The US-Russian Deal That Wasn’t

The ongoing events from the Ukraine to Venezuela passing through the Middle East clearly indicate that the US is implementing a global geopolitical strategy in pursuit of its interests. Those events further indicate that the US never was serious about arriving at a deal with the Russians to solve conflicts through negotiations. Instead, whatever piecemeal agreements the US had with the Russians regarding, for instance, Geneva I and Geneva II were employed to help it get out from a rough situation due to a miscalculation as happened with the Syrian chemical weapons deal. The escalation of the fighting in Syria, including, preparations to open another front and seize Syrian territory contiguous to the Jordanian border in case it becomes necessary, indicate that, contrary to what has been repeated ad nauseam, the US is not about to shift its weight to the Pacific away from the Middle East. Nor has the US entered into a Yalta-like agreement with Russia. To do so is to yield to Russian power, not to mention acknowledgement of its strategic weakness before regional state and non-state actors. The US would be loath to acquiesce to a multi-polar world where it would be operating as an equal to the emerging Russian and Chinese power. The sheer fact that the US is bolstering its power in the Pacific is in itself a clear indication that it cannot afford to do so.

Furthermore, US use of smart power in the region over the past three years belies the notion that it no longer regards the Middle East as having the same strategic value as it once did. Regional analysts, who, for instance, opine that the US will soon become self-sufficient in oil and gas and therefore have no need for Middle East oil, are oblivious to the fact that control of oil and gas is critical for US geopolitical strategy. Its value would still lie in denying energy resources to its adversaries (the Chinese, for example) and in heavily influencing politics and economics in Western Europe and the NATO countries broadly. The discoveries of oil and gas in the Mediterranean, considering the mix of regional countries involved in it, constitute another critical reason why it would be foolish for the US to shift its gaze almost completely to the Pacific.

Relinquishing the Middle East at this conjuncture of world politics is not an option for the US. The Iranian nuclear issue is another case in point as the ongoing Five-plus-One negotiations clearly indicate. US domestic considerations further militate against the US leaving the region to its adversaries and enemies. The Israeli/Zionist lobby does not allow the US to leave the state of Israel to its own devices. Secretary of State John Kerry has been heavily involved in pressuring the Palestinians to accept a deal that, if agreed to, would completely liquidate Palestinian national rights, chief among which is the «Right of Return.” The «Jewish” state that both the Zionists and the US are blackmailing the Palestinian negotiators to succumb to would almost certainly result in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians now residing in the state of Israel. It was reported that Kerry had told Abu Mazen that he had better agree to the US initiative lest he would meet the fate of Yasser Arafat. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the US (along with the Israelis and Saudis) has Muhammad Dahlan, who was expelled from the Fatah organization and is close to US and Israeli intelligence, waiting in the wings to replace Abu Mazen.

What we currently observe on the world stage is another move by the US against the Venezuelan regime. The previous attempt, which failed miserably, was against Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s late president. If the US succeeds, one would expect the US to move against other Latin American regimes and replace them by «democratic” and «friendly” ones.

Over the past several years the US has moved to blunt Russian advances and squeeze it in multiple ways. It failed to do so in Georgia, but succeeded in scoring successes in Libya, Turkey (by installing a provocative NATO «defensive” system) and Eastern Europe. The recent events in the Ukraine are part of the same strategy the US has employed with relative success against Russia. A Ukraine that is part of the European Union and NATO constitutes a direct strategic threat to Russia. It is interesting to note that US machinations against Russia in Central Asia have essentially failed. However, a success in the Ukraine might make it easier for the US to try again in that region, hitting two birds with one stone, encircling Russia and China.

It is instructive to note that the state of Israel has been implicated in the unfolding events in the Ukraine. Barnard Henry Levy, a Zionist par excellence with ties to the Israeli state is as of this writing in Kiev and has spoken to the opposition that took over the capital. Natan Sharansky, head of the Jewish Agency declared that the Agency would be sending aid to Ukranian Jews. Wealthy Jewish Ukranian industrialists have funded the pro-Western movement. It is no secret as well that the US has been implicated in intervening in the affairs of the Ukraine. The current indirect Israeli and US meddling in the Ukraine and their direct roles in Middle East conflicts bring US global strategy a full circle as it attempts to maintain its global dominance.

Bunları da sevebilirsiniz