Our readers are Instagram users
You can now follow the latest news for free through our Instagram account
Click here to subscribe
From the first day when the Ukraine crisis descended into a deep abyss, the management of the crisis industry bore the features of a combative impulse, as a veil behind which lies dreams of hegemony over the new and upcoming international order. This marriage between war and the international system is recorded by American testimonies of former officials and experts who have knowledge of what is happening in the invisible background of the visible scene. What drives events in this way is not born today or the current international circumstances and conditions, but it is based on well-established historical and scientific criteria that America’s foreign policy uses in its directions, based on the so-called “American global strategy”, which is a process by which the state mixes goals and means. , which is presently close to integration between the Ukraine war as a means, and the goal of hegemony over the international system.
This is what Professor Christopher Bean, Professor of International Politics and Military Strategy, decides in his scientific study entitled “Hegemony or the Balance of Power in the Twenty-First Century.”
He says in specific terms that the discussion about the American global strategy was taking place on a daily basis, accompanied by plans for the expansion of the “NATO” alliance, in addition to the rise of China, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the military budget, and trade policy. In this regard, the task of the global strategy is to mix these components together into a cohesive and cohesive fabric.
Likewise, some strategists believe that the US global strategy appeared, in subsequent circumstances, to be confusing and confusing. Because the demise of the Soviet Union led to a dramatic transformation of the world order, and at the same time there was no change in the American strategy that corresponds to the changes brought about by the end of the confrontation with the Soviets, so that the United States continued to follow the same standards of its global strategy that began from 1945 until 1991, which Known as the strategy of supremacy, it is an extension of the foreign policy makers’ quest, after the end of World War II, to create a world order led by America. It is based on the concept of: a strong America that enjoys superiority politically, militarily, and economically. It is based on the idea of American values as a center of inspiration for other peoples, and this remained, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the essence of the strategy of supremacy and domination, and the driving force of foreign policy. Yet, in the absence of the Cold War, foreign policymakers still lacked motivation for the United States’ continued pursuit of global supremacy.-
As Melvin Leffler says in his book “The Supremacy of Power,” the American strategy has not undergone any change, compared to what was the case after the Second World War, and after that and until today, America is still seeking to push the strategy of superiority in order to maximize American control over the international system, By preventing the emergence of rival major powers in Europe and East Asia.--
There is an aspect of this thinking that believes that the strategy of supremacy is based on the assumption that states achieve their security not through the balance of power. Rather, it is through the imbalance of power, and that this is achieved through striving for hegemony.
According to Christopher Lane, who is an advisor to the RAND Corporation, which has political and military weight in the United States, the continuation of American hegemony is an important and required prerequisite for ensuring global stability.
On the other hand, some foreign policy experts believe that the rise of new international powers will have harmful consequences for the United States, the first of which is that any new major power that might be possessed aspires to control. And if it succeeds in that, this will represent a serious threat to the security of the United States. Secondly, the emergence of a new major power was historically considered a phenomenon leading to instability at the level of global politics, although this does not preclude the meager ability to prevent the rise of China in particular as a new major power. Because it lies outside the sphere of American influence, unlike the case with European countries or Japan. Then, the successive developments in progress in China in the various branches of power have already made it a major power, and the United States will not be able, whatever it does, to prevent its emergence in this way.
In front of this diversified vision, some analysts asked a question: Can the United States prevent the rise of new major powers, and thus the permanence of its hegemony?