Engdahl: New regional cooperation that challenges USA dominance is good for the world

[Bankotsu]

Engdahl: New regional cooperation that challenges US dominance is good for the world

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4686


F. William Engdahl
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net (http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/)

[Revy]

what nonsense. Yeah, let's praise the ruling classes of China and Russia for having their own interests! lol. A multipolar world isn't something to celebrate. I guess the people during World War One should have celebrated the fact that the Entente had opposition from the Central Powers.

We don't need many superpowers, we need NONE.

[Bankotsu]

We don't need many superpowers, we need NONE.

That's the cause of a multipolar world.

No superpowers just several regional powers balancing each other. No single power can dominant the world.

We are in a transitional period now from one era to the next.

I know that the idea of end to U.S dominance and a multipolar world of many powers is totally and completely unacceptable to the vast majority of people in this site.

That is why I am restricted.

But the trends cannot be denied.

[danyboy27]

No superpowers just several regional powers balancing each other. No single power can dominant the world.


yea, i guess you cant really consider china, india and russia superpower, its not like they had some kind of gigantic military and economic structure they could yield againt the working class of other countries...hoo wait.




We are in a transitional period now from one era to the next.
.
yup, from 1 big bully to many other bullies!




I know that the idea of end to U.S dominance and a multipolar world of many powers is totally and completely unacceptable to the vast majority of people in this site.

beccause it is, it wont change a damn thing for us, people of the working class.

that beccause you dont care about the working class that you have been restricted.

[Dean]

That's the cause of a multipolar world.

No superpowers just several regional powers balancing each other. No single power can dominant the world.

What makes you think this is actually better than a single superpower in the first place?

[Bankotsu]

What makes you think this is actually better than a single superpower in the first place?

I think check and balances in power politics would lead to less wars.

Compare no. of U.S wars before USSR disintegrated and after USSR disintegrated. After USSR collapsed, the balance of power shifted in favour of USA and the aggressiveness of USA increased.

That is why I support a balance of forces in a multipolar world.

[Bankotsu]

yea, i guess you cant really consider china, india and russia superpower, its not like they had some kind of gigantic military and economic structure they could yield againt the working class of other countries...hoo wait.

yup, from 1 big bully to many other bullies!

I think I have stated my reasons for multipolar world many times already.

My belief is that left wing cause would fare better under a multipolar world.

They can play off one power against another and have more space to manoeuver.

[danyboy27]

I think I have stated my reasons for multipolar world many times already.

My belief is that left wing cause would fare better under a multipolar world.

They can play off one power against another and have more space to manoeuver.

more space manoeuver?more bloodshed you mean.

yea cool, now every side in that conflict can now aquire tanks other sort of weapons, its sure is great living in a multipolar world!

[Bankotsu]

The Afghan war and the 'Grand Chessboard'
(http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4695)
(http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4695)
Zbigniew Brzezinski on Afghanistan and the American strategy for Eurasia and the world:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=512



Zbigniew Brzezinski gives his views on what sort of strategy USA should pursue in eurasia in order to secure U.S dominance over world affairs.


http://www.takeoverworld.info/images/grandchess.jpg

THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives

http://www.hermes-press.com/eurasia4.gif



This huge, oddly shaped Eurasian chessboard—extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok—provides the setting for "the game."

If the middle space can be drawn increasingly into the expanding orbit of the West (where America preponderates), if the southern region is not subjected to domination by a single player, and if the East is not unified in a manner that prompts the expulsion of America from its offshore bases, America can then be said to prevail.

But if the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor, then America's primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite.

Finally, any ejection of America by its Western partners from its perch on the western periphery would automatically spell the end of America's participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard, even though that would probably also mean the eventual subordination of the western extremity to a revived player occupying the middle space.

What kind of Europe should America prefer and hence promote?

What kind of Russia is in America's interest, and what and how much can America do about it?

What are the prospects for the emergence in Central Eurasia of a new "Balkans," and what should America do to minimize the resulting risks?

What role should China be encouraged to assume in the Far East, and what are the implications of the foregoing not only for the United States but also for Japan?

...

What new Eurasian coalitions are possible, which might be most dangerous to U.S. interests, and what needs to be done to preclude them?

Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an "antihegemonic" coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.

It would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower. Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of U.S. geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.

A geographically more limited but potentially even more consequential challenge could involve a Sino-Japanese axis, in the wake of a collapse of the American position in the Far East and a revolutionary change in Japan's world outlook. It would combine the power of two extraordinarily productive peoples, and it could exploit some form of "Asianism" as a unifying anti-American doctrine.

However, it does not appear likely that in the foreseeable future China and Japan will form an alliance, given their recent historical experience; and a farsighted American policy in the Far East should certainly be able to prevent this eventuality from occurring.

Also quite remote, but not to be entirely excluded, is the possibility of a grand European realignment, involving either a German-Russian collusion or a Franco-Russian entente.

There are obvious historical precedents for both, and either could emerge if European
unification were to grind to a halt and if relations between Europe and America were to deteriorate gravely.

Indeed, in the latter eventuality, one could imagine a European-Russian accommodation to exclude America from the continent. At this stage, all of these variants seem improbable. They would require not only a massive mishandling by America of its European policy but also a dramatic reorientation on the part of the key European states.

Whatever the future, it is reasonable to conclude that American primacy on the Eurasian continent will be buffeted by turbulence and perhaps at least by sporadic violence.

America's primacy is potentially vulnerable to new challenges, either from regional contenders or novel constellations. The currently dominant American global system, within which "the threat of war is off the table," is likely to be stable only in those parts of the world in which American primacy, guided by a long-term geostrategy, rests on compatible and congenial sociopolitical systems, linked together by American-dominated multilateral frameworks...

In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation.

To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together...

The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind.

But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf


A geostrategy for Eurasia by Zbigniew Brzezinski

http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html



Seems like good old fashion strategy of thwarting hostile coalitions, divide and rule, strengthening U.S alliances while preventing others from forming counter alliances.

This game will go on for quite a while.

[Raúl Duke]

The "most dangerous scenario" seems to be the most likeliest of them all...

Although Iran is not much a position to call itself a "world power" with the current internal turmoil the government is facing, it might end up being the minor player in the alliance. However, their position in the middle east is paramount, considering U.S. interests there. Plus, if Iran is in it then what about Venezuela (Chavez' relationship with Iran is a matter of public record plus his "anti-hegemonic" view)? IF Venezuela is on board they might get other Latin-American nations on board if at least indirectly. Now that would be a strong coalition of sorts that would challenge (and supplant) the U.S./NATO imperialism on many fronts strongly.

The European Re-alignment I'm highly skeptical of...I don't think either France or Germany look nicely at Russia.

[ls]

Bankotsu, that is an absolutely beautiful analysis, you are a genius, honestly.


Also quite remote, but not to be entirely excluded, is the possibility of a grand European realignment, involving either a German-Russian collusion or a Franco-Russian entente.

There are obvious historical precedents for both, and either could emerge if European
unification were to grind to a halt and if relations between Europe and America were to deteriorate gravely.

If only the left had thought of this before, we'd all be living under communism.

[Bankotsu]

Bankotsu, that is an absolutely beautiful analysis, you are a genius, honestly.

If only the left had thought of this before, we'd all be living under communism.

I didn't make any analysis, it's all quoted from Zbigniew Brzezinsk's the Grand chessboard:

Grand chessboard
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119973.pdf