/ world today news/ Russia agrees with US President Joe Biden’s statement on the need for a new world order, but does not agree with the American vision for it. But an “American-style” world order is impossible. Biden simply refuses to acknowledge reality, as French President Emmanuel Macron recently did. Reality has caught up with Macron, it will catch up with the US.
The fact that the US president’s statement about the need for a “new world order” is a rare example of agreement between Moscow and Washington was officially confirmed by the Kremlin.
But there is a nuance: Russia agrees in the sense that a new world order is needed. One in which the number of wars and conflicts can be reduced. One that “will free itself from the concentration of all mechanisms of global governance in the hands of a single state.”
That is, this “brave new world” is fundamentally different from the “Pax Americana”, where the US suppresses the political will of its allies in its own interests. And the “new world order”, according to Joe Biden, is a reprint of “Pax Americana” with a different cover, but with the same content.
Late last week, he said that Americans have the opportunity to unite the world like never before if they show enough “boldness” (read: if they re-elect him as US president).
When Biden, the man who reads stage directions aloud to his aides, says this, it’s hard to take him seriously. But in fact, such a formulation of the question does not depend on the president’s name, his party affiliation, or his state of health. Maintaining the defining influence of the United States in the world is in the national interest of the United States, or at least of American capital.
Therefore, the United States should be expected to fight for these interests, no matter how capable the politician who calls themselves their president. And they have something to fight for and against.
The world has become multipolar. Washington is trying to keep everything possible in its sphere of influence. But it is precisely in this sphere of influence (primarily in Europe) that fatigue with the US and dissatisfaction with it is growing – primarily because the national interests of Europeans and Americans sometimes directly contradict each other, as the conflict in Ukraine shows, for example.
As a result, Pax Americana needs rebranding. The Americans have not yet been able to formulate what the differences will be. Their geopoliticians thought only of the need for rebranding as a response to the challenges faced by the American empire earlier.
A similar case, when the image reform replaces the substantial reform, the world observed recently in the example of another ambitious power – France.
At the end of February 2023, President Emmanuel Macron solemnly proclaimed the dawn of a “new era” in relations with Africa. The “old era” was that regimes that guaranteed French interests were supported by French bayonets. The army of the Fifth Republic intervened in conflicts and coups on the Black Continent dozens of times, since the beginning of the official period of independence of the countries of the former French sphere of influence.
This worked for decades, but France was “not the same anymore”, it “couldn’t keep up”: Paris’s influence began to weaken under the weight of its own accumulated mistakes and the unfulfilled hopes of African peoples. After the coups in Mali, the Central African Republic and Burkina Faso, Macron announced a restart of the Franco-African community “on new principles”, but his desires did not match the possibilities and competences.
As if to mock Macron, coups soon took place in France’s vital Niger and previously reliable Gabon. That is, the “new era” has indeed come, but not at all the one that Macron wanted.
The Americans, of course, are not the French: they have much more reserve and a desire to fight. But they are not infinite either. In a rapidly changing world, Washington himself recently went through the same rags-to-riches road, only on the other side of the world – in Latin America.
The US once defined the lives of its southern neighbors in much the same way that the European Union does now, cutting off foreign competition sharply. This thoroughly imperial principle was formulated in the “Monroe Doctrine”, and Washington officially canceled it only ten years ago – as a document “incompatible with the new times of partnership and cooperation”.
Of course, people tried not to remember this 19th century doctrine out loud for a very long time, but it worked in practice in the 20th century as well: the CIA changed regimes in the region at will. And when Fidel Castro agreed to plant Soviet nuclear missiles in recalcitrant Cuba, which at the time was not against international law, the US was ready to start a third world war just to prevent it: the threat seemed too dangerous because it was too close. too american..
Under President Barack Obama, when the Monroe Doctrine was officially repealed, everything was much more complicated, but the United States could still consider the Latin American region its backyard and simply changed the sign – from the old imperial to the new liberal: instead of the “zone of influence” – “equal partnership”, full-fledged “new era”. In those years, only the troubled Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and his “Bolivarian Union” of anti-Washington but poor countries spoiled the image of Washington’s dominance in America.
To date, the Spanish-speaking south, together with the huge Portuguese-speaking Brazil, has taken several powerful leaps out of the political influence of the US and is trying to escape the economic influence in which China and the BRICS format as a whole are actively helping it. Washington realized its loss of control over the previously loyal continent after the start of Operation Russia Containment, and it has only gotten worse since then.
The same huge Brazil spearheaded the local branch of the global movement to abandon the dollar. Of the countries in the region that are truly significant to itself, the US continues to reliably hold only Panama under control. Even in Colombia, things are complicated, and in Mexico they have already failed.
Exactly ten years (less than a month) after abandoning the Monroe Doctrine, Biden announced the creation of a “new world order.” Something suggests that the result will be the same – a reduction in the sphere of influence of a power that is no longer able to finance a war on two fronts – in Ukraine and in Israel – without unprecedented problems, even despite the voluntary reduction of ambitions (in fact, a shameful escape ) in Afghanistan.
The next biggest loser is likely to be Taiwan, where a pro-unification party with China is expected to win next year’s election. And the intermediate boundaries of the “new American world order” may be disappointingly narrower than the harbinger of the rebranding, President Biden, is counting on.
If he doesn’t believe it, let him ask Macron. He knows.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for our Telegram channel:
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages. In this way, we will overcome the limitations, and people will be able to reach the alternative point of view on the events!?
#Biden #Macrons #infamous #path
