sherpa-finn wrote: Seems unfortunate to me that a discussion about the purportive end of a unipolar world degenerates so quickly into a slanging match as to the nature of the 'new' bipolar world.
Maybe you could clarify. It's not clear to me who, if anyone, is claiming that Russia, or any other single country for that matter, is now the "other" pole of a bipolar world. The end of US dictat, in which the UN, when it is even acknowledged, is a transmission belt for US foreign policy, and no country can defy the US Emperor/President, seems clear if we go by: a) the thrashing that the US puppet got in Georgia after trying to slaughter Ossetians, and Russian peacekeepers, in their sleep; b) the "nyet" give to the US over starting another "freedom loving" bombing campaign in Syria; c) the "nyet" to US/NATO/EU designs on Crimea and Ukraine in general. The Russians have to rely upon other, like-minded countries to pull anything off; there ARE other such countries, eg China, and that is also very important.
Quote:
My impression is that we are talking about a much more complicated multi-polar world where economic power is no longer as closely aligned with military force,- as has been the historic pattern. And as a result, it all gets rather messy and complicated.
Since the 2 Bush regimes in the US, the Yanqui Empire has come more and more to rely upon brute force to carry out its foreign policy goals. It's necessary to have both economic and military alternatives as challenged to the Empire for change to take place.
Maybe another way of saying what you are saying is that the world is much more interdependent that it was even 20 years ago. Certainly, the Russian diplomatic representatives keep chirping on that theme; just read what Churkin or Foreign Minister Lavrov or President Putin himself are saying ad nauseum; all this sanctions will bite the sanctioners on the ass and the Russians are busy proving that what they say is true. If they can make it stick, as I think they can, then they will show that they are an essential player on the world economic, political and military stage. They will never claim that they will bury anyone, or view themselves as a God-given city on a hill, or any other messianic idiocy. They have had enough of that in the 20th century.
Edited to add: if I might be allowed to toot my own horn, I would say that I was pretty well the only babbler who, having observed the conduct of the Russian regime vis-a-vis Georgia and the Saakashvili Regime's brutal assault on Tskinvali, South Ossetia back in August of 2008, came to the conclusion that the Russians had done the right thing and change was in the wind. I would add that it was Dmitry Medvedev, and not Putin, who was Russian President at the time. Medvedev, incidently, was traumatized by those events; he said so himself.
It is the easiest thing in North America to turn on the Russophobic buttons. All politicians use it. Enormous efforts have been made, spanning decades and decades, literally, to demonize Russians into baby-eating, serial rapists, etc. monsters.
And now, that is changing. A little. This is really quite remarkable. I have always thought that the one country in the world directly between Russia and the USA, a country that has a much less predatory history and view of itself, might be the country precisely to bridge the gap and re-invent itself as a fair minded negotiator and middle man between those 2 great powers. Of course i mean Canada. Sadly, our orbit is so drawn into the black hole of US foreign policy that Canada's government is reduced to a "me too" echo of Uncle Sam's bullying. ugh.
Yes, and yes.
If only there were a "left" in Canada to do what you suggest.
I'm open to being convinced.
In 2013, NSNBC used the same expression over the non-events in Syria with
Assad; Syria Crisis marks the End of the Uni-polar World and the Rise of the BRICS as Global Power
The article notes that a BRICS Development Bank has been created as an alternative to the World Bank and the IMF.
The possibility of an alternative, even within the context of the dominant capitalist countries (Russia is still a capitalist country, has economic interests of its own, yadda yadda, as does China and the other members of BRIC, and isn't past conducitng itself as any imperialist country might carry out its foreign policy) means that there are contradictions between these dominant economic players, which, it is true, can lead to war and horrific conflagrations, but which can also lead to differences that can be exploited by a global left. It is far easier for the USA to impose sanctions on Venezuela, on Cuba, on any country that doesn't kiss the imperial ring finger of the conquerer in a uni-polar world. (Edited to add) OTOH, Russia can, for example, trade more with the BRIC countries and simply jettison the unreliable partners in western Europe.
