Home › Forums › Political Corner › Trump: Halting Eurasian Integration And Saving 'US World Order'
This topic contains 18 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by 
FrankOne 3 years ago.
- AuthorPosts
Trump’s Delusion: Halting Eurasian Integration And Saving ‘US World Order’
This is an extract from a post by Federico Pieraccini via Strategic-Culture.org. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/15/trumps-delusion-halting-eurasian-integration-saving-us-world-order.htmlIn this analysis I will focus on a possible strategic shift in the approach to foreign policy from Washington. The most likely hypothesis suggests that Trump intends to attempt to prevent the ongoing integration between Russia, China and Iran.
The failed foreign-policy strategy of the neoconservatives and neoliberals has served to dramatically reduce Washington’s role and influence in the world. Important alliances are being forged without seeking the assent of the United States, and the world model envisioned in the early 1990s – from Bush to Kagan and all the signatories of the PNAC founding statement of principles – is increasingly coming undone.
Donald Trump’s victory represents, in all likelihood, the last decisive blow to a series of foreign-policy strategies that in the end undermined the much-prized leadership of the United States. The ceasefire in Syria, reached thanks to an agreement between Turkey and Russia, notably excluded the United States.
The military, media, financial and cultural assault by Washington finally seems to have met its Waterloo at the hands of the axis represented by Iran, Russia and China. The recent media successes (RT, Press TV and many alternative media), political resistance (Assad is still president of Syria), diplomatic struggles (negotiations in Syria without Washington as an intermediary) and military planning (Liberation of Aleppo from terrorists) are a result of the efforts of Iran, Russia and China. Their success in all these fields of operations are having direct consequences and implications for the internal affairs of countries like the United Kingdom and the United States.
In Syria, Washington and its puppet allies have almost exited the scene without achieving their strategic goal of removing Assad from power. Within the American political system, the establishment, spanning from Clinton to Obama, was swept away for their economic and political failures. The mainstream media, spewing an endless stream of propaganda aimed at sustaining the political elite, completely lost their battle to appear credible, reaching unprecedented peaks of partisanship and immorality.
Donald Trump has emerged with a new approach to foreign policy affairs, shaped by various political thinkers of the realist mould, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer. Trump does not believe in the central role of the UN in international affairs, reaffirming this repeatedly during his campaign and there will be no more UN resolutions deviously employed as cover to bomb nations back into the stone age (Libya).
The Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in the internal affairs of foreign governments, Arab Springs, and color revolutions. Such efforts, they argue, are ultimately ineffective anyway and are too costly in terms of political credibility. In Ukraine the Americans have allied themselves with supporters of the Nazi Stepan Bandera, and in the Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra Front.
These tactics, infamously branded as ‘leading from behind’, never achieved their desired results. The Middle East is in chaos, with a Moscow-Tehran axis emerging and going from strength to strength. In Ukraine, the government in Kiev not only seems incapable of complying with the Minsk agreements but also of prosecuting a new military campaign with no guarantees from their European and American partners.
The strategy will focus on the inherited chaotic situation in the Middle East and Ukraine. Obama will be blamed for the previous chaos , it will be argued that sanctions against the Russian Federation should be removed, and Moscow will be given a free hand in the Middle East.In one fell swoop, the future president may decide not to intervene directly in the Middle East or in Ukraine, avoiding any further involvement and instead finally making a decision in the national interest of his country.
Over two years the EU has suffered from economic suicide in the name of a failed policy strategy imposed by Washington. The Trump presidency will seek to normalize relations between Moscow and Washington as well as with European allies more willing to actively collaborate with the Trump administration.
The implicit message is to seek dialogue and cooperation with all nations. Probably what lies behind these overtures is actually an explicit willingness to try to break the cooperation between Russia, Iran and China. The motivations for this action stem from the implications for the United States if a full military, cultural and economic alliance between Beijing, Moscow and Tehran is formed. It would almost ultimately consign the United States to irrelevance on the grand chessboard of international relations.
More realistically, Trump aims to shift the focus of the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where the largest US commercial interests will reside in the future; a shift of focus from the Middle East to the South and East China Seas.
Trump intends to accelerate Obama’s Asian pivot to China, bringing about profound changes to US foreign policy. Smoking the peace pipe with Russia will free up resources (to “build up our military” in naval terms) to be focused in the Pacific. He intends to emphasize the importance of bilateral relations between allies (“free riders” Japan and South Korea) to focus on containing China.
