Can the US Revitalize Unipolarity Before Russia and its Partners See it Euthanized Once and For All?

At present, across the globe the gravely ill condition of US-led unipolarity (US global hegemony) is widely recognized, both by experts and by laymen. While there remains debate about precisely what sort of global order is now replacing US-led unipolarity and what kind of leverage a strategically weakened US can exercise in the emerging world order, almost no one goes out on a limb these days to make a case that the global hegemony the US used to exercise post-1991, nor anything like it, will be revived anytime soon.

The present widespread acknowledgment of the grave condition of US global hegemony contrasts dramatically with the pervasive uncertainty, and even disbelief of only 7 months ago when I laid out the compelling case (Epitaph to Unipolarity) for the imminent collapse of unipolarity and of US global hegemony itself. Back then, only 7 months ago, the global consensus was that unipolarity, though in some significant trouble, was only very remotely at risk of any imminent predicament or failure. Challengers to unipolarity and to the US global hegemony were seen as still-small by comparison and inadequately organized to constitute any genuine test of US global dominance.

However, since then imperative developments regarding the profoundly worsening US quagmire in Iraq, the rapidly mounting global leverage and the increasingly potent assertiveness on the part of Russia, China and their global partners aimed squarely against unipolarity, the accelerating demise of the US position as the global economic center, as well as a number of other key developments, have placed unipolarity virtually on life-support, as it were. That spectacular reversal, and the recognition of the fundamental demise of unipolarity's immediate and strategic fortunes occurring across a span of a mere 7 months, illustrates both how fast global developments are now unfolding and how vital is analysis that isn't deceived by mere surface appearances, but looks below the surface.

The US and unipolarity's few remaining apologists may still delude themselves with the illusion that the US retains the ability to marshal global trends and developments largely in parallel with its own key interests and goals, and that in spite of its misfortunes it retains a significant measure of its global hegemony. It does not. Only a semblance of US global hegemony now remains. The US can no longer seduce and oblige the bulk of the world's powers to get in line behind its own interests and goals as it was able to do post-1991. It faces an entirely new and increasingly noncompliant world since the Iraq invasion of 2003, a world ever more unmanageable from US-led unipolarity's perspective, a world far more openly and stealthily defiant of excessive US power than ever before.... May 15, 2007

Increasingly Forceful Political Motivations Driving the Emergence of a New Global Energy Grouping.

When recently asked about Iran's proposal to Russia to create a global gas cartel, a number of top Russian leaders and experts commented that the proposal appeared rooted more in politics than in economics - in particular, the politics of opposition to the US and of counteracting its growing global aggressiveness. In the next section the reader will see the powerful economic considerations that are driving the emergence of a new symmetrical global confederation of gas and oil, but the political motivations are profoundly potent as well. How so? February 28, 2007

A New Global Gas Cartel? Implications of the rising importance to the West of imported gas. Russia and Iran alone hold more than 50% of the world's proven natural gas reserves. When Algeria, Qatar and Indonesia, the world's leaders in the exporting of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) are added, then the numerically-small 5-member grouping accounts for about three-fourths of the world's proven reserves. That is a profoundly disturbing set of facts for the West - only 5 exporters, the bulk of whom share a deepening political affinity and a similar geopolitical alignment, and who are increasingly intolerant of what they see as excessive US global power and aggressiveness, control three-quarters of the world's natural gas. What if they are already in process of deciding to exercise their control in a collective, yet largely undeclared and informal, fashion? February 28, 2007

The sweeping Democrat victory in regaining control of both houses of Congress in the US mid-term elections has observers wondering and speculating on what, if any, meaningful policy changes are in the offing with regard to Iraq. The Iraq Study Group (ISG) co-chaired by James Baker III, currently studying the possibilities in the Iraq crisis and due to deliver its much-awaited report early in December, has enjoyed a recent upsurge of interest on the part of Republicans and Democrats alike (although top Bush administration officials continue publicly to downplay the importance and relevance of the ISG and assert they are not bound by its recommendations) - both sides of the aisle hope the ISG report might provide a pragmatic roadmap out of the crisis for the US, one that somehow avoids a costly US failure and forfeiture of its Middle East goals and the regional and geopolitical windfall that would come to US rivals, most notably to Iran and to its proxies (such as Hamas and Hezbollah), as a result. Nov. 27, 2006

No one doubts the existence of a number of new rising powers (or "poles") in the East, or that the two primary poles are identified as Russia and China with India rapidly rising as a third pole of mounting importance, or that the rising economies and markets in the East are increasingly attracting the main attention and the tangible interest and respect of the rest of the world.

