A global conflict is underway. It proceeds surreptitiously, step by step, by doses, like a poison. From one episode to the next, it gets worse. It is not yet a full-scale war, but it is approaching it at an accelerating pace. Eventually, the possibility of a world war involving direct military confrontation between large-scale belligerents looms large. This is a far cry from the legend of perpetual peace, the “peace dividend”, the “end of history” and happy globalization spread by propaganda in the wake of the dismantling of the USSR, the end of the Cold War, the installation of American unipolarity and the euphoric triumph of Western, neoliberal, globalizing capitalism. And the world is moving further away from it every day. Vitiated from the outset, the fake utopia is turning into a real dystopia. Fearsome perils lie in wait for humanity. How did we get from the artificial paradise and childlike naiveté of the 1990s to today’s heavy atmosphere of insecurity and premonition of doom? What are the real stakes in the confused and perilous period we are living through on the international scene? What is the exact nature of the current global conflict?
The dismantling of the USSR was an unhoped-for windfall for Western capitalism. Not only was the counter-model dropping its flag, thus releasing the ideological and political pressure it exerted, but the USSR’s immense territory and its fabulous natural resources were now available to adventurers of all stripes, both local and international. The hegemony of the West and its capitalism overcame – not without costs and challenges, but with success – the most formidable test in its history. The United States, dominant since 1945, had been unable to establish complete supremacy because a third of the world was beyond its control. The collapse of the socialist bloc and the consequent weakening of the South finally opened up the prospect of global imperialism extending to the whole world. This was American-centric globalization, promoted at the time with great insistence and a wide array of means as the road to happiness for mankind. All that remained was for the rest of the world to accept it. This was no easy task. Consented to by some, especially in the upper echelons of Northern societies (Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia-New Zealand), a kind of transatlantic/transnational bourgeoisie that gains from it, it was not automatically welcomed in other spheres of society or in the South. The sequence unfolded in three stages.
The loss of sovereignty
First, sovereignty was to be relinquished in favor of the international market and the American hegemon. The new order had to be imposed by force and diktat. Misleadingly, it was labelled a “process of global transition to democracy”. From 1990 onwards, a series of wars, destabilizations and regime change operations began to bring weaker but recalcitrant countries to their knees: Iraq (since 1990 – ), Serbia (1992-1998), Venezuela (1999 – ), Libya (2011), Syria (2011 until today), including the encirclement of Russia by NATO expansion, the occupation of Afghanistan and the successful or failed “color revolutions” in Georgia, Armenia, Serbia, Iran, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. As far as China is concerned, the multiplication of hostile military pacts accompanied the “color revolution” in Hong Kong in 2019-2020 (and in Bangla Desh in August 2024), the unrest in Myanmar around the Rohingyas in 2017 and the destabilization of strategic Xinjiang (Sinkiang) under the guise of support for the Uyghurs.
A “toolbox” was put together: formation of coalitions of allies/vassals under the aegis of the United States, the instrumentalization of the UN whenever possible, unleashing of the Western mainstream media playing their role as a megaphone of power, pretensions to set the United States up as judge, disinformation, demagogy, demonization, interference through local relays (local elites, “pro-democracy” NGOs, “human rights activists”, organized and financed from outside), large-scale disorder to set the stage for coups d’état by proxies (jihadists, neo-Nazis, far-right groups), military attacks, invasions.
In its quest for world domination, the “only superpower” went on the offensive. Believing conditions to be favorable following the demise of the USSR, it shook up the structures that stood in its way, becoming the number one troublemaker on the international scene and a major factor in instability. Ignoring international law, it appropriated the prerogative of imposing on the world a “rules-based order”, with “rules” laid down by itself to suit its needs. Such rules applied without any concern for uniformity. An outcry followed Georgia’s recent decision to require registration of foreign agents on its soil. Its alleged fault was that it copied a Russian law. Unmentioned was the fact that this Russian law merely copied similar Western laws.
While the neoconservatives called for aggression and conquest anywhere and everywhere, expansionist adventures followed one another and endless wars proliferated. U.S. policy mirrored Israel’s policy of permanent war, and the neocons’ link with Israel was hardly concealed. In its hubris of power, the United States did as it pleased, unilaterally and with impunity, claiming to possess the status of an exceptional and indispensable country. The aim was to bring the target countries under US tutelage. But this proved more difficult than expected, and the failures were often complete (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Kazakhstan). The United States sometimes had to withdraw embarrassingly (Iraq, Afghanistan), leaving behind only the destruction, ruins, mess, desolation and chaos it had sown, countries with mortgaged futures, and hotbeds of extremism and terrorism. Libya is a prime example.
