At the very beginning of “The Grand Chessboard,” Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: “The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind.” But John Bolton, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and others had other corrupt ideas in mind.
It is also worth noting that before the West’s involvement in Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine was quite peaceful and stable. Ukraine was host to the famous football Euro Cup shortly before 2014, and Ukraine was a viable society without any war or social strife on its territory. But with Washington’s global hegemonic policy over the course of the last three decades, everything that Washington touched around the world turned into (expletive). Thus, everything going on in Ukraine and around the world at the moment is a direct consequence of Washington’s policy of global hegemony. Readers, as well as other analysts and observers, must bear this in mind going forward, and it is a point which has been stressed through the course of this blog project. Hysteria and emotional reactions to Moscow at the moment only takes into account the present moment, without taking into account the history and buildup which led to the present moment. No one should detach the present moment from history, given that history is the explanation for the present.
Knowing full well that their Ukraine strategy failed over the course of the last eight years, Washington and its puppets in Kiev are now resorting to delay tactics in hopes of throwing Vladimir Putin off an even keel. As Mao said, despise them strategically, but take them seriously tactically. Thus, although strategic calculation and strategic patience are important characteristics and qualities to have, there is no point in dragging things out for too long on the part of Moscow, especially with all the corruption and lies over the course of the last twenty or thirty years which misled all of us and which led to this current situation around the globe.
Nor was a cooperative and economic relationship with Russia based on mutual respect and mutual interests enough for Washington and Brussels over the course of the last few decades. Washington and Brussels had to resort to a policy of global hegemony, because of Washington and Brussels’ notions of racial superiority and so forth. And now Ukraine has to bear the brunt of those notions of racial superiority and for having fallen for those notions of racial superiority. Ukraine was misled into the illusion of Washington and Brussels’ notion of racial superiority, and now Ukraine is left hanging high and dry for it.
Also, from a geopolitical and international affairs standpoint, Russia is poised for assuming the global status it wants due to the consequences of Washington’s policy of global hegemony. For one, Russia – if not physically – can exercise leverage not just over Eastern Europe, but also over Europe as a whole. Second, Moscow already exercises immense influence over Central Asia. Thus, as Mackinder argued, whoever controls Eastern Europe can control Central Asia, and whoever controls Central Asia can control Eurasia, and whoever controls Eurasia controls the world. The question is whether Washington has been able to overcome both delusion and its hollow notions of racial superiority in order to absorb and digest the broader consequences of a decades-long global hegemonic policy.
Adam A. Azim 