what is that mass choir singing, at the end of all these south front videos?

Iranian Nuclear Weapons. Is Israel Too Scared To Strike?
South Front, Jan 15 2021

The key standoff in the Middle East, that between Israel and Iran, has been steadily ramping up. Over the last two months Israel and its allies, primarily the US and Saudi Arabia, have done quite a bit to antagonize Iran and attempt and impair it from achieving its ambitions. Iran’s response is coming, and the aim is an asymmetric counter attack that would heavily hamper Israel’s interests. Tehran’s response will likely be two-pronged: On the one hand through its proxies and allies, namely the Houthis in Yemen who are pushing back Saudi Arabia and inflicting heavy losses on it. Iran recently sent advanced suicide drones to Yemen, so Riyadh appears to be in for a surprise. Separately, it’s operating through its allies in Iraq and Syria, as reports of US convoys suffering explosions are becoming a rather regular occurrence. On the other, Iran’s nuclear program appears to be developing steadily, and the WSJ even stoke the oven by claiming that Tehran was nearing production of a “key material for nuclear warheads.” There’s been no confirmation to that, but it also works to Iran’s benefit and will be used as a mechanism to check if Israel is willing to attack its nuclear program, once again, after allegedly killing Iran’s top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Tehran is working to produce its enriched uranium, which it maintains is for peaceful purposes, and uses this as a lever to pressure the US and force Israel’s hand. Most recently, Iran said that Washington’s return to the Nuclear Deal, as incoming President Joe Biden has signaled, was simply “extortion” if its not accompanied by a lifting of sanctions. As such, Iran says that not only must Washington want to return, but it also needs to do something to make up for their past failures, namely, lift the sanctions the Trump Administration imposed. Israel, feeling the urgency of its situation, warned that if the US were to return to the Nuclear Deal, it would feel forced and strike the facilities being used in Iran’s nuclear program, in order to hamper any progress, it may be having towards an alleged weapon. If this really happens, this will easily lead to a large-scale regional war. Currently, Israel and the US have largely played their hands, attacks on various proxy positions, as well as various threats and military deployments. For Iran, the field is wide open and its Tehran’s turn to make its move and it is likely to be an asymmetric action, not focused in a single point of tension, but rather on several.

Israel & US Unite Efforts In Large-Scale Strikes On Iranian Infrastructure In Syria
South Front, Jan 14 2021

The first two weeks of 2021 have, so far, been marked by an incredible increase in Israeli activity in the skies over Syria. The most intense strike took place on Jan 13 morning hitting multiple Syrian and Iranian-affiliated targets in the province of Deir Ezzor, including the underground base of the IRGC near al-Bukamal. The pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that Israeli strikes have killed 57 and wounded another 37. Pro-government sources confirmed only 5 casualties. The airstrikes were so numerous that even Abu Yatem al-Katrani, the commander of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) 4th Brigade was killed in an airstrike.

The Israeli operations were carried out with the assistance of the US, it provided intelligence and Israeli struck on them. Former DCI, Sec State Mike Pompeo was reportedly discussing the airstrikes with Yossi Cohen, chief of Israel’s spy agency Mossad. The US support of Tel Aviv’s aerial raids is a clear message to Iran, and is a very open support to Israel’s undeclared war against Iran, which it has been waging in Syria since hostilities began. All of the airstrikes in the first two weeks of 2021 are the most significant by Israel, and over all, since the beginning of the war in Syria. They were so significant, that Damascus even accused Tel Aviv of carrying out the strikes in very open support of ISIS militants which the Syrian Arab Army is hunting.

Meanwhile, there appears to be a sense of urgency, or a sense of danger in the air, as the US reinforced its troop positions in the Omar oil fields with artillery pieces and other equipment. The US troops, together with their local proxies also hold frequent drills in the area, to keep ready, for some future unknown escalation. Prior to New Year’s Eve, Iran’s top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated, in what Tehran claimed to be an elaborate Israeli operation. Additionally, since around the same time, a farewell strike on Iran has been expected from US President Donald Trump, and the general chaos in the US ahead of Joe Biden stepping into office has been used by Israel as a chance to inflict as much damage as possible on Tehran and its allies. Russia, at the same time, appears to also be preparing for an escalation of some sort, by building up its forces and is lying in wait.

