Empire vs. Empire: Part I

Notes on the conduct of the new American military strategy, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.”

After President Barack Obama, having presented the new military strategy at the Pentagon, emphasized, “the world must know: The United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats,” one might argue that the multipolar world, about which so much has been said in recent years, is dead.

World supported on Soviet “bayonets”

Today has seen the bursting of the idea that instead of a bipolar world, where the U.S.-led capitalist West competed against the Soviet-led Communist East, there had allegedly risen a multipolar world, in which one pole — the U.S. — would compete against several other “poles.” And just where are these “poles” of deterrence to maintain world balance, equilibrium and other such centers of a multipolar world? Who has seen them? They have not appeared, and cannot appear, especially since the U.S. has obstructed this process in every way. And if they did appear in some form, they would be as situational centers of global attention, connected with specific impulses coming from the U.S. and its allies, especially NATO.

Do not confuse parts of the world with poles by substituting concepts.

Modern and contemporary history has convincingly shown that the world can basically be stable only in the presence of two geopolitical centers of influence.

Thus, it became bipolar after the end of World War II, forming a world system of socialism, and the subsequent establishment of the opposing military-political blocs — NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It was just this militarized construct that kept the world from global shock for 36 years.

“Radio Liberty” military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer recently gave a completely objective assessment of the role of the Warsaw Pact. To the question of whether the Warsaw Pact could have opposed NATO forces, he answered: “They certainly could have. There were, in principle, plans for the conduct of attack operations of a preventive nature, for example, the organization of a tank penetration from Central Europe toward the English Channel and the occupation of practically all of Western Europe. For this, they prepared sufficiently serious units, into which they integrated the forces of their allies, who were armed with Soviet weapons. A few of them were ready enough, especially divisions of the DDR or Poland. That was a union controlled by Moscow in all respects. And the armed forces of these countries were well integrated with those of the Soviets.”

After the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, there was no one to oppose U.S. hegemony. As early as the first half of the 1990s, America intensified the process, which was broken off at the time of the Great Depression, but resumed during World War II. Then the U.S. managed to obtain military bases in Iceland, North Africa and the Indian Ocean. More exactly, the U.S. received the right to use the majority of these bases from their allies: Great Britain and General de Gaulle, representing the interests of “Free France.” The end goal of this process was for America to secure its status as the sole world superpower.

Having “earned” $10 billion in gold in the war, the U.S. became a superpower, and not only in those times. When the Warsaw Pact vanished from the maps of the planet, the Clinton administration, rather than disbanding NATO as an unnecessary instrument of the Cold War, successfully converted the alliance into an instrument of unlimited interference in the affairs of other governments. That, at a time when it would seem that all logical basis for the existence of that organization had disappeared. However, as confirmed by the CIA, America spent a total of some $13 trillion on the destruction of the Soviet Union. The dollars had to be returned to the American “treasury.” War has always been the most profitable business for America.

After 1945, the U.S. was the initiator or a participant in the majority of military conflicts in various regions of the world, including the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America and Central Europe. After the end of World War II, the U.S. and NATO carried out bombings of 23 countries. The last four were Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The forces of European countries have participated in many military conflicts of the last 10 years.

Generally, if there is talk of where and when to begin an intervention, “the interests of world socialism” can hardly compare with “universal human rights,” the brand name under which America unleashed all wars from the end of the last century to the beginning of the current century.

Just 100 or even 50 years ago, no one would think of starting a war, the true cause of which might be a price increase in, let’s say, the Libyan dinar, the Egyptian pound, the drachma or any other national currency. Yet now the main means for combating the Euro is a war almost in the center of Europe.

At the end of 1998, it was concluded that the protection of the dollar against the Euro could only be guaranteed by a sufficiently destructive and painful war in Europe, conducted with the active participation of the European countries of NATO. Two variations were studied. The most effective was recognized to be a war against Yugoslavia, allegedly because of ethnic harassment in Kosovo and Vojvodina. After the air war against Serbia, NATO gave itself a mandate to conduct operations in an unrestricted area.

The next step in this direction was made by President George W. Bush. In April 2007, he signed the Orwellian “NATO Freedom Consolidation Act,” allowing the U.S. to offer military support to countries seeking NATO membership, including Georgia and Ukraine. The expansion of NATO toward the East was, in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, “historically mandatory, geopolitically desirable.” If we proceed from today’s U.S. geopolitical concepts, then the global “chess player” clearly was thinking of the Russian Far East.

