US Afghan fiasco will not end an era of global domination

Those who saw in the Afghan fiasco of the United States a sure guarantee of the end of the era of geopolitical domination of this country, were far from right in everything. Yes, complete militarypolitical the failure in this country and the shameful flight from Kabul, which became its natural finale, undoubtedly caused grave damage to the image of the Americans and their foreign policy positions. However, with great regret we have to admit that all this is far from the end of Washington's attempts to retain its first place in the world “alignment”. Perhaps the fun is just beginning.

Joe Biden's words that the order for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan was given to them, first of all, because their further stay there "did not correspond to the fundamental American interests" could well be interpreted as Washington's refusal to try to "establish democracy "or" defend its values ​​"around the world. After all, the United States is now more than enough of its own problems to tackle them and stop trying to be a "plug in every barrel." However, what was said by the head of the White House further testifies to completely different intentions. The struggle for "American leadership" will continue. The question is - with whom exactly and with what methods the confrontation will be conducted.

"Leadership" from behind the fence

The foreign policy doctrine of the United States, which was in use under the previous Democratic president, Barack Obama (and, in fact, when the same Biden was vice president), certainly had a different name. Or rather, not quite like that. Washington preferred to speak of "second line leadership." Or - "from the back rows." In this case, there was the desire of the Americans to "steer the world" as if "at a distance", especially not sticking out and giving the dubious honor of "dragging chestnuts out of the fire" to their allies, who played the role of the very "first line" on which, in fact, fell all the bigwigs in the process of their actions at the direct or indirect direction of precious overseas "partners". A classic example of such actions is the 2014 coup d'etat in Ukraine, which is beneficial exclusively to the United States.

European countries and entire structures of the EU were deeply involved both in the process of the "Maidan" and, more importantly, in the "clearing up" of its consequences. As a result, Washington received its geopolitical "bonuses" in a tough confrontation with Russia, and the business of Germany or France - serious losses due to the anti-Russian sanctions that the local governments are forced to follow. As a matter of fact, all these actions of the Obama Democratic Administration were a radical departure from the "world war on terrorism" started in 2001 by George W. Bush, the main meaning of which was in fact to obtain from the "international community" formal approval of the US intentions to carry out military operations at its own discretion where and when it is pleasing, as well as the occupation of countries that they recognize as "problematic".

The United States did not succeed in playing the role of a "world policeman", or rather, a "world turner". Trillions of money spent, thousands of ruined lives of their own soldiers, and millions of residents of "democratized" states, and the result is a complete mess. Afghanistan has proven this more than convincingly. However, even before him it was already clear that the "great America", with its claims to absolute superiority in economic, technological, military and all other areas, this own image is no longer consistent. "Doesn't pull," so to speak. While Washington was pumping colossal funds into invariably failing military adventures, Moscow and Beijing were building up the power of their economies and armies, increasingly declaring their unwillingness to follow the global "agenda" being formed in the United States.

Life has shown that attempts by the United States to achieve certain foreign policy goals using "force" methods are not just excessively costly and can lead to the most negative domestic political consequences. Moreover, they are also doomed to failure due to the inability of the American army to fight even with the guerrillas of the Taliban level. Biden's decision to leave Afghanistan in a hurry is not really a “turning point in history,” but simply a finishing touch in a process that began years and years ago. That is why the head of the White House announced a very specific foreign policy reorientation of the country: the United States will stop chasing "terrorists" across mountains and deserts, but solely in order to "focus on the problems of China and Russia." In fact, we are not talking about peace, but about a new war - and the main enemies in it have already been named. It remains only to form a capable "first line" and Washington can calmly take its usual place behind its backs, continuing to play the role of "leading and guiding" force.

