Since September 30th, 2015 the world is definitely different. The start of the Russian military air and naval campaign against IS terrorists in Syria in response to the written claim for help by the Syrian government addressed to Russia, finally marked a substantial shift in the relations on the global political scene. Russian military action against IS in Syria, about which Russia informed its US partner in advance, not only restrained USA geopolitical influence in the Middle East but marked the birth of the new “reality of power” in the world.
With the decisive action in Syria against IS, Russia has firmly manifested its “red line”, because this time words or diplomatic statements were backed by a very concrete and powerful military action by means of air and sea. It was more than obvious that the Western USA led coalition understood the message immediately. But, does this mean that the Anglo-American elite accustomed to being the “world sheriff” will so easily give up their idea of complete world dominance? It is irrational to expect such a transformation by the Atlanticists who simply do not have the mental capacity to accept the new geopolitical reality despite being aware of their momentary military inferiority. It is exactly their reluctance to give up plans for endless world supremacy that drives mankind towards the danger of a global nuclear war, or to the so called “end of the world”.
The new deal on Syria between Russia and the USA is a sign of Washington’s weakness, but it does not mean that the US has essentially adjusted to the new reality. In his last annual address to Congress, American president Obama described as merely “rhetoric” the rumors of "enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker." He stressed that the United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth, spending more on their military than the next eight nations combined. This attitude is a logical continuation of his claim from March 2014, when he dismissed Russia as a “regional power” that did not pose a leading security threat to the United States. While at the nuclear security summit at the Hague, Obama also warned that “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength but out of weakness." In these words, he strove to undermine the idea that Russia is America’s biggest geopolitical foe.
If that is true, then why did the Pentagon recently announce plans to spend $3.4 billion in Europe next year, up from $789 million in the current budget? While several countries in the region expressed support, some firmly oppose the increased US military presence because, indeed, such a "non-existent" threat from Russia is being used as a pretext to increase defense spending for Europe. The US has been hyping up this new threat posed by Russia ever since it fomented the coup in Ukraine. At the same time, the United States European Command (EUCOM) said that deterring Russia was its top priority in Europe. This was stated in in its new strategic documents published on the EUCOM website. The document also says that Russia challenges the US's allies and partners around the world, which is a global problem. To restrain Russia, the American military suggests refocusing the US' military priorities in its NATO activities from operations in other world regions back to Europe. In addition, they have planned to strengthen the NATO Eastern European wing, bilateral cooperation with these countries and the US, and facilitating NATO's adoption of eastern European countries that are not yet included in the Alliance. NATO and EUCOM are planning a new military operation near the Russian border, could possibly develop into an armed conflict with Russia.
This is the most probably reason why the French government proposed a bill that seeks to fully reintegrate France into NATO without any kind of public announcement, thus abandoning De Gaulle's legacy of independent military policy which understood that NATO was dominated by the United States and Britain.
Even Mr. Henry Kissinger, who pretends to be a longtime friend of Russia, in his commentary in favor of stronger cooperation between USA and Russia, could not avoid subjectivity: “The initial hopes that the close cooperation in the early phases of the campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan might lead to partnership on a broader range of issues weakened in the vortex of disputes over Middle East policy, and then collapsed with the Russian military moves in the Caucasus in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014.” He actually blamed Russia for “the mounting sense of estrangement”, forgetting who really created all hot spots in the world and for what purpose.
All this shows that it is almost impossible for the Atlanticists to transform their mindset and begin perceiving Russia as a serious partner, not just as an object to be conquered.
On the other hand, the statement made by James R. Clapper, Director of the USA National Intelligence, demonstrates the official vision of the changing world according to the Atlanticist pole. At the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, he said that “Russia has demonstrated its military capabilities to project itself as a global power, command respect from the West, maintain domestic support for the regime, and advance Russian interests globally”.
So, is Russia a regional or a global power? If the parameter is to have 200 hundred military bases around the world, or to produce violent “colored” revolutions and chaos in many countries in order to introduce so called “democratization”, indeed to enslave them economically and politically, then obviously Russia is not a global power.
But, since September 30th, Russia became a number one influential geopolitical player striving to lead the world down the right path for humanity, which is supported by Russia's military and spiritual strength.
When Russia first became actively involved in Syria, Westerners were inexplicably paralyzed when the information was leaked that Russia possesses a very powerful weapon which can block all electronic devices and disable the enemy's communications within a diameter of 600 km. Experts say it will take ten years for the West to develop a similar kind of a military capacity. But after the first non- reaction, the Atlanticists started their well known strategy , i.e., extracting the best for them even when they are defeated, as has been the case in Syria. Beside, Russia didn’t play the card of dominance. Indeed, Russian president Vladimir Putin stated that Russia's goal in Syria is not geopolitical or displaying military might, but rather fighting IS as a security threat for Russia and protecting Russian security and national interests. He repeated that Russia wants to resolve all disputes through dialogue with the world partners.
But, it looks like all we have is a “dialogue with the deaf”, because the Atlanticists have been pursuing their own agenda to transform a loss into an advantage, augmenting the chaos not only in the Middle Eastern region, but in Europe too.
There is much, not-so-hopeful evidence that global military conflict cannot be avoided insofar as the Atlanticists will continue to play such dirty games in the world, as they have only one rule: "it will be like we want it to be, or nothing else." This shows their narrow mind capacity when it comes to being able to accept the balance of power sharing in the new, multipolar world environment. There is, however, one big "but." In the near future, someone else will lead the game, and her name is Russia.