Few would argue that the US and the wider West have little to worry about as a consequence of the unrelenting rise of the new poles in the East. Notably, their dramatic rise is a phenomenon that has been judged as carrying real meaning only in the last three years or so, demonstrating how quickly the geopolitical landscape can change - is changing. These matters are not debatable.

But significant uncertainties still plague the minds of many observers... Nov. 27, 2006

The term "multipolarity" has increasingly been trumpeted by Russia, China, India and many others since the mid-1990’s as the most desirable and equitable configuration for the world order. Multipolarity is seen across much of the globe as the most attractive replacement for US-dominated unipolarity. Does it really matter? Are unipolarity and the US-centric world order really at risk? Indeed, yes.

The fundamental configuration of the world order is rapidly undergoing transformation as US power and influence continue their progressive dilution in all spheres and those of rival centers or poles such as Russia and China are becoming ever more concentrated, thanks in no small measure to their advancing control over global strategic energy resources. Control over strategic resources has become the primary lever to increased global influence for those powers either rich in such resources or closely allied with those who are. In the insidious and perceptible rebalancing of global power, moving from inordinate concentration in one pole (the US) to distribution among rival poles (Russia, China and others) we are witnessing the progressive arising of a new world order. However, what will its true configuration turn out to be? Nov. 27, 2006

The arising of any new coherent pole of the East and the thriving of a new cold war between East and West isn't generally accepted as a reality by most observers - not yet, anyway. Additionally, neither are the rising powers in the East seen by most observers as able to mount a truly serious challenge to US global dominance anytime soon.

Despite its current troubles, the US is still generally seen as the Global Colossus that no challenger can successfully 'do battle' with, as it were. Why are the clear developments signifying the building beneath the surface of a Neo Cold War and what will be proven here to be the grave and impending threat posed by the rising East to the current US global position still being widely overlooked, at least publicly, at this advanced juncture in global developments? Nov. 1, 2006

Russia has found the Achilles Heel of the US Colossus. In concert with its global oil-producing partners and the rising powerhouse economies of the East, Russia is altering the foundations of the current US-led liberal global oil market order, insidiously working to undermine its US-centric nature and slanting it toward serving first and foremost the energy security needs and the geopolitical aspirations of the rising East, all at the impending incalculable expense of the West.

What is increasingly at stake is secure US access to global energy resources - strategic US energy security - because the West's traditional control respecting those global resources is seriously faltering in the face of the strategies undertaken by Russia and its global partners. Oct. 10, 2006

Russia and China are 'Cooking Something Up Between Themselves'

Mr. Putin was asked about Russia-China relations and the mounting regional/global clout of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization). He expressed great satisfaction and excitement about the path of Russia-China relations, but quickly denied that the two strategic partners are involved in 'cooking anything up between themselves'. In fact, he claimed that the mounting regional and global clout of the SCO has never been planned for or intentionally striven for by the two partners, that it has entirely happened 'by surprise'. And, of course, he claimed once again that neither the SCO nor the deepening Russia-China strategic partnership is 'aimed at the US or NATO'.

But contrary to President Putin's soothing assurances to the West at the recent Valdai Club meeting, Russia and China most certainly do have 'something in the geopolitical oven', and it has been cooking steadily for nearly a decade. In fact, their geopolitical main course is practically ready to be served to the table, so to speak, and directly contrary to Mr. Putin's recent claims they both intended from the beginning for the SCO to eventually play a significant role. One only has to read the Sino-Russian Joint Statements from 1997 forward to see that the two partners embarked upon a carefully conceived and adroitly executed geopolitical course and strategy starting a decade ago, and they have made tremendous progress toward the achievement of the specific goal which they set way back then. September 15, 2006

The Long-Term Supply Contract: Russia's Tiara is the West's Thorny Crown

President Putin complained at the Valdai Club meeting that consuming nations in the West too strongly focus on their own energy interests and security while simultaneously slighting the interests and security of producers. He noted that consuming nations want suppliers to pledge continuity of supplies for the long-term, "so customers should not be able to turn around and say 'We don't need it now'. Security works both ways. We need assurances, too."

