The post seeks to explain the postmodern developments of American imperialism. It was originally made in Portuguese, transcribed to English quickly with Google Translate and I tried to fix all grammatical errors I could find. Many people come to this subreddit asking about this or that specific country. As such, I hope this post will be useful in answering such questions.
The major contradiction that surrounds the globe is that of American imperialism and the most diverse manifestations of anti-imperialism and counter-imperialism. The death of the USSR over a convulsion of multinational neoliberalism created the conditions for US neoliberal momentum and the submission of the globe to its will.
In Yugoslavia, the last bastion of European socialism (Portugal's '' socialists '' make us laugh at their austerity) was consumed by German-funded nationalist barbarism (with an interest in Croatia, Slovenia and its possibilities for projection into Eastern Europe) and American. The IMF's loans to Yugoslavia, as always, demanded neoliberal reforms which, to the dissatisfaction of such organizations, Tito and Milosevic only submitted to. A false image of the Serbs as mass rapists is created, sparing Croatian crimes; of Bosnia and Kosovars of media attention. Eventually, Yugoslavia is dismantled in a sinister threat to Russia. A puppet state for American interests is created in Kosovo, the extraction of mineral resources included on that program. Montenegro and Serbia gradually leave Russia's orbit (the former more than the latter) creating a tense geopolitical scenario.
The oil crisis in the 20th century proved to be the Bush administration's biggest concern, it planning invasions against Saddam Hussein and the Taliban even before 9/11. Saudi Arabia had become too big, too ambitious to be controlled by the United States. It financed Islamist terrorism and Wahhabi institutions around the world in a rejection of Westernist principles. The importance of Saudi Arabia for the free movement of oil, as well as its collaboration on many issues of international politics and the purchase of American weapons, prevented any possibility of extensive publication of these findings, even when the financing of Al Qaeda by the Al-Saud and assistance with its state intelligence culminated in 9/11. However, the ignorance of the American public could be exploited from the trauma of Al-Qaeda to "" fight terrorism and the nations that shelter it "" in a relatively disconnected way with 9/11.
In Iraq, Dick Cheney and other neocons were exhausted from Saddam Hussein's use of oil as a bargaining chip. By turning on and off the taps of black gold to erratically, crude oil prices threatened to rise, against the interests of refineries across the globe and possibly creating a global energy crisis (Iraq's oil importance cannot be underestimated, it is considered by some analysts greater than Saudi Arabia). The invasion of Iraq was not exactly aimed at the extraction of these oil resources by the imperial powers, although this was an important bonus that motivated the participation of the United Kingdom, but simply to put that oil in motion. China and Russia would soon take some of the pie with their state-owned companies, something not ideal but acceptable in the context of American interests.
In Afghanistan, a progressive socialist revolution with feminist characteristics was stifled in the Cold War with a blackest reaction supported by the USA. It did not interest the pastoralists and the old elites in Afghanistan the programs of the Sardur revolution and the United States gave moral support; financial and military support to their counter-revolution efforts. Afghanistan was not a Soviet republic, but it was part of its sphere of influence, hence the importance of fighting Afghanistan together with the vassals of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, interested in Sunni uprisings. China has also financed opposition groups in its sad but understandable policy to combat Kruschevian revisionism. Eventually, Afghanistan was dominated by the Taliban and their female genital mutilation; destruction of Western icons (including a Greek heritage in Afghanistan until then) and a ban on music. The Taliban was only fought at the moment that it no longer collaborated with the US in the construction by USATCO of an oil pipeline starting in Uzbekistan and passing through Afghanistan, requiring intervention. Officially, the Taliban was hunted for cooperation with al Qaeda, which was real.
In Somalia, a war was declared on one of Somalia's first stable governments in the 21st century: the ICU, for its Islamist features. Thanks to its wealth of resources such as uranium and oil as well as its connection to the Gulf of Aden where much of the world's oil came from, Somalia has always been imperialized by the IMF and NATO. The local fishing industry has been destroyed both by radioactive waste dumped by European companies in the water and by the massive technological scale extraction of fish by foreign companies within Somalia's territorial waters.