Surely you don't think that the end of the uni-polar world is a bad thing, if true? Common sense in international affairs has long talked about this necessary eventuality. It's indicative of the change, I think, in that the Emperor (ie the USA) had to make reference to "the terrible violations of international law" by the Russians in order to drum up support for the dismemberment of Ukraine and its embrace into the apocalyptic NATO cabal of zealots. So even the Master has to pretend to respect this new world.
I think it's great. The next step would be to strip Barak Obama of the Nobel Peace Prize. Hell yeah.
Was there ever a unipolar world? I don't think so.
Even when there were two or more it usually wasn't another "pole" that kept any of them in check. It was their own hubris and weakness, and a much more diffuse and powerful geopolitical web.
And turning point? Never mind that things are in play right now. Turned how? A strategic point that has been under Russian dominance remains under Russian dominance.Them freaking out in order to ensure that doesn't go sideways is not what I would call an turning point.
Didn't I answer "yes" and "yes" to both your questions?
Now answer mine: Is there a "left" in Canada which can (say, in this century) take advantage of and/or combat the new world order?
Sorry to be a tad cynical. And yes, I understand that the struggle breaks out from time to time. But Jesus f'ing Christ, there's no official opposition anywhere to pro-U.S. aggressive imperial policy here. Much less than when Dief was chief. What now?
Two quick points: some things have indeed changed significantly over the past couple of decades - re BRICS, even some of the global financial architecture, etc. OTOH, some things have not changed significantly at all ..... see chart below.
My own assessment / proposition is that mobilising citizens to push for incrementally progressive multilateral agreements between nation-states on a range of key issues (environmental standards, labour rights, tax justice, arms control, etc, etc) is the most promising political strategy for the 21st century if citizens hope to secure and exert some degree of countervailing power against global corporate and imperial interests. I am not suggesting its any sort of a slam dunk, - but its a reasonably credible political strategy (IMHO).
To be generous, not all Babblers share this view for a range of reasons. But pending the spontaneous global revolution - and resisting any cocooning inclination to retreat into "socialism in one state" (province / village) - I have yet to hear a compelling, alternative strategy that addresses the obvious need for substantive changes at a global scale.
It's odd that today's unipolar state of affairs that is being managed by the US and the western financial oligarchy has people waxing nostalgic for the peace and tranquility of the cold war and mutual assured destruction.
Not denying the military expenditure that is out of proportion with all other countries (and when you're paying Haliburton to do your dishes and laundry, it's no wonder).
But that money isn't the only factor when you have to put boots on the ground, and people start coming home in bags.
If it all came down to who has the biggest checkbook then the U.S. wouldn't have had their asses kicked on a number of occasions in the past 50 years. And it's not just having to pay in blood. Any force that extends too far ends up fighting the limits of its own supply lines.
For that matter, that's a lesson that plenty of empires - the Brits, the French, the Spanish, and the Russians - learned as well.
The head of the Upper Chamber in the Russian legislature has remarked that US President Obama is "agonizing" over the end of the uni-polar world of US dictat.
Again with that duplicitous crap about the the USA "not invading" to get their "strong, cooperative relationship". uh huh.
So, according to Obama, there should be ethnic cleansing of Russians in Ukraine. Then, and ONLY then, is there any legitimacy to preventing such a disaster. Then, and only then, says the Yanqui Emperor, is a country entitled to be free. Of course, by then it is too late. The very idea of preventative action is rejected by the USA. Their view is, literally, shoot first and ask questions later. Oh to be an idiot. How sweet.
(See The Guardian for some of Obama's over the top remarks.)
Matvieyenko "called upon journalists not to take such words (by Obama) too seriously."
RT link
I think the Nobel-Prize-winning, drone-bombing, "yes we scan" President just got schooled.
??
You remember the Cold War, right? And the dissolution of the Soviet Union? It was in all the papers. Then there was ...
1. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. It included Chinese Embassy staff as casualties, remember?
2. The bombing and occupation of Afghanistan by NATO.
3. The bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq by "the coalition of the willing".
4. The bombing and dismemberment of Libya under the pretext of a "no fly zone".
5. The sacred promises that NATO would not "march eastward" given to then Soviet leader, Gorbachev, but flagrantly violated as NATO gobbled up almost every state coming out of the dissolution of the SU. The encirclement of Russia by NATO states, bristling with armaments on their very borders. The pretense that such weapons were 'aimed at some other state" (ie, Iran). The looting of the Russian economy. The depopulation of the country, comparable to the Nazi occupation in terms of population decline.