Israel appears dead set on continuing its crusade against Iran and its allies in Syria. An urgency is felt, since Biden is unlikely to support Tel Aviv as much as Trump did, and every possible chance should be used. This is all in spite of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu removed the photo of Donald Trump from his Twitter, but all is fair in love and war. Finally, both the American and Russian forces appear to be biding their time, waiting for an escalation that, with tensions at the breaking point appears closer than ever. The year began with terrorist attacks in Syria, increased Israeli strikes, Iran threatening against any aggression against it, and the two most significant players in the face of Moscow and Washington are expecting an escalation, and no amount of preparation would be enough for the incoming storm.

Joe Biden’s War
J Hawk, South Front, Jan 15 2021

The 2000 presidential race being done and over, except for the tens of millions of Americans who believe the election was stolen and a general cloud of illegitimacy that will hang over the Biden presidency for the entirety of his term, Joe Biden finds himself in the place of a dog who was chasing a car—and caught it. Given the magnitude of America’s problem, one would have to be a spectacularly vain and/or power-hungry individual to want the job of President, but then again, who if not Joe Biden is that guy? And now that he has the job, he will have to address a broad range of domestic and international issues in a way that somehow prevents the increasingly intractable problems from causing a system-wide crack-up of US politics. The occupation of the US Capitol with the participation of great many active and retired police officers and members of the military, to the point of prompting US Joint Chiefs to issue an unprecedented proclamation to their troops to shut up and follow orders, means that the temptation to seal the deepening chasms dividing the US society through some sort of desperate foreign adventure intended to secure new markets and resources for US corporations, and therefore US workers and farmers, will increase. That expansion is to be accomplished at the expense of China and Russia, replacing their own homegrown corporations and state monopolies with US-based ones, on the model of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states, and even European countries that are heavily penetrated by US financial and information technology firms to the point of having sacrificed a great deal of their sovereignty. Russia and China have preserved themselves from becoming US “semi-periphery,” in both economic and political sense, which makes them obvious targets for Biden’s own “maximum pressure” campaigns to subjugate them, of the sort that Iran and Cuba, for example, have been bearing for decades. But while it’s clear that US will be openly hostile to both China and Russia, seeking to delegitimize their political institutions and promote destabilization and regime change, it does not appear the Biden administration foreign policy team has a clear plan on how to prioritize between these to biggest targets.

The Indirect Road to China

It is evident from a variety of sources, including quasi-private think tanks like the Atlantic Council and the pronouncements of senior US military officers like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Milley that the US establishment regards China as a rising power and Russia as a declining one. The latter assessment appears to be based on a simple lack of understanding of processes occurring within the Russian Federation in the last two decades, combined with the Western propensity to regard course of history in linear rather than cyclical terms. US power has grown since 1776, therefore it will always continue to grow. Russia’s power declined after the collapse of USSR, therefore it is bound to continue to decline. But regardless of the source of the misconception, in practical terms it means that while China is viewed as the bigger threat, the Main Enemy, as it were, Russia is seen as a more vulnerable and therefore more attractive target. Judging by the changes in the US policies toward Russia, it appears that the goal of US foreign policy became first regime change in Russia, followed by economic isolation of China that would be much easier to achieve once both the Middle East and the Russian Federation, potential or actual sources of vast quantities of raw materials China’s manufacturing and population require, became US satellites in the same way Australia, for example, already is. This development would place China in a position identical to Japan’s in the late 1930s, a country that proved highly vulnerable to steadily escalating US economic warfare and which moreover could not capitalize on its Non-Aggression Pact with USSR due to its rather ill-conceived alliance with Nazi Germany. Once isolated by US pressure, Japan gambled everything on a three-theater war against China, the British Empire, and the US which it ultimately lost. Moreover, should Russia become a US satellite state, its military forces could be committed to a land campaign against China, in the name of “democracy promotion,” mirroring USSR’s decision to join the war against Japan that was solicited by Western powers unwilling to sustain the heavy losses an invasion of Japan would inevitably cause.

