We are witnessing the collapse of the “superpowers”.
Calm down Marvel Comics fans, I’m not talking about Chinese-American director Martin Scorsese and his bubbly lay off of the popular film franchise dominating the box office is “non-cinema” – although, I agree, it’s anti-artistic rubbish.
I am referring instead to the obsolete term that has, by now, become a stubborn fixture of geopolitical nomenclature – especially in a military context – perhaps since World War II. II ends.
Of course, by “superpowers”, I mean the “major” powers that have been transformed into “super” powers by building a huge backup nuclear arsenal in addition to amassing a large stockpile of nuclear weapons. giant conventional gas.
Here is a small list of fleeting superpowers in order, arguably, of their “superpower” status: the United States, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The quartet’s total military spending in 2020 is more than $2.3 trillion, with the US accounting for $1.93 trillion of that pause.
Let’s put China aside for a moment and consider the following question: since the beginning of the 21st century, what have the “superpowers” of the US, UK and Russia have in common militarily?
That’s right. Despite widespread and heated protests on the streets of millions of concerned citizens, not the more serious thinkers and diplomats at the United Nations – including sometimes the US, UK and Russia – the stupid axis has invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine for familiar fabricated reasons.
After being warned many times that their so-called “liberation” would turn into a self-inflicted quagmire, the leaders of the United States, Great Britain, and Russia certainly sent their mighty cavalry forward. forward with the support and encouragement of most of the complicit press in the country.
Well, the “superpowers” and the famous collection of chastised cheerleaders in plaid outfits failed. The United States and the United Kingdom were not only defeated by patient and vigorous insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but were also forced to pack up their formidable “superpower” hardware and return home – beaten. , humiliation and humiliation.
Former KGB second-rate spy and failed history student, Vladimir Putin, should have understood – given the madness of George Bush Jr and Tony Blair – that what you think happens when a “superpower” “Invasion, by comparison, a small country and what actually happened have very little in common.
Being a “superpower” is not a guarantee of victory.
Putin doesn’t have to see the imperial designs of Bush and Blair self-destruct to understand that “superpower” invasions are often unsuccessful.
All he had to remember was the disastrous nine-year erroneous adventure begun by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in December 1979 to prop up a decaying communist regime in Kabul in the face of unrelenting determination. of the local guerrillas.
Somehow, Putin forgot or misguided that instruction, leading to the superpower’s retreat and disgrace. What is even more perplexing is that instead of rejecting the ruthless arrogance of his predecessor, the Russian President accepted it by launching a pointless war in Ukraine that massacred so many innocent people.
Touching images of liberated Ukrainians hugging their country’s soldiers on the jubilant streets of Kherson is a testament to the strength of the enduring resistance to the ephemeral “superpower”.
Yet Putin still clings to the comfortable illusions of power and prestige associated with leading a long-lost superpower like a toddler clutching a blanket of security that has been lost. frayed.
It was the devout Cold War fighter, President John F Kennedy, who realized – after his disastrous decision to let the CIA lead a failed invasion of Cuba in 1961 – that being attached to The myth of the “superpower” would invite miscalculation and disaster.
“The greatest enemy of truth is often not the lie – intentional, contrived and dishonest, but myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. […] Kennedy speak during his inaugural address at Yale University on June 11, 1962—months before the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Bush, Blair and Putin believed in myths at the cost of “thought discomfort,” and the world knows the distorting consequences.
One measure of how thoughtless and powerless Russian “superpower” has become is the crazy talk of a “limited” nuclear strike on Ukraine.
I suppose the purpose was to telegraph to Kyiv, London, Berlin, Paris and Washington that Moscow not only remained the undisputed “boss” in the region, but was also ready to use A or H bombs to save his own incompetence and incompetence. the army from drunken more.
I think for all their fuss and choreographed training exercisePutin and company acknowledge that attacking Ukraine with a tactical nuclear missile would constitute an incalculable war crime. It would also be an admission of defeat to the president of a spent and bankrupt “superpower,” which, with prevailing winds, would risk contaminating itself with lethal fallout. for many decades.
Chances are, such madness will trigger a similar reaction and then the proverbial dominoes will start falling rapidly and send the rest of us into the abyss.
Meanwhile, in August, China was “outraged” by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan’s president warned the US that it was “playing with fire”.
Despite the predictable posture and the perfunctory show of force that followed, China, the “superpower,” realized the limits of its power. A stubborn invasion of Taiwan would reflect – at the cost of lives and futility – the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.
China’s calculating president, Xi Jinping, doesn’t strike me as someone attracted or moved by the fantasy of superpower invincibility.
China can bark. Unlike the US, UK and Russia, it will not bite.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of Al Jazeera.