The short-lived triumph of US imperialism (1990-2008)
Second, the breaches made in fragmented sovereignties rendered possible an American-centric globalization of an imperialist character, based on the pumping out of the world’s wealth for the benefit of the United States, mainly, but also of other Western countries (see below on the privilege of the dollar). Such a system is hierarchical, with the United States at the top, controlling finances through the imposition of the dollar as the de facto reserve currency. This allows the United States to issue money freely and at no cost, while sucking in global capital flows that would otherwise have avoided such an unbalanced economy. With these huge masses of currency, it buys goods from abroad. Living like rentiers because they are not productive, fattening themselves at the expense of others through transfers in their favor, they exchange funny money, backed by nothing other than “confidence” in themselves, for real goods.
Despite exporting some products from the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, GAFAM, aerospace and the oil and gas industries, their trade deficit is bottomless ($773 billion in 2023) and would bring down a normal currency, backed by proven production. But the United States gets away with it thanks to the privilege of the dollar. Sitting at the top of the globalized economic hierarchy, it controls it through monetary and financial levers, not through productive capacities. It is the primary beneficiary of globalization. This system constitutes the purest and most universal form of imperialism the world has ever known (see Samir Saul – L’impérialisme, passé et présent. Un essai, Paris, Les Indes savantes, 2023).
With production offshored to low-cost countries, the US economy is largely financialized and parasitic, exchanging little or no value for the value it acquires from abroad. The best sources of profit are “financial engineering”, speculation, paper transactions, stock market operations, “bubbles”, oligopolistic monopolies and so on. Enrichment is rapid and mind-boggling, as it is external to any productive system and based on purely accounting operations. All rests on runaway indebtedness. Facility makes exhilaration, overheating and excesses inevitable.
The result in 2008 was the most serious economic crisis since the Depression of the 1930s, with repercussions across the globe, now integrated into American-centric globalization. The exacerbation of inequalities between nations and within societies in both North and South was clearly visible. American domination lost all legitimacy if it ever had any. It was the end of the party and the beginning of awareness of its risks and drawbacks. American-centric globalization was on the wane. Ideas such as deglobalization and de-dollarization were no longer unthinkable. They rapidly gained ground in the wake of the “sanctions” imposed on Russia in 2022 and, even more so, their failure. The proof was in the pudding that life was possible without globalization and the dollar. The arguments provided to urge submission to the United States fade. Nations reclaimed spaces they had lost (see Michel Seymour – Nation et autodétermination au xxie siècle, Montréal, PUM, 2024).
US imperialism challenged, war spreading (2008- )
Third, the evolution of the global economy runs counter to globalized imperialism. This hierarchical system presupposes the subordination of non-US economies and the permanent siphoning off of their wealth. Such a situation is unsustainable, insofar as the development of production in non-Western countries strengthens them and provides them with a base from which to better defend their interests. For the first time in half a millennium, productive capacity, productivity, dynamism and growth are shifting from the West to the rest of the world, particularly Eurasia. The non-Western world is in the real economy, while the West is now only in finance and “services”. Those who produce aspire to free themselves from those who skim off their production and to take charge of their own affairs. In particular, major countries such as China and Russia are rising up and making their refusal of American hegemony heard. This is why the United States calls them “revisionists”. As early as 2007, Putin broke with orthodoxy by criticizing unipolarity and advocating a multipolar world – a heresy from the American point of view.
Left to itself, this economic and political evolution would put a natural end to American hegemony. It is precisely in order to impede the course of history by any means necessary that the United States is stepping up its aggressive behavior. It is no longer a question of extolling the virtues of globalization, Americanization or “post-national” homogenization; that spell is broken. Neither is it a matter of programs or plans for society; there’s nothing to propose. At stake here is, crudely and mundanely, the existence of a system and its perpetuation, like it or not. The United States has four instruments at its disposal: military force, local relays and accessories, the dollar (“paper”) and monolithic propaganda that disguises reality, hammers nonstop the official truth and imprisons people in a parallel world of chimeras and dogmas (a Hollywood factory of “narratives”, ready-made clips and publicity stunts). The function of this last weapon is to keep public opinion in a state of consent, daze, suspension of mental faculties, irrationality and raw emotionalism, even Pavlov-like reflexes.
It’s no longer only a question of extending the sphere of imperialism (or American-centric globalization), as it was during the 1990s and 2000s, but of warding off its dislocation. Accustomed for five centuries to dominating, imposing itself and getting its way, the West cannot conceive that this historically transitory situation could run its course. The protesters are not rivals, replacements or ideological challenges; they are simply seeking to free themselves from Western domination and the economic drain it imposes on them. But the West cannot even tolerate the mere fact that others may not be subservient to it. It is true that any successful resistance can spread and unravel the system. That is why China and Russia are such a source of worry: not because they threaten the United States, but because they have more means of defending themselves than the countries that suffered U.S. attacks in the post-Cold War era.