Has Europe “grown up?”

Some 10 years ago, that same Zbigniew Brzezinski recognized that NATO expansion was not a question of U.S. national security in the conventional sense, but a question of “America’s role in Europe — whether America will remain a European power and whether a larger democratic Europe will remain organically linked to America.” Great Britain was long referred to as the American “tail” that tries to wag the dog. Through constant pressure, the U.S. tried to turn all of Europe into such a “tail.” The difference in comparison with other countries, for example in Asia or in Africa, was only that many European governments adopted liberal models of foreign policy, corresponding with U.S. actions. Therefore they are subject to the formula that “democracies don’t fight with democracies.” This excludes the presence of any kind of geopolitical subjectivity and presumes the conversion of Europe into an American staging area, a big military base.

As of August 2011, there were 112,000 American soldiers in Europe at 499 military installations. The largest contingent — 71,000 — was stationed in Germany. About 11,000-12,000 were in Britain and Italy. In Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Holland and Turkey, there were about another 7,300 soldiers. During the time that NATO opposed the Warsaw Pact, the U.S. had 250,000 troops in Europe. The reduction is significant, but nevertheless, the question remains: Against whom are these units directed today?

In the serious German publication Deutsche Welle, a commentary appeared with the more than telling name, “Pentagon Shows Faith in European Allies” by Christina Bergmann. I confess, it has been a long time since I have had to read such loyal statements from Europe addressing their sovereign on the other side of the ocean. The author is delighted that “despite all the financial cutbacks, the U.S. remains the world’s largest military power. Europe is still Washington’s ‘first partner in the quest for global and economic security.'” And “Europe, in the eyes of the U.S., has grown up and can now not only take care of itself, but others as well. The continent can and must take on greater responsibility.”

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in his introduction to the document, said directly that the U.S. military will now “have a global presence emphasizing the Asian Pacific and the Middle East.” And yet, writes Bergmann, “this promise of support is not entirely altruistic. The U.S. has recognized the transatlantic alliance as a useful instrument, allowing Washington to achieve common military goals without having to bear the entire burden — in terms of personnel and cost — of the mission on its own. The most current example here is Libya. And this arrangement should suit the Europeans too, for NATO would be a paper tiger without the military might of the U.S.; one hand washes the other.” In this way, the U.S. has openly declared that the center of their own financial-economic interests are moving east, including at the expense of their European allies.

Not one of the EU institutions or the largest European powers, not even one of the European politicians has spoken out against this thesis. Indeed, what objection can there be, if Europe’s arms are up to the elbow in Arab blood?! Apparently, in the near future, Europe will have to pull chestnuts out of the fire that America started. Obviously, Europe’s problem of “tail-ism” has ended, but alas, not in its favor.

“Master Class” for Russia

Moreover, while the aggressive foreign policy of the U.S. deserves every kind of condemnation, I cannot help but respect their political flexibility, the national will of the leadership, and I especially emphasize the continuity of their foreign policy authority, no matter who is at the helm — whether the ruling party remains or the opposition comes to power. The current administration, just like all its predecessors, is practically implementing the foreign policy goals identified as far back as President Roosevelt, which on the whole were determined by the Monroe Doctrine – Pax Americana. By the way, Roosevelt’s plans collapsed when they collided with the unshakeable will of the Soviet leadership. The Soviet leaders of those times did not rise to any kind of bait; they did not accept handouts to pay off debts, and they rejected the Marshall Plan and participation in the pro-American International Monetary Fund and World Bank. It was very difficult, but our country conserved its independence, dignity and the respect of the peoples of the world.

According to the new military paradigm, America will be paying special attention to the Asian Pacific region and the Middle East. But if someone thinks that the Middle East is included in the new strategic concept because the U.S. “Arab Spring” failed, then he is deeply mistaken.

Of course, if the assessment of ongoing events is given from the point of view of formal logic, then indeed, it gives the impression that the situation is getting out of the United States’ control and in many regions an independent, yet unpredictable scenario begins to develop. But if one uses the basis of those new models which are being implemented today by American strategists, then it is understood that here scenarios are being realized, which include such geopolitical innovations as cyber-warfare and the theory of directed chaos. Whole analytical groups exist, in particular, under the leadership of American theorist, mathematician and physicist Steven Mann, who develops models of non-linear action on processes. The idea is to project only boundaries and the end goal. Tactics, the process of moving forward toward that goal, can develop in the most unpredictable and chaotic manner. Actually, this gives the Americans great credibility in their explanations that they are not involved in these processes. But at the same time, the set goal is eventually reached and turns out to be in the very interests of the U.S., despite all the intermediate, totally unpredictable events. That is the theory of directed chaos.