Mr. Putin explicitly stated that Russia and other suppliers want long-term supply contracts with consuming nations so that suppliers know there will be a 'stable demand' for their exports. It can easily be appreciated how achievement of such goals amounts to a tiara or coronet to adorn Russia in its key global energy position. But the very achievement (successfully concluding long-term supply contracts) that constitutes Russia's victory crown simultaneously serves as the thorny crown of the West. How so? September 15, 2006

The Great Game's Incalculable Stakes Won't Let Russia 'Play Nice' with Energy and Resources

East and West are now irreversibly locked in a monumental struggle for control of the globe's coveted strategic resources - this is the revived Great Game and its players are rapidly approaching the moment of truth. The stakes for both sides are colossal and both sides fully recognize that fact. However, neither side likes to explicitly admit the existence of such a monumental struggle that will define which side achieves global ascendancy and which side faces the potential of an energy-based economic checkmate. September 15, 2006

"We're Not Behaving Like an Energy Superpower" - Really?

At the Valdai Club meeting President Putin exclaimed, "We're not behaving like an energy superpower". Is that a true statement? In a strictly confined context it is a true statement, but in a much larger and more meaningful context it is entirely a false statement. How so?

In the Ukraine gas dispute, for example, Russia watched very warily as the US and its European partners instigated a series of "colored" revolutions inside states strategically located on Russia's perimeter, attempting to cut deeply into Russian political and economic power and threatening Russian stability and even its own territorial integrity, all the while arrogantly expecting Russia to continue to provide extremely cheap, far-below-market-price energy to the new anti-Russian regimes that had been set up with Western clandestine and overt support. Only an idiotic Russia complicit in its own weakening and disintegration would have continued to supply cheap energy under such conditions and circumstances. Russia is neither idiotic nor will it be complicit in its own disintegration at the hands of the duplicitous West. Sept. 15, 2006

The Valdai Club has become a choice forum for Mr. Putin to attempt to allay Western fears over Russia's increasingly assertive and independent course and to polish Russia's image abroad. As such, one must realize that at a forum that is obviously slanted toward achievement of such political and public relations goals, the statements and claims made are specifically designed to accomplish the forum's purpose, and one must apply the appropriate objectivity filters when analyzing them.

The hard fact is that a series of powerful arguments and irrefutable evidence exist to render completely hollow Mr. Putin's promise to 'play nice' with mounting Russian global energy leverage. Even if Mr. Putin's promise is truly sincere and heartfelt, trends and forces not nearly under his control will soon dictate an outcome precisely opposite of his soothing promise, rendering it completely empty. How so? And what are the powerful arguments and irrefutable evidence that establish beyond any doubt the accuracy of such a conclusion? Sept. 15, 2006

What is increasingly at stake is secure US access to global energy resources - strategic US energy security - because the West's traditional control respecting those global resources is seriously faltering in the face of the strategies undertaken by Russia and its global partners. Oct. 10, 2006

America's ability to lead and to order the world along the flux-lines of its own national interests has declined sharply. Washington has rapidly been turned out of its once-dominant position in such vital and influential organizations as NATO and the U.N. As a result, Washington rarely, if ever, sets the agenda in such organizations. Rather, it has been turned from Most Prominent Leader to Most Noteworthy Supplicant, pleading unsuccessfully within those organizations for action on its own terms. In a stunning reversal, occurring over a period of mere months starting in the early spring of 2003, the last superpower is struggling to reclaim its severely damaged role of global leadership and international respect. America is in sharp decline after over-reaching in Iraq and squandering its treasured, and vital, alliances. It has lost its former image of virtual invincibility and perpetual global dominance.

Is America headed for a Soviet-style collapse? Is a "replacement" for American global dominance already arising in the power vacuum progressively being formed by the contraction of American power and influence? July 13, 2004

There exist fundamentally only two visions for our international system - the unipolar one dominated by the last superpower and the multipolar one. Much has been said about the multipolar vision, but a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding still exist with regard to its structure and how it would operate. On the other hand, with respect to the unipolar world order under which we now live, much has been assumed, taken for granted, with respect to its permanence, and with respect to the supposed inability of lesser powers to actually bring an end, somehow, to U.S. global dominance, so as to pave the way for the multipolar world order.

What would a multipolar world order look like? How would it operate? How permanent is the current unipolar world order? Can lesser powers, perhaps acting collectively, really bring an end to U.S. global dominance? Where is the international system at the present time? Is it truly in a fundamental transition period heading toward a complete re-configuration along multipolar lines, or is it merely experiencing a measure of non-fundamental and temporary instability? July 20, 2004

On this planet, there exists only one nation which is truly Eurasian, and that nation is Russia. Covering eleven time zones, Russia extends from Europe on the west to the Asian Kuril Islands in the Sea of Okhotsk on the east. Western Russia is without a doubt European Russia. Central Russia is Central Asian Russia. And Eastern Russia is East Asian Russia. As such, geographically, culturally and economically, Russia exists as both the eastern half of Europe to make Europe complete, and as the top half of Asia, to make Asia complete.