Not all war is war properly said. Professor Gene Sharp's manuals created a guide on how to use civilian demonstrations, strikes and boycotts in the service of the CIA. The best example was the US incentive to the Cedar Revolution, a series of protests in Lebanon that put an end to the Syrian occupation, resulting from civil wars between religious and ethnic groups. Both Syria and Iraq were pan-Arabists, that is, they aimed at uniting all Arab nations in a single country, countries cut in half by the state of Israel. Secular and socialist pan-Arabism posed an obvious threat to the strategic interests of the United States and its allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, hence the opposition to Syria that would later become war. Note that there is no proletarian dictatorship in Syria and '' socialism '' means in practice a greater social democracy in intensity than in the West.
The Bush wars have claimed many lives, innocent or 'combatants', destroying the infrastructure of these countries and creating political instability. NATO's imperialist policy not only achieves its strategic objectives, it also destroys recipient countries. This is partly intentional, like negligent homicide. The destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan and, as we shall see, in Libya made possible both an initial expansion of the military-industrial complex that influences policy in the USA and reconstruction contracts that created inflationary cycles (that is, monetary expansion) that were taken advantage of by USA. They destroy and then rebuild, both phases of the capitalist process of avoiding contraction cycles by expanding the outside world.
One of the reasons that American imperialism went into crisis was that it went too far. The destruction of Yugoslavia, the creation of new oil routes in Afghanistan that deviated from Russia (on which the first world countries were highly dependent), oil penetration in Central Asia, the financing of anti-Russian politicians in Georgia and Ukraine...again and again the US has abused the world's second largest military power at its weakest moment. This context explains how Vladimir Putin came to power, a right-wing ultranationalist ready to recover Russia's strength not as a stronghold of socialism but as an imperialist force that falls short of the USA, at the taste of the domestic bourgeoisie. As a message, he invaded Georgia who planned to become a NATO member. Russia's recovery would have great implications for all of Eurasia, as we all know from the screams of the media and the heightening of tensions in Ukraine, always in the same West vs. East paradigm.
Belarus recently entered the Russia-US dispute. With a largely state-owned economy that never underwent neoliberal shock therapies (despite the lack of retirement among other capitalist aspects) and in Russia's sphere of influence, the relationship between the two degenerated by Lukansheko's resistance to Putin's attempts at absorption in a Union State, looking for new energy sources in Norway. This new vulnerability in Belarus was exploited by the imperialists through the traditional method of "promoting democracy" and Russian paramilitaries are known to be watching the situation.
Although the United States is not very directly involved, one cannot speak of Russia's geopolitics without mentioning the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which ended today (?) and lasted 45 days. But frankly, this issue is too complex for me. I will leave a link that I found useful: https://geohistory.today/nagorno-karabakh/#:~:text=The%20Republic%20of%20Nagorno%2DKarabakh,Azerbaijan%20that%20lasted%20until%201994
Another country the United States has abused the patience of is China. The protests in Tiannamen Square were largely promoted by private charities associated with the West, and were harshly repressed by Deng Xiaoping. Thereafter, the terrorist-buying state of Turkey provided support to separatist Islamist terrorists in Xinjiang, a region of traditionally Turkish and Islamic China. The United States had previously provided assistance to the Tibetan insurgency under Mao, and continued to provide moral and religious support through its institutions. The US strategy with China was to dismember its diverse ethnicities into separate and enemy territories so that it will not be able to project itself geographically across Eurasia, unifying Tibetan separatisms; Mongolians; Uighurs and Hong Kong. Most recently, the US is attemping to force a color revolution in Thailand. Admitting this is no defense of the Thai monarchy but an understanding of its commercial relationship with the U.S and how installing a regime favourable to the West would be a strike against China. The U.S has also pitied Vietnam and China against each other whenever possible.
