Many U.S. partners are realizing it is not trustworthy.
Written by Paul Antonopoulos, independent geopolitical analyst
U.S. global dominant power is in terminal decline. This of course does not mean that the U.S. will cease being a superpower, but it is no longer the sole Great Power of the world and no longer wields the global influence it once did. This is reflected with the immense failure of U.S. policies all across the world, whether it be wasting 20 years in Afghanistan for nought, failure to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad through proxy forces, or even remove the likes of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro through sanctions and embargoes.
Considering the many failures of U.S. foreign policy since the turn of the millennium, it makes it all the more curious that Washington continues to betray its so-called allies and partners despite trying to maintain its global hegemon status. Many of these betrayals are because of its own commercial interests, breaking deals and rules that were actually counter-productive for themselves, as well as simply not having the capabilities or will to deliver on their promises.
It is recalled that in 2008, President George W. Bush campaigned for offering a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008. However, Germany and France said that such an offer would be “an unnecessary offence” for Russia, recognizing that the Caucasus falls within Moscow’s sphere of influence. Despite this reality check from Europe, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili felt so confident in his partnership with the U.S. that on August 1, 2008 he launched a war against Russian passport holders in South Ossetia, a territory that has been exercising its independence from Georgia since 1992.
Not only had the Georgian military operation spectacularly failed after the Russian military intervened, but the U.S. were completely unwilling to militarily support Georgia despite encouraging the country to take on an anti-Russia policy and reclaim South Ossetia. The 2008 South Ossetia War was the first signal since the collapse of the Soviet Union that the U.S.-led unipolar world was breaking down and being replaced with a multipolar system. The U.S. could only watch and do nothing in South Ossetia as Russia reasserted its power over its traditional sphere of influence.
In 2008, the U.S. military had already been in Afghanistan for seven years and Iraq for five. It suggests that Georgia was one flashpoint to many in an already overstretched global military system. Washington was of course all the more frustrated that the overwhelming majority of European allies opposed the reckless invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as disapproving Georgia’s and Ukraine’s ascendency into NATO.
It is this very realization that many in Europe would not simply bow to U.S. demands that made policymakers in Washington become more reactive in their strategic planning, and several countries have fallen into this trap. In one example, India joined the U.S., Japan and Australia in the QUAD formation to oppose China across the Indo-Pacific region. However, in April this year, a U.S. destroyer unapologetically sailed through India’s Exclusive Economic Zone without approval from New Delhi and in violation of Indian law, thus once again demonstrating American indemnity for its so-called allies.
However, the biggest indicator that the U.S. is having a change of ideology with complete indemnity for its traditional allies is the manner that AUKUS, a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S., was announced on September 15. Not only was France not notified about AUKUS prior to its announcement, but it lost a €56 billion submarine contract with Australia and forced adjustments to its Pacific policy that was many years in the making and partially hinged on close relations with Canberra.
French President Emmanuel Macron was outraged by what his foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian described as a “stab in the back.” It was certainly a stab in the back as the U.S. consolidated an Anglo alliance. Washington certainly sees the value in NATO if it can control it. However, the U.S. no longer has control over many NATO members, thus effectively rendering the organization redundant. It is for this reason that AUKUS is intended to be the U.S.’ premier military alliance as it descends into Anglo identarian chauvinism alongside a so-called “Global Britain” and an Australia founded by British penal colonists.
It is also for this reason that even Greece, a country fully consolidated into NATO since 1952, now distrusts the bloc for its security that it signed a defence pact with France in late September. This will be the first steps of a Paris seeking greater pan-European integration and independence from U.S. domination. For the French, the AUKUS debacle was the final slight it would tolerate from the Anglo World before embarking on a European project, beginning with the defence pact with Greece.
Greece, along with other European countries, also suffered from AUKUS as their companies were due to participate in the Australian submarine project. The realization that Washington preferred to engage in identity politics with fellow Anglo countries instead of traditional allies like France, who secured American independence from the British, was a realization for a lot of Europe. However, this should not have been a surprise since Washington has a long history of backstabbing allies, whether it be the Kurds in Syria, foolishly encouraging Georgia to provoke South Ossetia, abandoning Afghan government and partners and leaving them to Taliban’s mercy, ignoring Ukraine’s pleas to stop Nord Stream 2, violating Indian maritime space or backstabbing France. These are just but a very few examples of the U.S. betraying its allies, and it will only continue as Washington places its trust in only the UK and Australia, while hoping other allies and partners will continue serving their interests.