Written by – Elijah J. Magnier:
Since the “declaration” of the US-Russia war on Ukrainian territory, the World has been divided into two poles. One favoured the US, and its Western allies dragged along against Russia. The other represents the rest of the World not agreeing or even opposing the US policies and its unilateralism that wages wars and economic sanctions indiscriminately against entire populations. That doesn’t exclude many countries who are not in a position to take sides and would rather stay at an equal distance between the US and Russia, watching how the battle will unfold. Staying neutral means that the relationship with the US is not a matter of choice but most probably a necessity, to avoid retaliatory measures which would be beyond the capacity of neutral states.
Amid this ongoing war that will define the future of the World and its polarities, the role of the United Nations has fallen into limbo or become frozen for an indefinite period since it has no say in the ongoing war between the two superpowers. The outcome means that the international laws and the actual ‘world order’ are sailing on a ship with multiple captains with different unstable and biased interpretations of the law. Each Captain is acting on his whim and enacting laws that suit him and serve his national security and his country’s interests, disregarding the well-being of billions of world inhabitants. So, what is the difference between Russia and the US in the end?
The US fought wars on multiple fronts immediately after World War II and never ceased even during the Cold War, which produced two main winning superpowers that continued battling over their international position: the US and the Soviet Union. The US “war on Communism” began by overthrowing or fighting all pro-Moscow regimes on many continents and rushing to establish a military base to counter it. The Soviet Union deployed forces in weaker countries, exhausted from the Second World War, and took control of nations along the lines of the US expansion. Washington tightened its control over the West and created areas of influence in Latin America, Africa, Australia, Europe and the Middle East (Israel), where many Arab nations had sided with Moscow for decades, especially the Palestinians and the countries of The Levant, Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Following the fall of Perestroika in 1991, it became clear to the US that the Soviet Union would no longer be a competitor for an extended period. The Soviet socialist system collapsed following its limited economic growth, the financial cost of maintaining influence in Eastern Europe, the nuclear arms race, and the consequences of the Afghanistan war and the Chornobyl nuclear disaster, to name but a few. Moscow decided to cease its animosity and competition with the US and abandon several countries under its control in Eastern Europe that the US welcomed with open arms in a different and softer model of dominance. Washington laid down the financial SWIFT money transfer system and its military presence in over 750 bases spread in 80 countriesprepared and succeeded in remaining the sole superpower leading the World. The Russian bear retreated to its den to rebuild its collapsed economy and restore its strength. Indeed, possessing thousands of nuclear bombs alone does not raise any country to the level of the superpower club.
Russia took over two decades to build and restore most of its strength. During that period, world dominance remained unchallenged for Washington. The new Russia that emanated after the Perestroika supported the US decisions in international forums and at the UN Security Council, including providing it with a military base for its war in Afghanistan and helicopters to fight the Taliban. Russia was effectively considered an essential part – and not a member to lose its veto right – of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Washington ignored Moscow’s repeated low but weak screams, demanding that NATO be kept within only 12 countries and that it should be dissolved after Russia abandoned the “Warsaw Pact”. Nevertheless, the US began expanding NATO until it reached a total of thirty countries.
The US began extending its influence around Russia in Asia and Eastern Europe. Moreover, in 2000, it planned to invade seven countries after Afghanistan (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Iran), said former NATO Supreme Allied commander and presidential candidate General Wesley Clark. It succeeded in occupying Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and part of Syria, independently of the success or failure of its wars, which indeed failed to curb the will of these populations and submit them to the US influence.
The US administration – watching Russia recover and turn into a strong country and an
economic partner to Europe – wanted to precede Moscow and dominate the Middle Eastern
countries so that Russia would find no place to enlarge its influence. The populations on
many continents were angry and took a position against the US. Hundreds of thousands of
victims worldwide were caused by every single US war. However, Washington turned deaf
ears through its “America First” policy, ignoring the suffering it caused. That favoured Russia
and China, who emerged as potential challengers to the US’s brutal hegemony and
formidable military apparatus.
The US was worried while watching how China was getting more prosperous, expanding its technology and building its potency while strengthening its ties with Russia- who extended five gas pipelines to the rich European continent that then became energy-dependent on Moscow.
The European continent contributes large sums to the Russian treasury, amounting to one billion dollars a month in energy (since the war in Ukraine), minerals and other Russian products. What was worrisome to the US were the voices from France saying that NATO had suffered a “brain death” and that Europe needed its army to replace NATO and protect Europe, even from the US, as President Emmanuel Macron specifically said.
However, the US sword hit the EU wishful thinking like lightning, sharply cutting its plans to make sure that European nations understood that Washington would reject any attempt to push its influence out of the continent. Moreover, Washington cannot allow the Russian-Chinese-EU relationship to flourish. For this purpose, the US called upon every card up its sleeve, disturbing the Chinese G5 and announcing from the White House the suspension of the Russian Nord-Stream 2 gas flow to Germany.
Ever since President Ronald Reagan’s era, the US has planned to stay and play in Ukraine, Russia’s backyard. Moscow did not tolerate any US expansion and dominance over Kyiv but was not in a position to stop it until it became strong. The US administration was aware of its action and initiated a new strategy, as indicated by President Bill Clinton in an article he wrote and published in The Atlantic. Clinton adopted the policy of “NATO expansion in preparation for the worst by including the “Warsaw Pact” countries for “fear of Russia’s return to communism.”
It was more like: “the World platform is ours, let us expand our dominance where we can.” Clinton planned to expand to include the European Union in its sphere of authority, also in line with the enlargement of NATO, despite the Russian objection, simply because he thought “it’s the right move.” Clinton did not deny that many US politicians, intellectuals, diplomats and media
Subscribe to get access
Read more of this content when you subscribe today.
Proofread by: Maurice Brasher