Like Russia, China has not been shaken by these attempts and has extended its economic and military dominance across the globe. The strong Chinese state-owned industry challenged the neoliberal models of growth and, through a policy based on non-interference in domestic affairs that contrasted with US imperialism, China attracted dozens of peripheral countries to its attention. Thus, we must understand the preference for China as a conscious rejection of the USA. The unified front between China and Russia represents the greatest challenge to the USA in modernity.
The endless wars of the USA could not be sustained indefinitely, requiring endless loans from the most diverse countries. Eventually, the irrationalism of bankers typical of neoliberalism created the crisis of 2008, with a deficit that required more loans and, consequently, more debt and more deficit. Income inequality has exploded. It was under these conditions that Barack Obama was elected, promising to resolve the insoluble contradictions of American imperialism on a progressive paradigm.
Obama did not comply with any of these proposals and in fact expanded the scope of the war beyond Bush, killing more people with drones. It is important to note that the war in Afghanistan was not over yet and Osama was not captured. It was in this context that Obama decided to replace soldiers with automatic drones that were supposed to promise fewer civilian deaths, and expanded the war to Pakistan to fight another Taliban front.
But the drones were more useful for saving the lives of American soldiers (which was probably the intention) than for Pakistanis and Afghans. Death from heaven created trauma for the local population, who avoided going to weddings because of the constant errors in recognition of drones. As stated, the US wars may not literally target the killing of civilians, but they are negligent in causing them.
Expanding the war in Afghanistan would not be enough and Obama declared three completely new wars: that of Libya, Yemen and Syria.
Libya had long been a stumbling block in the US. Allied to the USSR while it existed, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi had an anti-imperialist and socialist program of a similar nature to the one I described from Syria, that is, more of an intense social democracy than a dictatorship of the proletariat. Gaddafi also sought to overcome the tribalisms that divided Libya and harmful traditions such as the prohibition of divorce, by greatly expanding women's rights. Gaddafi criticized the democratic models of the West and proposed a controversial new model of direct democracy, Jamarihya. Regardless of the reservations that the reader has with this method, he was certainly more democratic than the Sunni Islamic terrorism that the United States financed in order to destroy this bastion of resistance to the Empire, consuming Libya in a civil war horrible enough for Obama to admit it as '' error '' in an abstract way. As always, European powers emerged from the air to protect oil. Gaddafi went through a phase of surrender and collaboration, dismantling his nuclear program, but he was still killed. This would serve to motivate North Korea not to abandon its nuclear program.
Practically the same thing is happening in Syria, both regarding the United States methods and in the nature of Bashar al Assad. The difference, however, lies in the support of Syria from the unified China-Russia front as well as from the regional power of iran. Only in this way has Bashar managed to stay in power. Iran is a non-secular Shiite nation that was imperialized by the United States under the Shah regime, being overthrown in Ayatollah Komeini's Islamic but anti-imperialist revolution. It is a regional power with large oil reserves and a respectable army, accused of financing the anti-Israeli group Hezbollah.
The situation in Yemen is substantially different. The Zaidi, a very significant Shiite minority in the north of the country who have a history of sovereign states in the region, threatened to expand a Shi'ite revolt over the Gulf states like Bahrain; UAE and Saudi Arabia, all marginalized economically and politically. Saudi Arabia installed a president favorable to its exploration interests, creating a spontaneous zaidi revolt that would be suppressed by the US-Arab junta. To justify the intervention, the US used the decontextualized motto of the zaidi groups of "Death to the USA, death to Israel" as a demonstration of religious extremism. Which is partially understood, but must also be understood as anti-imperialist reaction.
And that's it, folks. Does history end at Yemen? Obviously no. Yet my systematic knowledge ends here. My biggest source is The Second Cold War by Alberto Moniz.