Four perfectly differentiated areas can be recognized – the United States, the European Union, Russia and China – which in a way, balance one another and make it so that we live in a multipolar world. This polar multiplicity favors the formation of intermediate powers, like Brazil in Latin America, Germany in Europe, Egypt in Africa, and Japan in Asia. Nevertheless, the United States aspires to worldwide supremacy.
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. has been the predominant power in Western Europe. It is a supremacy that extended throughout the entire European continent after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the interim, Germany has developed as an intermediate economic power, though still under the protection of the United States and depending on, like the rest of Europe – with the exception of the United Kingdom and France, which have nuclear arms – the nuclear protection of the United States.
Settled in the American orbit, Germany has decided to save as much as possible on military expenses, like the majority of European states. However, military dependence, in addition to limitations on sovereignty, imposes elevated costs. The new commercial treaty between the United States and the European Union will once again show that military protection comes at a high price. That was the harsh reality experienced by Japanese farmers with the Samurai.
The United States' worldwide hegemony is not based on technological-industrial capacity or the dollar as an international currency. It is not even based on their control of financial capital, but rather on absolute military supremacy.
What is most surprising, and even paradoxical, is that the United States' military superiority (its military power is equal to that of the four next most-powerful countries combined) has not prevented the U.S. from losing local wars for the domination of Third World nations (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq), countries which have clear military and technological weaknesses. That is a testament to the fact that military power serves to contain and discipline developed countries but not to conquer less-developed nations, which can be destroyed but not controlled.
Whether one is a friend or enemy depends on if they belong to the empire or not. Russia and the U.S. use the same production model, and the two nations have similar political orders. However, because Russia is sufficiently vast, rich in natural resources and has enough military strength to ensure their sovereignty, the nation is not included in the U.S. empire. It must therefore be classified as an enemy. All empires are defined by delineating the border between insiders and outsiders.
The desire for worldwide supremacy brings with it the task of labeling friends and enemies: friends who are obedient and enemies who try to stay independent. In principal, a multipolar world that respects a set of common rules of coexistence would require that no one country try to be the best. This is entirely illusory. What is normal among people, groups and even nations is to compete for power. From there, there is no alternative to the friend-enemy reasoning.
Pueden establecerse cuatro áreas perfectamente diferenciadas, que en cierto modo se equilibran, Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea, Rusia y China, de modo que vivimos en un mundo multipolar. La multiplicidad de polos favorece el que en cada una de estas áreas se consoliden potencias intermedias, como Brasil en América Latina, Alemania en Europa, Egipto en África, Japón en Asia. Pese a ello, Estados Unidos aspira a una hegemonía mundial.
Desde el final de la II Guerra Mundial, ha sido la potencia hegemónica en la Europa occidental, supremacía que se extendió a todo el continente europeo con el desplome de la Unión Soviética. Entretanto Alemania se ha consolidado como una potencia económica intermedia, pero bajo el amparo y protección de EE UU, al depender, como el resto de los países europeos —con la excepción del Reino Unido y de Francia, con armamento atómico— de la protección nuclear de Estados Unidos.
Instalada en la órbita norteamericana, Alemania ha decidido ahorrar al máximo en gasto militar, como hace la mayoría de los Estados europeos. Pero, la dependencia militar, además de limitaciones en la soberanía, impone costos elevados. El nuevo tratado comercial entre Estados Unidos y la Unión Europa pondrá otra vez de manifiesto que la protección militar, al tener que aceptar el precio que se imponga, se paga a un precio elevado. Fue la dura experiencia de los campesinos japoneses con los samuráis.
La hegemonía mundial de Estados Unidos se basa, no tanto en la capacidad tecnológica-industrial, ni en el dólar como divisa mundial, ni siquiera en el control del capital financiero, sino en la absoluta supremacía militar.
Lo más sorprendente, incluso paradójico, es que tamaña superioridad militar (representa el monto de la potencia militar de los cuatro países que le siguen) no haya impedido que EE UU hubiese perdido las guerras locales emprendidas para dominar a pueblos del Tercer Mundo (Vietnam, Afganistán, Irak) con una debilidad militar y tecnológica manifiesta. Prueba de que el poder militar sirve para contener y disciplinar a países desarrollados, pero no para conquistar a los menos desarrollados, a los que cabe destruir, pero no dominarlos.
Ser amigo o enemigo depende de pertenecer o no al imperio. Aunque presente el mismo modelo productivo y parecido orden político, al ser lo bastante extensa, rica en materias primas y fuerte militarmente para ser soberana, Rusia no se incluye por lo que ha de calificarse de enemigo. Todo imperio se define por marcar la frontera entre los de dentro y los de fuera.
El afán de supremacía mundial lleva consigo el ir señalando a amigos y enemigos: amigos los que se someten, enemigos los que pretenden mantener su independencia. En principio, un mundo multipolar que respete unas reglas comunes de convivencia, exigiría que nadie pretendiera ser el primero, algo por lo demás por completo ilusorio. Lo normal entre personas, grupos, Estados, es competir por la supremacía. De ahí que no haya alternativa a la dialéctica amigo-enemigo.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
Contrary to what the American president never tires of implying, however, it is not Ukraine and its NATO partners but Putin alone who bears responsibility for this horrific war.
The U.S. seeks to be friends, trading partners and allies with all other countries. Our treaties with NATO and other countries are consensus military alliances. The U.S. is committed to defend about a quarter of all people on the planet. And being a European, you know that the United States is notoriously unable to compel anybody to take any action except by tradition and persuasion.
The U.S. seeks to be friends, trading partners and allies with all other countries. Our treaties with NATO and other countries are consensus military alliances. The U.S. is committed to defend about a quarter of all people on the planet. And being a European, you know that the United States is notoriously unable to compel anybody to take any action except by tradition and persuasion.