalling state in terms of interests and economy on America, something which China, for instance, lacks, in addition to the state aspiring to mount a challenge possessing a political doctrine and a set of universal values transcending nationalism and specific spiritual beliefs, something which nationalist Russia lacks. 

Europe for her part is still unable to protect her security and borders, and she has no telling influence in the world's vital areas. She has been unable to singlehandedly tackle an international issue without American volition. And this is her Achilles heel.

As for Russia, she has no influence whatsoever beyond her own backyard; in fact, she has been struggling to keep her head above water in some areas after losing most of it, most notably Ukraine. Her effective presence in the Syrian file has only been possible because America had deliberately loosened her grip on the issue. Hence, the cleavage between Europe and America is unlikely to widen and the tiff is unlikely to exceed the expressions of resentment and discontent since the former has no option but to seek a consensual formula with the Trump administration over the outstanding issues; and Russia for her part cannot impose her volition through military might alone. 

This is the reality of the relationship between America and Europe including Russia. Nevertheless, this resentment is unlikely to continue since the capitalists (the deep state) in America are eager to keep Europe under American leadership and averst the breakup of the European Union. The stances of Donald Trump, the most recent of which his scathing attack on Germany for her failure to meet her financial commitments to NATO, or his decision to withdraw America from the Paris climate change agreement, are all designed to blackmail Europe and the rest of the world into shouldering further financial burdens in executing America's initiatives; this applies in equal measures to the Gulf States and it has recently been dubbed as the Shock Doctrine.

Hence, the Euro-American tension has been deliberately occasioned to alarm Europe into thinking that America might withdraw her protection; at the same time, America has been upping the ante against Russia in Central Asia in order to exert further pressure on Europe, not on Russia. The recent American undertakings, such as increasing her military presence in South Korea and activating the role of Daesh in Afghanistan seems on the surface to be designed to pressure Russia, whereas in fact it is directed at Europe through the propagation of the notion stipulating the presence of an unease in the international situation and the amplification of the Russian scarecrow. 

7 Ramadhan 1438h
2 June 2017