The Russian Bear Refuses to Play

The “Free Russia” component of US strategy went into high gear in 2014, when it was expected that the Kiev Maidan would be swiftly followed by one in Moscow, particularly after Western economic sanctions that were imposed as “punishment” for the reunification of Crimea. Were that strategy implemented two decades later, it would have likely enjoyed quick success. Instead it merely validated Prime Minister Witte’s “if you give Russia 20 years of peace, you won’t recognize her.” Instead of becoming a US client state, Russia became more independent and assertive internationally, demonstrating this not only in Ukraine but also in Syria. In spite of the US dominance in the Middle East, the small Russian military contingent in Syria proved impossible to dislodge through the usual US means of supplying and directing proxy non-state actors against the Russian presence. It does not appear that Western powers-that-be have fully grasped the import of the 2014 “stab in the back” to the Russia-West relations for contrary to the usual Western propaganda, the Russian Federation in 2014 was very much a West-oriented country, seeking greater membership and involvement in Western economic and political institutions. The betrayal of these aspirations by Western actions means that Western leaders are now viewed as utterly untrustworthy, which means that greater exposure to and interdependence with Western economies and institutions is seen as a source of mortal danger to the Russian state. Since both nature and geopolitics abhor a vacuum, the West’s rejection of Russia meant better and more extensive relations with China, motivated by both countries’ shared interest in countering aggressive policies aimed at each of the two. In practical terms it means that it is not in China’s self-interest to see Russia succumb to Western pressure, just as it is not in Russia’s interest to see China fall either. That convergence of Russian and Chinese interests means that Obama-Harris foreign policy will have to reassess the Obama-Biden strategy of “Russia first, China second.”

Escalation or a Two-Front War?

Simply continuing the Obama-Biden strategy will be tempting but tricky. For starters, US sanctions against Russia have already greatly escalated during the Donald “Kremlin Asset” Trump presidency, whose initial outreach toward Russia which triggered #RussiaGate was likely nothing more than an attempt to interest Moscow in an alliance against Beijing, followed by economic warfare when it turned out Moscow was not about to sacrifice its stable relationship with Beijing for the sake of courting favor of fickle and unreliable United States and other Western countries. OFAC’s admission that there is hardly anything more that can be sanctioned in Russia suggests that all the “painless” options have been exhausted. Further expansion of sanctions, by leveling them against Russia’s sovereign debt or cutting Russia off from SWIFT, for example, would also have serious consequences for the US and Europe. There is a reason these lines have not been crossed yet, and it remains to be seen whether the Biden Administration will be desperate enough to cross them. Further escalation of sanctions would also damage US-EU relations that Biden claims he wants to restore, and it is telling that Biden is framing the restoration of these alliances in terms of opposing China. Germany’s opposition to Trump-era sanctions against North Stream 2 means that the United States is limited where Europe’s vital interests are concerned. Moreover, it does seem that the US “Deep State” is frustrated by Russia’s resistance and is getting impatient to finally grapple with China. It has already made many moves in that direction during the Trump administration, including the crackdown on Huawei, the effort to ban or seize Tik-Tok, last-minute moves to expand US contacts with Taiwan in violation of the “One China” policy, and most notably by the growing importance of naval and air power in Pentagon thinking. When Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley of the US Army says that the Army will need to have its spending cut in order to bolster the US Navy budget, this is no longer some Trumpian whim, but rather an expression of broad-based consensus preferences. Something that violates the long-standing if unwritten rule that each of the three major services, Army, Navy, Air Force, gets an equal share of the defense budget, cannot be anything other than an indicator of a major shift of focus.

Because while a US naval build-up would have consequences for Russia, since USN warships carry long-range land-attack missiles that are to be supplemented by hypersonic weapons and possess anti-ballistic missile defense capabilities, they are hardly suitable for the task of “defending the Suwalki Gap” and other NATO missions in Eastern Europe. Even the US Marine Corps, which during the Cold War had a major European NATO mission in Norway, is shedding its tanks and artillery to reshape itself as a force for littoral combat in the many archipelagoes of western Pacific. So, if anything, it looks like the United States military is actually sacrificing its ability to put boots, and tanks and guns, on the ground in continental Europe for the sake of putting ships and planes into and over the East China Sea and possibly the Arctic Ocean. Biden’s team could try to reverse all that, but doing so would carry high political costs. Hunter Biden’s China ties are a liability that will be exploited should Joe “show weakness” toward China. The “Uyghur genocide” rhetoric will only intensify in the coming years, there is nothing that Biden can do to stem that, not anymore than Trump could tamp down on the “Russian collusion” theories that proliferated over the years. China’s success at tackling COVID-19 has only raised the sense of urgency about the “China threat” among the US supremacists. And finally there are the domestic US constituencies, often consisting of traditional Democrat Party voters, who backed Trump because the confrontation with China meant the possibility of manufacturing jobs of coming back to the US.