I know that NATO can try to justify itself by an endless war on an abstract noun (War on Terror), but really, with the fall of the SU there really was no excuse to continue this aggressive military alliance, was there? And yet, there it is, growing like a tumor, almost 25 years after the justification for its existence is no more.
...
Yes, I also remember Angola, Somalia, Vietnam, numerous incidents in the Caribbean, Central and South Americ, the Phillipines, and lots of other places.
For that matter, I also remember the other Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, and other incidents. It's not as if the cold war stopped either party from Imperialist action so long as they weren't directly challenging each other.
And as I said, they aren't the only powers in the globe, and power and the ability to use it doesn't just come down to how many guns you have.
I dunno why "Imperialist" has a capital "I", but maybe you can explain that later. In any case, that's an interesting way to debunk the claim that the unipolar world has come to an end. Denial that it ever was.
Can you explain why the US was able to carry out its foreign policy goals, including the wars cited above, in which an orgy of unpunished death and destruction followed? Were the "other poles" too busy with their own wars? What wars? No, the whole process of this unipolar world, despite the denials, began pretty well with the bombing of Yugoslavia.
That bombing violated one of the most sacred trusts coming out of WWII. It was stated, in hushed tones and trembling voices, that Germany would never again be allowed to bomb European cities as it had done so with impunity in WWII. And yet, the first act, virtually, of the unchallenged Yanqui Juggernaut was to violate this sacred trust and enlist the Luftwaffe in the bombing of Belgrade and other Yugoslavian targets. What a fricking disgrace and secular blasphemy.
I just mentioned some of the other wars they were busy with, ikosmos. Angola was going on at the same time as American agression in Central America. Never mind that you are completely ignoring the existence of China, did the presence of the Soviet Union have any bearing on the U.S. being punished in Vietnam? In Iran? Did they stop the coup in Chile?
Did their absence have any bearing on the U.S. failure in Somalia, and in Iraq, and Afghanistan? Its failure to topple Cuba?
You're focusing on a couple of things about which you are in part right. But they are far from the only factors.
And to get back to the start, the Soviet Union may have collapsed, but Russia never stopped being a power over Ukrainian affairs and in the region generally. So I question the notion that ththat "pole" was ever gone at all.
This reads like the author is somewhat falling into the Cold War trap of "us or them". All of these other events cannot be ascribed as the result of a direct transmission belt of the wishes of the State Department. But there is such a thing as dominance over major events: economic, political, and military. I don't know how you can stick your fingers in your ears and make like the US has not been dominating, and at times dictating, major events in the world since 1991. Only US Admin stooges think otherwise.Good grief.
Your line, in any case, is essentially the Obama line. Russia was, Russia is, a regional power trying to flex its growing muscles. They need to be "educated", because we're better, smarter, more democratic, whatever window dressing suitable to apply in the particular case. But this shrill narrative has lost its veneer. The Russians ara laughing at the USA. Literally. The two decades or more of keeping Russia under their imperial boot is coming to an end. The first sign was in South Ossetia, in 2008, but far fewer observers were noticing their brilliant moves back then. (I was, btw, but so what, have a look at the 15 plus threads on South Ossetia, Russia and Georgia if you feel like it)
They've smoothly arranged the entry into the Russian Federation of what once was part of Russia, without firing hardly a single shot, and they have, so far, prevented the kind of bloodshed in southern and eastern Ukraine that the Maidan zealots carried out in Kiev. Again, virtually no casualties at all. Hell, Trans-Dnieper was so impressed they wanna join too! lol.
The tide has turned. Hence the fruitless sabre-rattling, the racauous laughter from the other side, the gnashing of teeth by wanna-be Cold Warriors, like our own Helmet Head Harper, the surprising support of the Russians by unexpected observers, the grudging admiration by some, the tiresome and now obvious play book that is so out of date, the tumultuous cheering that cannot be faked by Crimeans who never thought they'd see this day, the obvious backing away, despite the sabre-rattling, almost from the very start, the obsequious falling into place by the craven "Opposition" Parties in the Canadian Parliament, and on and on and on.
For a change, some good news. But some on the "left" want to complain anyway. Don't.