For the reason that Turkey has been up today a faithful US and NATO ally, Washington and Brussels have called upon it to play an important role in the Balkans, Near East, and former Soviet Union republics commensurate with its new-found political and economic development.
It should be expected that the US will only continue intensifying the pressure that it puts on Turkey concurrent with the exacerbation of its existing sanctions measures on neighboring Iran, essentially pairing the two Great Powers together to form a single Mideast battlefield on which the US’ economic warfare is fought.
If we consider the war in Syria not as a singular event, but as the culmination of a world war which has persisted for a quarter of a century, we have to ask ourselves about the consequences of the imminent end of hostilities. Its completion marks the defeat of an ideology, that is to say globalisation and financial capitalism.
So long as the nuclear balance between Pakistan and India can be maintained, then a conventional military peace between the two Great Powers is assured, but the disruption of this equilibrium is dangerous for the entire world because of the encouragement that this could give either state to launch a first strike.
For the first time ever, after 17 years of war, Washington has agreed to take a seat at the negotiating table across from the Taliban, one on one. If the Americans really put their minds and backs into such negotiations, then this will be a major change in the US strategy for this war in Afghanistan.
During the Cold War, the pro-US states experienced a bloody precedent of illegal, secret repression. While it is clear that this system has been progressively dismantled in Europe, it has never been interrupted in the « Greater Middle East » although it has been transformed. The Benalla affair allows us to admit the possibility that this story is not yet over.
The aggressive attacks launched by the Democrats, although those were intended as a measure to discredit Donald Trump, will ultimately come back to haunt them, once they themselves end up being blamed for the deteriorating sympathies toward the Democrats and the US on the part of America’s allies and partners — not to mention its competitors.
Strangely enough, any resultant US-Chinese wrangling over Montenegro could add a weird wrinkle to the New Cold War whereby Washington turns against its decades-long proxy and begins contemplating a “manageable” regime change against Djukanovic while Beijing bolsters his rule.
Contrary to mainstream thinking, the NATO summit did not set the United States against the other members of the Alliance, but President Trump against the intergovernmental senior administration. The problem is not whether or not people appreciate the personality of the tenant of the White House, but whether they support him because he is the elected representative of them, or if they prefer the system’s bureaucrats.
Trump lectured and scolded the heads of NATO on live TV. They took the verbal thrashing like truant schoolboys. NATO’s secretary general, former Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who was put into office by the US, muttered a few lame excuses. Trump supporters in the US were delighted to see the snotty, godless Europeans given a good dressing down.
The current U.S. administration is not “pro-Russia,” with little changing from the previous administration. Considering Russia’s key role in Syria, global role as a trading partner with varied nations which are clearly U.S. imperial targets and holding one of the biggest nuclear arms arsenals in the world, apart from the U.S., much can be talked about at the upcoming Helsinki summit on July 16.
Trump is quite right that America’s NATO allies, particularly Germany and Canada, don’t spend enough on defense. Germany is reported to have less than twenty operational tanks. Canada’s armed forces appear to be smaller than the New York City police department. But the Europeans ask, ‘defense against whom?’