This is a contemporary development and it is actually seen as innovative and quite revolutionary. This very development is realizing American interests in the Middle East. Therefore, this external unpredictability is just programmed. The basic goal is to change the structure of the social order which has evolved in Middle Eastern countries, and this is in many traditional forms of social order; in particular, that model which remains in Libya — Bedouin clans and communities. This is largely an ethnic construct, based on a system centered around an ethos that is the original organization of life in traditional societies. All of these forms have a certain immunity against those models of democracy which the U.S. is planting all over the world. Therefore, it is impossible to inject American forms of social organization into such societies. For that, these societies would have to be shifted, the developed traditions destroyed and the bulk of the population fragmented. Plus, that would tend to solve the next geopolitical task: to weaken the main centers of Islam, which are Iraq and Afghanistan, and also Syria and Iran.

The “Arab Spring,” besides deep and large-scale consequences for the countries which are directly involved, also has very serious global consequences, notes Yuri Shevtsov, Director of the Center for European Integration (Minsk). As a result, the involvement of developed countries in military conflicts in this region becomes an essential and long-term factor. The political scientist considers the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, the preparation for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the rising tension with Iran to be largely connected with the revolutions in the Arab world. It must be noted that the cycle of revolutions, which has occurred up to the present day in the Middle East and North Africa (and Nigeria) closely adheres to the model described in the American project “The Greater Middle East Initiative,” adopted at the NATO summit in Istanbul in July 2004. Coincidence or not, this project was first voiced by then-President George Bush, and actually, today we observe the realization of just that project, literally point by point. The basic idea of this strategy is the redrawing of the Middle East in an American format. There are also all the prerequisites to confirm that further events in Syria could well develop according to an Afghan scenario.

By the way, the official goal of Operation Enduring Freedom, which the U.S. Army began in October 2001, is the destruction of the stronghold of global terrorism in Afghanistan and the despotic regime that supported it. At the same time, it can be clearly seen that this operation, as well as a series of other practical steps Washington took in the international arena, had a multipurpose nature. Factually, this was the first large military-political action directed at fundamental changes in the situation in Asia. It becomes all the more apparent that the expansion of the American military-political presence in Central Asia is not so much due to the demands of operations in Afghanistan, as to mark the next stage of realizing the long-term program of strengthening its position in the region.

In the course of this program, the existence of a U.S. military presence and other NATO members was suddenly discovered in three of the five Central Asian countries, and everyone, especially Moscow and Beijing, understood that the world had changed.

It changed all the more when, a year and a half later, the United States began the war in Iraq.

According to the new strategic program, as confirmed by the Pentagon chief, the U.S. will strive to establish “a long-term strategic partnership with India to support its ability to serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region.” In the process, there are plans to strengthen America’s air and naval combat readiness in Asia. Concerning this, I only remark that India heads the list of the world’s largest importers of weapons between 2006 and 2010. In comparison with the previous five-year period, India’s weapons imports rose by 21 percent. The main exporter of weapons was Russia, whose share amounts to 82 percent of all deliveries. The main item of Indian weapons purchase is aviation equipment (71 percent of all deliveries). It gives the impression that India wants to play both sides. No further comment needed.

I have intentionally not touched on the relationship between the U.S. and China. That theme is so broad that it would require a separate conversation. Moreover, it directly impacts Russia’s interests in the Asian Pacific region. My only comment is that the reports of international expert organizations in the past year show that the global center of strength is shifting from the west to the east and south, following the focus of economic development. Defense appropriations and military industries in the countries of Asia and South America are growing at a faster pace. America is now aiming at this critically important region. It has already “loaded” practically the whole Arab world with its bases. Russia has almost no military bases remaining overseas.

And more: China’s expenditures on defense in 2011, only according to official data, could reach $91.5 billion, a 12.7 percent increase from 2010. According to the assessments of foreign experts, their expenditures are about $120 billion. And that causes a big headache in Washington. In previous years, military appropriations in the PRC also rose at a fast pace. The outcome was that China’s appropriations were the world’s second-highest – after the U.S. of course.

Editor’s note: To be continued: “The CSTO as a Shield,” part two in a three-part translation of Valery Panov’s “Empire vs. Empire.”

Read Part II here.

Read Part III here.