Oceania vs. Eurasia

All in all, it does not appear possible that Biden will have the luxury of picking and choosing theaters of Cold War, which sets us up for the spectacle of the US that could not defeat the Taliban attempt to tackle two Eurasian major powers all at once. As in the previous iteration of “Cold War,” the battlefield will be the peripheral countries that are torn between the US and the Eurasian powers. These include the European Union, whose economic interests are not served by US-led escalation toward either Russia or China, but also Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, Philippines, and even India which collectively represent a geopolitical “no-man’s land” since their alliance commitments to the US are balanced by economic ties to America’s “designated enemies.” Whether the US is up to the task of handling this kind of a challenge is an open question. China’s, Russia’s economic systems are far more viable than they were during the Cold War, and are also healthier than Western economies that are struggling under massive debt burdens and require constant monetary stimulus policies by their respective central banks. US internal problems and divisions will likewise drain attention and budget funding away from international adventures. Should Biden focus on implementing this extreme foreign policy agenda at the expense of domestic priorities, the next round of isolationist backlash in the US will be even stronger than the previous one. So the situation in many ways resembles that facing the Nixon Administration in the late 1960s. However, is anyone in the Biden Administration willing to pursue détente policies?

Desperate Attempts Of Trump Administration To Protect Its Foreign Policy Heritage
South Front, Jan 14 2021

The US House of Representatives has impeached President Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” 7 days before the end of his presidency. In recent months, the administration of Donald Trump has made active steps in the foreign policy in an attempt to secure the previously established course. Sometimes these moves look pointless. Trump bequeath a heavy legacy to his successor Joe Biden in the Middle East, Latin America, in relations with China, etc. The main rival of the US in the Middle East, Iran, has been accused of complicity with Al-Qaeda. Tehran has allegedly become the “home base” for the leaders of the terrorist group, making it much more difficult for the US to fight against them. Pompeo claimed that Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command was allegedly killed last year in Tehran. Such statements seem to be the last attempt to cast a pall over Tehran before Trump’s surrender. They sound increasingly meaningless, given that Shiite state does not support al-Qaeda or ISIS, and Iranian-backed forces fight terrorists while the US often supports them.

Attempts to weaken Iran’s influence are also made indirectly, outside the borders of the country. For example, Pompeo announced the intention of Congress to designate Ansar Allah movement (the Houthis) that according to Washington is supported by Tehran as terrorist organizations. In response, the Houthis accused Trump of being terrorist, and added that Washington’s actions deserve condemnation, and the Houthis, in turn, “reserve the right to response.” Designation as a terrorist organization means, inter alia, the freezing of assets in the US and a ban on American citizens or companies from doing business with the group. Moreover, it complicates the provision of humanitarian assistance in the country at war. The definition will prevent non-profit humanitarian organizations from operating in the territories controlled by Ansar Allah, and will also create additional obstacles in the negotiations process with the Houthis.

Syria has become the main foothold for the advance of Trump’s agenda. In recent weeks, a wave of Israeli airstrikes and missiles has swept across Syria. The strikes are carried out on a regular basis, aiming to push Iran and its allies out from Syria as well as to prevent them from developing offensive capabilities. The last strike was carried out on Jan 13 in the morning and was probably directly assisted by forces of the US-led coalition. This became one of the largest strikes on the Syrian-Iraqi border. According to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights 57 people were killed and 37 others were wounded, including foreign fighters, mostly Iraqi and Afghan nationals, from armed groups loyal to Iran. The deaths of 5 Syrian service members were officially confirmed. The Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) also confirmed the death of Abu Yatem al-Katrani, the commander of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) 4th Brigade. However, they provided no information on its exact time and place.