No other nation can lay claim to being thus truly Eurasian in nature. Hence, in the formation of any Eurasian Alliance, only Russia can play the key role to bring such alliance together into a reality. And only Russia can serve as the core of the Alliance, around which the other members must revolve. How so? April 21, 2004

The recent NATO expansion into Russia's back yard and the widely reported Russian discomfort and wariness over such expansion has masked deeper, much more significant and strategic developments regarding NATO. The Alliance is changing so fast, but in such an insidious manner, that few recognize what is really happening.

In the minds of most persons, NATO is virtually synonymous with the U.S., such that if NATO does this or NATO does that, it is thought of as the U.S. doing those things, whatever they might happen to be. Hence, most persons imagine and assume U.S. influence over the Alliance and through (by means of) the Alliance is still very profound. That certainly used to be true. However, it is true no longer... April 8, 2004

Much has been said lately about the internal divisions within the EU, its very chances for survival and its evident loss of influence in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. This heightened discussion and speculation is not surprising, coming as it does just weeks before ten new members will be ushered into the alliance on May 1, 2004 .

In this analysis, however, we will discuss those subjects against the background of a picture much larger than the EU itself and its traditional sphere of influence. For its future is inseparably intertwined with that larger picture, as the EU is increasingly pulled and buffeted by the influence of two competetive powers – America and Russia – whose competition with each other is increasing toward a real rivalry in immensely important ways... Feb. 23, 2004

As security and stability concerns with respect to Saudi Arabia continue to mount, Russia is rapidly becoming the focus of the industrialized West regarding its desperate search for energy security. Additionally, no one expects Iraq to be miraculously stabilized on the day after the transfer of sovereignty on June 30. Rather, the ominous attacks on Iraq's infrastructure, including its oil exporting assets, are expected to increase as insurgents attempt to discredit the new interim government. These facts add tremendous weight to the view that non-Middle East sources of crude oil must be cultivated in case the worst should happen, and to achieve a greater measure of energy security. The only real alternative to Middle East oil is Russia. Consequently, it is rapidly becoming the very focus of western attention...June 9, 2004

When the formal Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, conventional wisdom said the dangerous, economically debilitating arms race was over. A “peace dividend” was hoped for. At the time, such conventional wisdom and idealistic hopes appeared completely justified. But the “peace dividend” never really materialized – why not?

Soon it was realized that the end of the formal Cold War was not simultaneously the end of all threats to national security and to peace. In fact, with the passing of the Soviet Union, new threats were unleashed upon our world as much of the domain of the former superpower began to descend into ethnic/religious-inspired chaos and violent rivalry. Civil wars broke out in Yugoslavia and elsewhere as formerly oppressed ethnic groups aspired to national independence. As these ethnic/religious-inspired crises threatened to explode into full regional wars, it was quickly realized that no “peace dividend” would be forthcoming. The post-Cold-War world was quickly seen to be an extremely dangerous place. The last remaining superpower seemed ill-prepared for the “dividends” and global responsibilities of its Cold War victory. The prime debate, not only within the last superpower itself, but also around the world at large, focused on the issue of whether or not the U.S. should step into the role of GloboCop...Feb. 20, 2004

Conventional wisdom of the time said that the Russians were so overwhelmed with their own problems that they paid little or no attention to these unprecedented geopolitical developments, or if they did pay attention, they were powerless to do anything about them. This so-called “wisdom” has turned out to be entirely false. How so?

While it is certainly true that the Soviets could do little or nothing to halt the U.S.-led coalition which evicted Saddam's forces from Kuwait , they were in fact doing much more than was realized by the West at the time. They carefully observed the stunning high-tech military prowess on display during Gulf War I, and they very carefully analyzed the U.S. military machine and new doctrine of massive but precision application of air power. They identified both the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. military power, and they took definite steps to design ways to counteract U.S. power by asymmetric (“lopsided”) means, directing their strengths against U.S. weaknesses. Evidence strongly indicates this analysis eventually ran the full range, all the way from technical analysis of weaponry to logistical military considerations on up to political and diplomatic ones regarding coalition-building and coalition maintenance...Feb. 20, 2004

Philosophical Redefinitions in the Approach to Global Power

Since 1991 things have changed dramatically, but not in the ways most analysts would have us believe. The morphing of the arms race into that apparently much less threatening form has deceived many of the “experts”. After all, isn't that the real purpose of morphing into a “benign” form – to deceive so as to gain an important advantage? Since 1991 the U.S. side has continued to expend the enormous sums of money for very costly weapons systems which are crucial to the U.S. global projection of power. These include aircraft carrier battle groups and fighter planes and long-range bombers and every form of “smart weapon” employing satellite constellations for guidance to the target.

