GLOBALLY, ARE WE TO BE UNITED BY CHOICE, OR BY FORCE?
We as a species are at a place where a declining but still powerful group of people believe in competition right down the line. This while others believe that only with cooperation can we build the strength required to withstand future threats.
These are rather general statements that belie the nuances within them.
There are plenty of people in the USA that believe in cooperation on the global scale, that it is possible and certainly not out of the question that toleration of other form of governance is possible and agreements can be made. They tend however not to be in power, at least not to any degree.
The prevailing ethos among the upper echelons of political power in the USA is that there are certain forms of governance that are simply beyond the pale and cannot be tolerated at all. This therefore makes it morally unethical to come to any agreement with them and therefore major cooperation with them is out of the question.
This latter view leaves only one option if it is agreed that the world needs a unity of approach if the threats of the future are to be faced and overcome. That option is continual war against those nations with systems of governance the USA finds abhorrent. Once these are undermined with their authorities removed from office and an acceptable form of governance in place then the objective of cooperative unity can be obtained.
This I believe is indeed the strategy of the USA at the present time and has been so since at least the events of 9/11.
This strategy leaves little scope for geopolitical agreement outside of the western coterie of nations and their allies. Those outside this orbit are simply targets for undermining, bribing or attacking depending on status, however, whenever and wherever possible.
The full list of target nations is reasonably long, but the most major target nations consist of only three currently:
Two others are targets to be kept constrained or attacked as and when deemed necessary:
The remainder are of lesser priority but are observed constantly for an necessary action:
Yemen (Saudi Arabia leading the play.)
Other nations being kept under surveillance with agents in place internally:
Multiple nations within Africa.
Multiple nations within Latin America (Other than those named above.)
Multiple nations within Asia and the Far East (Especially the ‘Stan’ nations of Central Asia.)
The goal of the USA and its allies is clear I would say. Its elites have telegraphed their intent time and again using the terms ‘Freedom’ and ‘Democracy’ code words to justify the subversion, destabilization and regime change goals necessary to remove and replace leaders and systems of governance.
Leaving aside whether this goal is moral, ethical or within international law for a moment, is it attainable and crucially, is it attainable in time?
If the overwhelming majority of scientists in this field of study are correct the effects of global warming/climate change are imminent and to some degree unavoidable at this point. Other scientists, I would suspect a decreasing number, believe there is still time to make enough major changes to offset these effects.
I suspect very few if any of the necessary changes will be made before the onset of the predicted catastrophic effects begins.
So, can the USA and its allies achieve total global control and full spectrum dominance in time?
It’s not looking good for them.
China and Russia, their major targets are holding firm and building more than adequate defenses against the attacks now occurring and which they undoubtedly know will continue and escalate.
Other targets the USA have rendered much weaker than they were and this is enough for them.
Afghanistan was never going to be a strong regional power with facilities to give major problems though it can’t have escaped the notice of the planners of the attack upon it that a miscalculation has been made in as much as the truly major power of the region, Iran, has been bolstered by it.
Iraq was of course one of the earliest targets and has been successfully fragmented to a degree that no central authority can present a problem in the short or medium term. Iran has also benefited to a large extent in Iraq also though the fragmentation has had such a powerfully weakening effect that it is not a major consideration at this point.
Syria in particular has been laid very low and is being held in that condition by adding powerful sanctions through the Caesar Act and denying it the oil it needs to rebuild by the means of the U.S. military holding its oil fields.
The policy toward Iran has not been anywhere near as successful of course as its authorities were powerful enough and resistant enough to withstand the undermining effect of internal western destabilization efforts.
The weakening of the nations above was considered necessary as the forerunner to the main events, the undermining and governance replacing of Iran, Russia and China.
Is the sought for world unity of the USA by force the only game in town?
It is not.
There is another, based on choice and cooperation.
This is being led by two of the nations most targeted by the USA.
These are China and Russia of course.
Neither China nor Russia have set the goal of world unity of purpose in such terms however both have indicated strongly that for their part, the more cooperation that exists on the subject of threats common to all, the better.
Both Putin and Jinping have made many major set piece speeches where the vital importance they set upon cooperation of this type was abundantly clear.
If you listen to the speech Vladimir Putin made in Munich in 2007 when he had the opportunity to speak to the assembled political elites of the West you will see he made such cooperation a key element of Russia’s relationship with western nations.
Xi Jinping’s every address of a similar kind emphasizes the same need.
Neither nation appears at all interested in dominating others or forcing them to change their modes of governance whereas this is central to the goal of the USA for supreme dominance in a unipolar world.
Both China and Russia are focused and have been focused for many years now, on building their own economies rather than looking outward to take center stage in any theater of global politics. It has been two main and well-known protagonists who have done this. The USA and its junior partner, the United Kingdom.
These latter two are acting as if the geopolitical stage is overcrowded with more than them parading upon it. Casting threats and accusations around and at times engaging in violent acts they have never once appeared interested in instigating cooperative partnerships.
This is where we stand as a species:
The vast majority of us are quite helpless as a tiny minority decide our fate. (Some of us get the chance once in four years to choose between identically like-minded elites who agree that the existing geopolitical strategy is the correct one. If what we are talking about regarding the threats of the future, not forgetting future pandemics as well as climate change, then this is no choice at all.)
I for one support us (as an entire species) having leaders that advocate for and do all they can to bring about a unity of purpose by choice. It is my firm belief based on all have seen that the concept of unity using force will not only be a disaster costing many lives and endless destructive chaos but is a goal unachievable before the threatened crises hit.
I would urge everyone to do all they can, as little as that may be, to support the two nations advocating for peaceful cooperation based on mutual tolerance of diverse systems of governance, specifically, China and Russia.