Trump hopes for a reprise of Kissinger’s strategy with China in 1979, with the addition of a promise of non-interference in the Middle East against Iran and Syria by the United States. In an exchange unlikely to happen – the American administration is hoping to convince the Kremlin that no action will be taken in the Middle East against Moscow and its allies, including Iran, in exchange for help in containing the Republic of China.
The real problem for the future administration in this strategy is offering a consistent plan of non-interference in the Middle East. Putin is well aware, in any case, that Washington is not able to intervene and change the fate of the balance of power that is forming in the Middle East. Trump’s indirect offer not to take action in the Middle East is at best a bluff that will not last long. Trump ignores (or, being a good negotiator, pretends not to want to see) that very few cards in his deck can be attractive to Moscow. The alliance between Moscow, Beijing and Tehran is firm and certified by strategic exchanges in many fields, a trend promising tremendous growth. The war in Syria has shown the results of effective coordination between the three nations.
During the period of sanctions, Russia and China signed the most important and immense trade agreement in history, sealing Moscow’s turn toward the east. Such a move involves a level of strategic planning that goes well beyond the four years of a presidential term. If Trump hopes to achieve cooperation of some kind with Putin to further his grand strategy, he is deluding himself. However, he must out of necessity cooperate against terrorism in the Middle East with Russia and moderate Washington’s allies in the region.
Trump knows he is in an inferior negotiating position vis-a-vis Moscow and Beijing. He is well aware that effecting a rupture of relations between China, Russia and Iran is almost impossible. The only advantage, from his point of view, is having more room to negotiate with Moscow, given the abysmal levels of relations between Putin and Obama.
Putin will have very few problems in playing Trump to his advantage. Moscow has everything to gain from this situation. Trump hopes to have on his side the Russian Federation, then proceed to convince countries like Japan, the Philippines and South Korea that containing China is the only viable strategy for limiting China’s influence and future domination over Asia.
These actions will provoke the opposite effects to those intended, thereby promoting further integration of Eurasia (AIIB and Silk Road 2.0), as shown by Obama’s Asian pivot.Any attempt to impose a new Asian pivot will end up in flames, as has been the case with the commercial Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
In the meantime, with the removal of sanctions, many EU countries will finally be able to resume their energy and technology integration with the Eurasian continent, especially with Russia. Japan will in all likelihood be able to sign a peace treaty with Russia without violating its obligations to Washington.
Realistically, it is hard to think that the new administration would alter the strategic partnership formed between China, Iran and Russia. After all, Trump would retrace the same steps of his predecessors, simply by changing the angle of approach and trying to further shuffle the cards of international relations. The decision to improve the world through cooperation and mutual respect does not exactly match the aspirations of the American deep state that seeks war, chaos and conflicts.
The big difference we will see with a candidate like Trump is easy. Once all diplomatic efforts have failed against Beijing, instead of doubling down with military or terrorist efforts, the strategy will be abandoned in silence. The strong expressions against Beijing, the feared increase in military spending for the Pacific (to satisfy the industrial-military apparatus), and the rhetoric against Iran (to appease the Israel lobby), will be used to moderate the deep state’s intentions, while Trump will try to focus on economics and security (counter-terrorism) and much less on foreign policy.
The key to a sustainable future world order is the synergy between the newly formed Beijing, Moscow and Tehran axis as an economic, military and cultural counterweight to the US. The union and the alliance of these three nations has created a new super-pole, able to balance effectively the often destructive actions of Washington. Rather than a multipolar world order, we are actually faced with a situation of two superpowers, one of which is based on the integration between dozens of nations on more than two continents. It is a new era that will accompany us over the coming decades. The unipolar world is over – forever!
Citations
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/trumps-delusion-halting-eurasian-integration-and-saving-us-world-order
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-01/how-united-iran-russia-china-are-changing-worldIf I understand correctly, the economic and social significance of the U.S Must remain intact by ensuring those three countries technically dont polarize against it?
Damn, need to read this twice.
Keep it coming bro.
Hitlery…we dodged a bullet.
Your deviled eggs have given me new strength and purpose!
Hallelujah! I have seen the light!@ Execration
Yes. The Axis of Gold – Russia (Europe – The Bear – Military) -China (Asia – The Dragon – Economic)-Iran (Middle East- The Persian Immortals – Oil & Trade)
have the united power to quash the neocons and that bastard pig Soros (apologies to pigs everywhere) from their senseless destruction of our planet.Trump is hoping to avoid an economic and political isolation and to maintain the US as a key world player in his coming presidency. This depends on keeping these three powers apart as well as keeping the neocons impotent – a tall order indeed.