Democrats were going on a campaign

As a matter of fact, the contours of such an alliance have already been outlined quite clearly. The current American leader was widely spread about him both during his own election campaign and during his first foreign tours. The real form of future unification, in theory, should be given by the "summit of world leaders for democracy" scheduled for early December of this year, which may well become the founding conference of a "league for the elite", which will include states that are ready to stand under the banner of the United States in their " the great march "against Russia and China. In the corresponding statement of the White House, the program goals and objectives of the new association are outlined in a rather general way: "promoting democratic values ​​and respect for them, fighting corruption and opposing authoritarianism in world politics."

In a word, "the struggle for all good against all bad." However, the same Biden quite clearly, and with a transition to personalities characteristic of his statements, outlined specific opponents who personify "everything bad." Speaking from the rostrum of the Munich International Security Conference this year, he said, "Leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping believe that democracies are incapable of uniting." And it is vital for the "progressive world community" to refute this delusion, since the "authoritarian aspirations" of the above-mentioned leaders and their allies "pose a threat to democracy throughout the world." And when solving this problem, one cannot do without a “large group of like-minded people”. However, the main question in this case is whether anyone, other than the countries that have long been political satellites of Washington, wants to join this group.

Gathering the leaders for the summit, presenting to them a more or less coherently pretentious program of a new "world crusade for democracy" - all this old Joe and his team, perhaps, will succeed. However, at the same time they will have to answer a number of extremely uncomfortable questions, the main one of which, perhaps, will be this: "Where are the guarantees that the United States will not act with its allies from the" alliance of democracies "exactly as they did with" Democratic Government ”of Afghanistan? That is, they will not be left to their own devices at the most difficult, critical moment? " In truth, it's hard to imagine what the answer might be. In addition, the economic and political differences between Washington and its "transatlantic allies" have deepened recently to such an extent that on a number of points it will be extremely problematic to find a consensus. As an example, we can cite the situation with "Nord Stream-2", the pressure on which the United States was forced to sacrifice in order to enlist the loyalty of Germany.

That is, in fact, they gave up their positions in the "Russian direction" in order to be able to get from the Germans some beneficial actions for the Americans in the "Chinese" direction. However, it is far from certain that Berlin, which is one of Beijing's main economic partners, will go beyond purely formal declarations in confrontation with it. This will definitely be not just unprofitable for the German side, but simply ruinous - the Celestial Empire has already too well proved its ability to "beat with the ruble" (or, if you will, with the yuan) those who allow themselves political demarches directed against it, naively believing that the economic this has nothing to do with cooperation. How it has! But at least ask the Lithuanians ...

The "Biden Doctrine", which political analysts and experts are already talking about with might and main, is, in principle, quite understandable in its essence. Another thing is unclear - how tough is the head of the White House ready to implement it? It is clear that his words that "the protection of rights and freedoms around the world" will henceforth be carried out by Washington exclusively "by economic and diplomatic methods", said in the process of addressing the nation on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, are pure demagogy.

As the terribly politically incorrect saying goes, it is impossible in principle to wash a black dog whitewashed. For a real confrontation with both our country and China, Washington will have to go beyond the voiced framework, since the "economic methods" that have long been reduced to the announcement of sanctions have proved their complete failure, and as for diplomacy, it is American-Chinese relations at their current level are possible only with a very big stretch.

The Alliance of World Democracies, even if it is created, is unlikely to be able to play the geopolitical role that Washington is counting on. The old structures like NATO and the G7 are practically no longer working, but the US attempts to create for them, if not a replacement, then a “safety net”, do not lead to the consolidation of the “collective West”, but to its even greater disunity. For the same Europe, the confrontational agenda imposed from overseas regarding both China and our country is alien and unprofitable. The countries of the Asia-Pacific region (such as Japan, Korea or the same India), from among which the Americans seek to put together a "vanguard" of the anti-Chinese "front", also have their own interests, which they are unlikely to want to sacrifice.

One thing can be said - if the United States, within the framework of the "Biden Doctrine" or any other foreign policy model of its own, will continue to offer the world only new forms of division on one or another basis, unification into warring camps and confrontation between them, the only thing that can await them is it is international isolation and the loss of the last remnants of its own authority and influence.