From Kiev to Baghdad
If 1947, with the declaration of the Truman Doctrine, was a transition year for U.S. foreign policy, apparently a similar evaluation of historical facts is going to be made by future historians for the year 2014. Within a few months, Obama changed the map of international alliances. For the first time since 1991, Moscow is getting the message that the U.S. can prohibit power politics from being exerted on former Soviet republics, mainly by imposing clever sanctions of “surgical precision” on the financial sector. At the same time, NATO is revitalized, and the U.S. is regaining a significant say in guaranteeing the security of the old continent.
Washington’s nightmare of a Eurasian alliance between the EU and Russia is going away. Instead, the Middle East is the place where a great tectonic earthquake is taking place, with Washington distancing itself from direct involvement and allowing a new correlation of forces to take place in the area.
Apparently, the U.S. has the final say in favor of a compromise solution or a protracted conflict. While Europe’s vital interests in Ukraine and the Middle East are at stake, it is currently restricting itself to reflecting on how to deal with the collateral cost of the aforementioned options. The Obama doctrine, which is being shaped at present, achieved its aims in Ukraine and remains to be tested in the Middle East. It mostly constitutes a return to established geopolitical principles rather than an innovation.
The U.K., a dominant naval power from the early 19th century to the 20th century, avoided involvement in conflicts in continental Europe and intervened, acting as a catalyst, only when self-regulation would not provide stability. However, there is another parameter for the developments in Ukraine and Iraq, and that is the fact that Washington, which has a small degree of involvement, is allowed to focus on China — the main front challenging its hegemony — and on its expansive policy in the broader Asia Pacific.
The secret in the American “recipe” is obvious. The conflict between Russian and Ukrainian nationalism has a century-long history, whereas the Sunni-Shiite conflict has lasted for many centuries, meaning the tension will be self-sustained for a prolonged period of time after the conflagration.
Washington’s nightmare of a Eurasian alliance between the EU and Russia is going away. Instead, the Middle East is the place where a great tectonic earthquake is taking place, with Washington distancing itself from direct involvement and allowing a new correlation of forces to take place in the area.
Apparently, the U.S. has the final say in favor of a compromise solution or a protracted conflict. While Europe’s vital interests in Ukraine and the Middle East are at stake, it is currently restricting itself to reflecting on how to deal with the collateral cost of the aforementioned options. The Obama doctrine, which is being shaped at present, achieved its aims in Ukraine and remains to be tested in the Middle East. It mostly constitutes a return to established geopolitical principles rather than an innovation.
The U.K., a dominant naval power from the early 19th century to the 20th century, avoided involvement in conflicts in continental Europe and intervened, acting as a catalyst, only when self-regulation would not provide stability. However, there is another parameter for the developments in Ukraine and Iraq, and that is the fact that Washington, which has a small degree of involvement, is allowed to focus on China — the main front challenging its hegemony — and on its expansive policy in the broader Asia Pacific.
The secret in the American “recipe” is obvious. The conflict between Russian and Ukrainian nationalism has a century-long history, whereas the Sunni-Shiite conflict has lasted for many centuries, meaning the tension will be self-sustained for a prolonged period of time after the conflagration.