USA loses power at catastrophic pace
Why did the U.S. have such a strong reaction to the historically conditioned annexation of Crimea to Russia? Among other things, this fact of global significance means the end of its quarter-century-long dictatorship in the international politics. The world is becoming freer. The situation was analyzed by a diplomat Alexander Panov in a conversation with the chief editor of Pravda.Ru Inna Novikova.
"Do you agree with the statement that history is shaped by the policy of empires?"
"Perhaps, but now only one empire exists, the American empire. It is a peculiar empire, soft empire."
"Particular with regard to Syria, Libya, Iraq, whose citizens fully appreciated this "softness" ... "
"I do not mean aggressive displays but rather, organizational principles and management practices. The world is controlled through NATO, through the economy and finance. In the East Japan is an ally, and South Korea is the system of empires. But it is a different management empire. Let's just say, the notion of an empire is what the Soviet Union used to be. Conquest of Central Asia, for example, occurred in the middle of the 19th century. This is a short term to consider the land your own. In Russia, and later the Soviet Union, it was believed that if you have the territory, you must feed and develop it. This was the peculiarity of that empire."
"Why didn't the British feed anyone, but only exploited them?"
"Their empire has collapsed."
"So has the USSR that fed its territories."
"It is better not to feed them, because empirical evidence shows that an empire will collapse anyway. Even Byzantine and Roman empires have collapsed, the great empires of antiquity. Although, seemingly they were prosperous and all the barbarians were bought. And still it did not work."
"They have grown so big that they have lost not only morals, but also manageability."
"You have answered your own question. Empires are short-lived. Russia had been expanding over the centuries, but it got overstrained."
"Alexander, you said that only one empire is left, it can be called a superpower. The unipolar world is very unstable and dangerous, as evidenced by the events of the last few decades."
"In principle, the United States is not a superpower that can do whatever it wants. The United States is losing its influence and opportunities in real politics. These days it prefers to act through someone else's hands, NATO, the EU ... This is the first sign of strain, we are no longer talking about the past domination. Especially now, when we have to think about China all the time. I would not say that the U.S. is doing everything it sees fit. Of course, another president may start regaining ground through a greater use of aggressive policy."
"Now the U.S. is strategically financing the processes they call democratic in Russia, China, many problematic border regions, spending enormous sums of money. Could the U.S. get overstrained?"
"You know, the money was not that significant, but the effect was obvious. The Arab revolutions have been planned under Bush in the 1990s, when the U.S. talked about democratizing the Middle East. I personally believe that the attacks in the U.S. in 2001 were a response of the Muslim world: "Do not meddle with your democracy. Of course, we cannot win, but we can very much ruin your life." Why would sheiks or Saudi Arabia need this democracy? The United States thought it has destroyed the Soviet Union and had to continue to sow democracy worldwide."
"Through color revolutions?"
"Yes, through color revolutions that do not propagate democracy. The Americans got into a trap when they did not move Mubarak, because after Mubarak there came fundamentalists. What did the Americans who tried to stuff all imaginable holes with their democracy achieve? Incidentally, the Americans were not the only ones who did it, the French did it, too.
"I travelled in Syria about a year before the events. I served as a rector of the Diplomatic Academy of the institute for retraining of higher ranking officials. This institution trained ministers, prime ministers, and senior officials. This institution was built by the French, the assistant rector was a Frenchman, the programs were French. After that I visited France, Strasbourg. There is a similar institution that existed for a long time, it trained Chirac, Pompidou. The French trained these elite. So you can see their long-term goals.
"The U.S. is more noticeable because its actions are better publicized. This is why the reaction of the international community is stronger and the U.S. is losing its reputation at a catastrophic pace. These are all the signs that their power is coming to an end."