In the meantime, the US has reinforced its troops stationed in the Omar oil fields and the COINCO gas facility, regularly conducting exercises there, under the guise of an alleged war with ISIS. The US seized the moment to strengthen its troops in Iraq, amid false claims about a massive attack prepared by pro-Iranian forces on the anniversary of the assassination of IRGC Commander Qasem Soleimani on Jan 3. The plan to carry out “the complex operation” on the date of the anniversary seemed to be hardly implemented; however, such reports justify the sharp increase of the US military presence in Iraq. Washington used the pretext of growing threat of Iranian vengeance to consolidate its military forces in close proximity to Iran. All these steps fit into the logic of a close military campaign against Iran in Jan 2021 before Donald Trump leaves the White House.

Another victim of Trump’s recent attempts to protect its foreign policy heritage is China. Apart from the economic war, on the political battlefield, Donald Trump over the past year has actively accused Beijing of a global pandemic, espionage, theft of technology and Americans’ personal data. During Trump’s presidency, the congressmen have prepared the Name the Enemy Act and wanted to prohibit calling the head of the PRC as “President.” Xi is not a popularly elected leader, congressmen explain, suggesting to call him Secretary General. Chinese high-ranking diplomats were banned from visiting universities and meeting with local authorities without the permission of the State Dept. Visa restrictions were imposed on students and scientists from China. In the US, all Confucius Institutes should be closed, they are one of the main instruments of Chinese soft power.

The Chinese consulate in Houston was closed. In response, Beijing closed the American consulate in Chengdu. In August, Trump gave the owner of the TikTok video service, Chinese company ByteDance, 45 days to sell TikTok to Microsoft, under the pretext that it transfers users’ personal data to Beijing. Given the Biden administration’s relatively more favorable attitude towards China, Trump is in a hurry to spoil relations between the countries as much as possible in the last days of his presidency. As a result, on Dec 9, Pompeo announced the lifting of “self-imposed restrictions” on the relationship between the US and Taiwan. This step ended the US recognition of the “One China” policy status quo and created significant obstacles for the incoming ‘Biden team’ intentions to de-escalate tensions with China in order to satisfy the Big Tech.

Moreover, China, as well as Cuba, was accused by the US of attacks on American diplomats. In early December, the American media published a report by the US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), according to which they were “directed radio frequency exposure” that caused the illness of several dozen American diplomats in Cuba and China in 2017-2018. Washington’s accusations are intended to justify new sanctions and once again put pressure on relations with China and Cuba, which is also suffering from the intensification of Trump’s foreign policy. The US State Dept included Cuba in the list of countries sponsoring terrorism. According to Pompeo:

The Cuban regime must end its support for terrorism and undermine American justice.

In response, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parilla called the decision of the US authorities hypocritical and cynical, accusing it of political opportunism.

The Trump administration has not forgotten Venezuela either. In early January, the US stepped up strengthening the partnership with Guyana, which has territorial disputes with Venezuela for the belonging of the Essequibo border region. On Jan 7, Nicolás Maduro, approved by Presidential Decree the creation of the territory of the Venezuelan Atlantic façade, a new maritime territory that includes the disputed region. Meanwhile, while the US is preparing for possible provocations during the inauguration of Joe Biden, on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, North Korea (DPRK) has threatened to build up its nuclear arsenal to deal with any threats by the US. The 8th Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea was held in Pyongyang. According to the Central Telegraph Agency of Korea Kim Jong Un, was elected Secretary General of the party. In Jan 2021, during a party congress in Pyongyang, he called the United States the main enemy of the DPRK. Kim Jong Un said:

Our foreign policy activity should be focused on suppressing and bringing to its knees the US, our biggest enemy, which represents the main obstacle to our revolutionary development.

He also promised to improve the ability to deliver preventive and retaliatory nuclear strikes in order to hit any strategic targets at a distance of 15,000 km. During the election campaign in 2019 Joe Biden has clearly outlined the impossibility of normalizing relations between the two countries in the near future, calling Kim Jong Un a “tyrant.” The latter identified the former as a “fool.”