Trump is Israel’s puppet.
http://www.leavemeansleave.eu
Trump is Israel’s puppet.
That may be so – in which case the US is f~~~ed for sure. There is only so much the rest of the world is willing to take.
Trump is already a billionaire. He has the hot, intelligent, loving wife. He has grown, successful children. He has the respect of his contemporaries in industry. And he has the respect of much of the producing population of the nation whom elected him as president.
Trump has nothing go gain from being president other than to say he did a good job as president.
In other words, Trump’s own ego will demand Trump does a good job as president. And this is why Trump is cutting through the political bulls~~~ with his twitter chainsaw.
In other words, Trump’s own ego will demand Trump does a good job as president. And this is why Trump is cutting through the political bulls~~~ with his twitter chainsaw.
I hope he does – I think everyone hopes he does.
Only time will tell if he tried – success is another thing altogether.I would give my left nut to be at ringside when Trump and Duterte are in the same room…
In other words, Trump’s own ego will demand Trump does a good job as president. And this is why Trump is cutting through the political bulls~~~ with his twitter chainsaw.
I hope he does – I think everyone hopes he does.
Only time will tell if he tried – success is another thing altogether.I would give my left nut to be at ringside when Trump and Duterte are in the same room…
Lol
The greatest threat to us all is naiveity. Trump is an illuminaty puppet. The world is run by the deep state. Most world leaders are puppets. Most of the world’s central banks are owned by the Rothschilds including the Federal reserve and the bank of England. He who controls the money supply controls the world. Do you really think they would have let Trump win if he was not their puppet. Trump is not what he says or who you hope he is. JFK was shot because of what he was exposing. Oh no sorry it was Lee Harvey Oswald with magic bullet. Oh an we landed on teh moon (my arse we did)
Wake up world.
http://www.leavemeansleave.eu
As usual an excellent analysis but I must disagree with a couple of points.
First I don’t believe the Russia/China/Iran axis is as solid as portrayed. Yes there is the China/Russia energy trade deal and the new high speed train BUT…They do have conflicting and competing interests. Russia’s eastern territory is sparely populated and resource rich. China has a huge population and the need for both territory and resources. AND the ratio of women to men in China–there are 33 million more men than women….i.e. surplus male population. Historically this combination of factors has resulted in…unfortunate consequences.
Secondly allowing there are mutual interests between these countries one cannot ignore their deep ideological differences: China is a sort-of communist state, Russia a sort of feudalistic state and Iran a muslum theocracy. Does Russia really want a nuclear armed radical islamic state on its border? And the vast majority of Chinese muslims are Sunni–how do they feel about Shiite Iran?
Finally there is the issue of Israel. (I say in advance for the benefit of ITsALLBS and THX 1138 and Math please temporarily stow the anti-semetic, Jew-hating diatribes/nonsense about world Zionist banking conspiracies blah blah blah) The fact remains that Israel is not repeat NOT going to disappear; and NO the Jews are not going to be pushed into the sea and exterminated–so just live with it. They are here to stay.
Nor is Israel going to permit Iran to possess nuclear weapons–and they WILL move unilaterally if necessary. That fact standing alone is going to throw a monkey wrench into the works. If Israel does take action Trump will back that action; then what will Russia do? I don’t think Putin will trade Moscow for Tehran.
I know supporting Israel is unpopular, as anti-antisemitism is once again in vogue, and its rare I take issue with my brother Yumbo but I’m not willing to read as much into this axis as has been done.
I know supporting Israel is unpopular, as anti-antisemitism is once again in vogue, and its rare I take issue with my brother Yumbo but I’m not willing to read as much into this axis as has been done.
No problem bro. Always respect and welcome your views to countercheck mine – a great rebuttal. And really glad you had the time to discuss here.
The piece gives the Axis a lot of credit and this is one possibility – as is yours another. Whether Trump supports Israel’s ambition or supports the two -state solution is again an unknown – either is possible.
I don’t think Israel will go away and Iran knows Israel is nuclear – direct aggression by either means US/Russia engagement so no-one will want that. I have nothing against either Israel or Iran. They both have rights just like anyone else.
The Axis may have vastly different ideologies and under normal circumstances would be poles apart in their world views. There is a catch here.