Russia, on the other hand, has spent comparatively miniscule amounts on arms. And this is where the deception comes in. The “experts” very confidently cite the very lopsided numbers of dollars spent on both sides (even though no one in the West really knows how much Russia has spent on arms development because this is a tightly-guarded secret), and declare that Russia is militarily “inconsequential”, and that therefore the Cold War Esq. Arms Race is over. Nothing could be further from the truth! Feb. 20, 2004

George Bush's Preemptive War Doctrine and Tony Blair's International Community Doctrine Miss the Real Issue and Further Damage the Principle of State Sovereignty, Opening the Door to International Chaos

Since the Iraq crisis presented itself last year the world has been handed two “new” doctrines for acceptance – George Bush's Preemptive War Doctrine, and now, as a supplement to that doctrine, Tony Blair's International Community Doctrine. These two doctrines and the events and trends which prompted them carry enormous significance, but not in the way the two leaders might think.

Whether it is by design or because of an inability to think strategically or even because of a lack of ability to lead internationally, the two leaders, by putting forward their doctrines for consideration and acceptance at the U.N. and by the U.N., have missed the real issue and risk doing irreparable damage to the principle of State Sovereignty.

The foretold damage, if it is done, will not pay the hoped-for rewards in the fight against terrorism and its state sponsors...Feb. 23, 2004

Until two or three years ago we were still hearing conventional "wisdom", loudly and widely proclaimed, which confidently asserted the industrialized world in general, and the U.S. in particular, were nowhere near as dependent upon crude oil as in the past. Hence, the influence of "Black Gold" in the economic, diplomatic, geopolitical and military spheres was greatly discounted. Quite a number of very "respected" sources of financial and geopolitical analysis and forecasting made fools of themselves by trumpeting such unfounded speculation, pawning it off as "intelligent commentary " and "strategic analysis".

The truth is that we have already entered an entirely new geopolitical era in which black gold is already ruling as king in all those spheres (economic, diplomatic, geopolitical, military). The new era is one in which the heretofore unquestioned global dominance of the U.S. in the diplomatic, geopolitical, military and economic spheres is no longer taken for granted by the world at large, and is no longer assured. It is the opening phase of the transition from the unipolar world order of the last superpower to the multipolar world order, in which other centers of power gain strength at the expense of U.S. power and dominance. And black gold is rapidly becoming the central focus as all the industrialized players on the geopolitical chessboard decide how to position themselves to preserve, and enhance, their power. So rather than seeing the influence of black gold wane, we are witnessing the tremendous increase of its influence, to an extent unforeseen by all but a relative few careful observers of geopolitics and global economics. The dramatic increase in the global power of black gold is already having enormous implications and repercussions world-wide, and these will rapidly increase in weight and number. It is therefore vital to understand those implications and repercussions. It is the intent of this analysis to provide the fundamental understanding which is required...April 14, 2004

China is rising, economically, diplomatically and militarily to threaten a displacement of America as dominant power in Southeast Asia. Europe is increasingly choosing the course of independence from the U.S. and currently rivals American GDP, makes joint economic and strategic diplomatic agreements with American competitors Russia, China, India, Iran and others, while the U.S. looks on warily.

Russia, in the face of proliferating American military presence throughout the traditional Russian sphere of influence, is becoming much more assertive, charting a course often directly opposed to the U.S. Russia is making strategic economic (oil / gas) agreements and conducting weapons sales in every strategic region of the world, while the U.S. looks on guardedly at Russian political and diplomatic influence on the rise.

The majority of the oil states of the Middle East have adopted a decidedly anti-American stance in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, and consequently U.S. influence in the region is suffering a very significant setback. In the last year collective international opposition to the U.S. has been consolidating at the U.N. and within the Security Council, marginalizing and isolating the U.S. internationally.

And the continuing trends are mostly against the U.S. and are even picking up steam in that direction. In the face of all these regional and global developments, can the U.S. maintain its current position of global dominance? March 12, 2004