The Trump administration tried to solve Washington’s North Korean problem during the summits in 2018 and 2019, which were preceded by a year of escalating tensions with promises of “fire and fury” for Pyongyang and a high risk of nuclear war. However, this did not lead to the desired result. In the case of North Korea, Trump has no need to undertake specific measures in order to worsen the bilateral relationship. They are stable at a low point. Even the Biden’s presidency is unlikely to significantly change the situation. A shift to the “strategic patience” approach that was used during Barack Obama’s presidency is unlikely today. It only allows North Korea to get more time to build a more powerful nuclear potential. Biden realizes that Kim Jong Un will not stop developing new nuclear weapons, such as new ballistic missiles for submarines or mobile solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles. The US will be forced to establish a new format of relations with North Korea, taking into account the risk of a tough response from Pyongyang in case of increasing pressure, as well as Washington’s reluctance to make concessions, demonstrating its weakness.

An important issue in the transition of presidential power from Trump to Biden is the withdrawal of the American military from Afghanistan. In 2020, in Qatar, the US and the Afghan radical Taliban signed the first peace agreement in more than 18 years of war, which provides for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan in 14 months and the beginning of an inter-Afghan negotiation. The US DoD plans that 2,500 American troops remain in Afghanistan by Jan 15 2021. There is a risk that Biden will make adjustments to the decision of the previous administration. It is likely that he will not completely abandon the withdrawal of troops, but he may well change its parameters, the number of soldiers, or simply replace the American soldiers with employees of private military companies.

The Afghan issue remains a rather sensitive topic, as it has a special meaning in the political game and during the election race. Democrats today are forced to “make excuses” for the failure of the Barack Obama administration in this area; and all of Biden’s campaign promises to withdraw American troops may in fact be unfulfilled. In reality, the American leadership was unable to withdraw the military from Afghanistan because this country has an important geostrategic position, and the interests of other countries, including China, Iran, Russia and Pakistan, are involved there. The withdrawal of Americans from Afghanistan would be perceived in the world as a geostrategic retreat of the US. Also, the US is afraid to leave this region, because then the Taliban will gain the power and it will turn out that all American efforts were wasted.

The outgoing Trump administration continues to make all what is possible to preserve its heritage for Biden before leaving the White House. It reinforced its actions in all main regions. The military provocations are especially crucial in the Middle East, as well as the political efforts aimed to destroy the US relations with China. Most likely, Joe Biden will move away from the policy pursued by Donald Trump and give up “maximum pressure” from Iran. He climes that the best way to achieve stability in the Middle East is to keep Iran from working on a nuclear program through negotiations. It will not be easy for Biden to overcome the obstacles that the Trump administration has set along this way. On Nov 25, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that if Biden keeps his promises, it will solve the problems between Iran and the US. Two days later, Iranian nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated. In response to the death of the scientist, Iran approved a draft law entitled “Strategic measure to lift sanctions.” The initiative provides for the possibility of refusal by the country’s authorities from an additional protocol with the IAEA on verification of nuclear activities.

In the case of China, “China Joe” is unlikely to significantly change the course of US foreign policy. At the moment, Washington does not have sufficient ground to lift the established tariffs and sanctions. It will be easier for Biden to leave things as they are. However, the emergence of new anti-Chinese initiatives, especially in the military sphere, as was the case under Trump, should not be expected. Tensions in the disputed areas are likely to decrease significantly. In many ways, Biden will strive to at least ensure the economic links between the US corporation and China. However, China has been slowly but steadily winning the race for the economic and technological dominance simultaneously boosting own military capabilities to defend the victory in the case of a military escalation. Joe Biden will have to reckon with this. The shift in power in the US changes the global agenda. Even while some countries like Iran, China or European leaders may have at least a little hope of stabilizing relations with the US. Trump’s main heritage can be considered to be the fact that now the credibility of the US is undermined. Even the European ally strives to create an independent military force, fearing that a Trump-style politician may come to power in the United States at any time. In relations with rivals, this significantly weakens the position of Washington and favors, for example, Iran, which gets the right to decide whether to go for rapprochement with the US. The US has already shown that there are no red lines for it; that it prefers to be an independent player without binding themselves to international obligations. History speaks about this, and most likely it will also be the case in the future. Even before they really came to power, neo-liberalists have already demonstrated their unwillingness to follow any  rules on the way to realizing their goals. Now, it is occurring within the borders of the US, thus, the same should be expected in the international arena.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.