The Axis needs to work rather than wants to – this is where I believe the author of this piece is correct. They don’t have a choice. With NATO at Russia’s borders, US encircling China n Asia and US supporting Saudi Arabia’s ISIS against Iran. The Axis cannot fail – this will mean disaster for all these states politically ad economically. Unless the US backs down in these areas the Axis will continue to strengthen. Trump will have to show that the US is committed to a new course on all of the three as any one of them can destabilise the Axis.
It’s matter of survival for the Axis rather than anything else.
Unless the US backs down in these areas the Axis will continue to strengthen. Trump will have to show that the US is committed to a new course on all of the three as any one of them can destabilise the Axis.
I do agree with that! Trying to encircle Russia and all that other crap needs to go by the boards. I am hoping for a less belligerent attitude toward Russia. I don’t know about China. They are deeply nationalistic and lets face it–tell the truth they have a bit of an inferiority complex.
I mean for centuries their culture was tops–language, writing, music etc. All while Europe was still figuring out how to wear skins and make fire—then for more years China had to take a back seat to European colonialism and the arrogance that went with it—Now, I get the sense that the Chinese feel “their time” has finally arrived, or is just about to, so I look for them to be much more assertive and aggressive.
In the analysis I failed to mention one other wild card—the collapse of the EU and how this may impact things. I can’t even guess about that. Again I love your analysis and I’m always a little surprised more of the guys don’t get on the thread. Maybe they don’t know what they are missing. Take care of yourself there in the land down under!
In the analysis I failed to mention one other wild card—the collapse of the EU and how this may impact things. I can’t even guess about that. Again I love your analysis and I’m always a little surprised more of the guys don’t get on the thread. Maybe they don’t know what they are missing. Take care of yourself there in the land down under!
As long as my friends here – you esp – plus M52 – and the few others I have the honour of writing for keep reading I will continue to post. Quality is important to me. Peace bro and take care.
PistolPete writes: I know supporting Israel is unpopular, as anti-antisemitism is once again in vogue, and its rare I take issue with my brother Yumbo but I’m not willing to read as much into this axis as has been done.
But is NOT supporting Israel anti-Semitic? Is NOTsending foreign aid to Egypt anti-Egyptian? NO, this is called neutrality.
Thomas Jefferson admonished, and summed it up best: honest relations with all nations, entangling alliances with none. What are entangling alliances? Foreign aid to Israel is the classic example. Now, let’s say we’ve sent $120 billion to Israel since its 1948 founding. Not much really, in a nation of ~320 million (current population) — around $375 per person — objectionable certainly as government overreach, but really, not significant — probably a day or two of earnings for most of us here.
The real total cost, isn’t that $375. It’s the cost of oil in the 1970’s after the embargo, the lost growth as a result of that. None of that would EVER have happened if the Arabs could not ally themselves against the common enemy, the US and Israel. And of course, the cost freedom, lives, and increased government (Patriot Act, Department of Homeland ‘Security’, etc) of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, both of which, were caused by 9/11, which in turn, was DIRECTLY caused by US meddling in the Middle East. Why do you think terrorists attacked the World Trade Center instead of hitting, say, Toronto? I’m not anti-Semitic; if individual Jews want to send money to Israel, let them send their PRIVATE contributions.
Furthermore, Israel has severely damaged reform in the Middle East and modernization, because it is the bogeyman on which everything is blamed… Thus, ironically, while it is a multiparty democracy, it helps keep despotic leaders in power in adjacent countries. And don’t even get me started on US support for the Shah of Iran, which helped usher in the Islamic State of Iran.
What are some other ‘entangling alliances’? NATO. The UN. The World Bank. etc. Okay, some of these are institutions, not alliances, but you get the idea.
If Iran has nukes, they won’t launch. Any more than the Pakistanis will launch. Why not? Mutually assured destruction. The Israelis will annihilate Tehran if Tel Aviv takes a hit. And do they really want to obliterate Al Aqsa mosque (a sacred Muslim site) on Temple Mount in Jerusalem? That’s less than 40 miles from Tel Aviv. And of course, contamination would hit Gaza and the West Bank killing Arabs and Jews alike… Doesn’t seem a very sound strategy to me.
The best counter-terrorism policy is simple: No meddling in foreign countries.
The best counter-terrorism policy is simple: No meddling in foreign countries.
Very well said and a great post. The problem ha always been colonisation or empire building. Rather than trade and goodwill.
However I must make a point about nukes. I never approve of any Islamic country – including Pakistan and Iran – to having nukes. The islamic world is run by fanatics – and many believe and advocate martyrdom.
One day common sense may not prevail. Any nuclear program for these states has to be controlled by the international bodies very carefully.
Yumbo: In my opinion, ’empires’ in the modern era, have not brought much money to the parent State. In ancient times, when Rome conquered territories, they sacked cities, taking the gold and wealth. They charged taxes to pay for roads and infrastructure. Provinces could be heavily taxed. Being the world’s policeman, in contrast, hasn’t paid well over my lifetime; in fact, it has cost us a lot of money.
We as a nation spent vast sums of money on the Iraq and Afghan wars, but there is no return. They aren’t our allies, and have not appropriated our values or rule of law.
We used to demonize the Soviet Union and call it the Evil Empire. But, it was a rational actor; despite all the rhetoric about world communism, it never launched nukes against the US.
Pakistan has had nukes for years. They haven’t launched against India or Israel. I don’t like proliferation either–especially portable missiles on trucks, more easily taken by terrorists and other radicals. I am not as concerned about State actors. I would argue the Islamic world is largely run by power hungry despots. Sadam Hussein just used Islam for his own political purposes, to maintain his power, for instance–he was not a fanatic Muslim who implemented Sharia, that is for damn sure. Of course, he ruthlessly executed his political opponents, tortured his enemies, etc. So he was a very bad man.
The Saudi royal family, same deal, except they DO get legitimacy from enforcing Islamic law whilst the younger princes jet out to Vegas for blackjack, alcohol, and sluts, and live an opulent lifestyle.
@ FrankOne
Well said bro.
In my opinion, this is unfortuntely ‘human’ nature to divide humanity and find an enemy to profit from. All nations all guilty of this. There is no nation that has lived peacefully and did not wage war for its own gain.
There have been countless attempts to conquer the world – these did not work out but that does not stop the idiots from trying. Now it is the USA and the EU. Who will it be twenty years from now? I do not know.
The problem is at this point in time any trigger can be the wrong one. During the Cold War era there were over 200 false missile launch alerts by both the USSR and NATO – yes this did happen. There were good men then – on both sides – who trusted their guts not to take the final step.
I am not sure that is the case now. May I request you view this video below if you want to – it was never released by the MSM. It is President Putin giving reasons why today is more of a threat than the Cold War era. I am sure you will understand why I feel this way – even though you have a different perspective (which is fine).
Now – Islamists are a totally different ball game – I mean the hardcore ones and their followers. Pakistan is currently in the hands of some moderately sane people. I have been there and the mid-east and there is a level of extreme beliefs that is frightening. Coups and religious takeovers happen all the time – it does not take much with them. So forgive me if I do not share your optimism on this front. I believe we can agree to disagree.
That being said I have enjoyed your company here and hope to see you again for more of your views. Stay well. 🙂
Yumbo writes: In my opinion, this is unfortuntely ‘human’ nature to divide humanity and find an enemy to profit from. All nations all guilty of this. There is no nation that has lived peacefully and did not wage war for its own gain.
Absolutely. The US is no exception — the War on the native Americans, and the Mexican-American war come to mind.
The video was quite interesting. But, ABM’s are relatively ineffectual against large-scale attacks. I favor ABM’s, but only a handful of them, to handle small rogue launches, and with the 60’s scheme — detonate one nuke to take out another — the fallout above the Atlantic or rural areas, is better than an airburst above a high population urban area. Unless of course its Washington, DC, it shouldn’t have a missile defense system! But even nuclear ABM is not fullproof against a large launch; the pulses will take out radar.
We have only a couple dozen ground based interceptors. And I don’t believe anything can stop a MIRV after boost phase, which is short for a solid fuel ICBM. It’s also very easy to launch decoy missiles not loaded with warheads. I view these expensive ABM’s as modern ‘stop, drop, and roll’ training in the 1950’s.
That said, we used to be more honest, we had a ‘Department of War’ not a ‘Department of Defense’. During my lifetime, the ‘Department of Defense’ has made a lot of WARS: Vietnam, Gulf War I & II, Afghanistan, etc. Haha.
There are plenty of nutjobs in Pakistan, but the military is fairly professional. I get your point, though — proliferation of nukes into smaller countries with poor chain of command/launch controls, and countries with less stable governments, is not a positive development. And while Pakistan hasn’t launched nukes, it’s certainly had numerous coups and for many years, was under military rule. And you’ve got one up on me, I’ve never traveled to the Mideast.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