The hegemonic power is therefore extending its field of action and turning to wars against “peers”, with less emphasis on the “asymmetrical” colonial aggressions typical of recent decades. With Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons acting as a deterrent, direct warfare cannot be the first option. The United States and its NATO extension are counting on hybrid wars and their panoply of indirect methods used against weaker countries: ideological penetration, internal unrest, destabilization, economic warfare, regime change, proxy wars (yesterday Iraq against Iran, today Ukraine and Europe against Russia, tomorrow Taiwan and Pacific “allies” against China), etc. Starting gradually, this phase has been fully underway since 2022. It certainly does not rule out a direct NATO/Eurasia confrontation, and may even lead to one. That is why the global situation is fraught with danger. The United States is preparing for it (see the July 2024 report of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy). Because they are threatened, Russia and China are reacting in a variety of ways.
War of “values”, inter-imperialist war or war for or against the maintenance of US imperialism?
There are three interpretations of the global conflict, each explaining it in its own way.
The official US, NATO and Western line is that this is a “civilizational” confrontation for “values”, specifically for “democracy” and against “dictatorships”. Its source is Mike Pompeo, CIA director under Trump. It is repeated at every opportunity to justify US policy and to condemn the countries it targets. It is false and, like all propaganda, it is simple, even simplistic.
By dint of believing in the superiority of our civilization, the doctrine of the “clash of civilizations” can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Its influence lies in the fact that it has taken root in people’s minds in the triple form of Islamophobia, Russophobia and Sinophobia. American superiority is said to go hand in hand with the superiority of the West, and it achieves this through the supremacy that this civilization confers on individual rights, democracy and the rule of law. The empire constantly uses this alibi to justify its bid for world domination.
However, international relations and geopolitics are a complex universe of profound inequalities, large more or less abstract groupings, multiplicity of players, usually hidden interests, state imperatives, cold calculations and anonymous and often opaque power relations. Their function is to safeguard peace and achieve security, if necessary through compromise and accommodation, not to decide between Good and Evil, or to unleash crusades and holy wars. Morality is rarely part of international relations; amorality is not absent; norms may not be respected; the law may be flouted, most often by the strongest.
Rapprochements and conflicts reflect interests, and are distinct from morality, religion, ideology or the nature of regimes. Countries with similar systems may clash for reasons of divergent interests; this has been the case most of the time in history. Countries with dissimilar systems can come together for mutual benefit or against a common enemy. How else to explain the alliance between the capitalist West and the socialist USSR during the Second World War, given that their regimes inveighed against each other before and then again after 1945?
The public finds it hard to find its way in Realpolitik, which is different from national politics or everyday life, and nothing is done to make it easier – quite the contrary. International relations appear to be a formidable jumble, indecipherable, foggy and devoid of meaning, because they are presented as spontaneous events with no historical origins. The citizen is at the mercy of gross manipulation, distorting personalization of international relations and childish fables about “good guys” and “bad guys”. Supporting US international policy because of dislike of a particular regime or leader is to confuse everything and fall for American propaganda. Approving regimes and leaders is not required to recognize that countries are entitled to security and respect for their sovereignty, whether one likes their regimes or not. Internal “governance” and international relations are different matters. It is up to the populations concerned, not foreign countries and actors, to deal with regimes.
Like all countries, especially the great powers, the United States has only one aim in its foreign policy: to consolidate and promote its interests. It positions itself towards others according to their policies, not according to the nature of their regimes, the complexion of their governments or the orientation of their domestic policies. All that is called for is alignment with US policies, openness to US economic interests and compliance with US directives. These are the only criteria (“with us or against us”). The United States confronts Russia and China because they are not subservient to it, not because of their regimes, which were not obstacles before the rise of these two powers.
If countries line up behind the imperial power, everything is permitted to them internally, and they will not be heard from. But if they do not, or not sufficiently, any peccadillo, the slightest flaw, gives rise to a well-orchestrated campaign of denunciation, paving the way for interference in their internal affairs and attempts at destabilization. They are vilified for their lack of “democracy”, “human rights” and other sins, even though the submissive, indistinguishable from them, escape castigation. Without any change in their behavior, rulers are deemed acceptable when they are useful, then demonized as “dictators” when they cease to be so. Saddam Hussein is a case in point. As for Gaddafi, he was at the Élysée Palace in December 2007, but overthrown and assassinated in October 2011. Finally, Bashar al-Assad was also received at the Élysée Palace in July 2008 and December 2010, but declared unworthy of being on earth by the French Foreign Minister in August 2012. Is it necessary to list the dictatorships that the United States supported throughout its history? Because they were accommodating to US interests, they were spared scrutiny.
Like all imperialist states before it, the United States, even supposing that it is internally democratic, has no interest in spreading or promoting democracy. Democracy is antithetical to imperialism, and the people who live under it would sooner or later use democracy to put an end to imperialist tutelage. Dictatorships, oligarchies, traditional powers and corrupt regimes are better, because they are dependent on imperialism. The official discourse on democracy is thus purely produced for internal use: to neutralize any possible opposition of Western public opinion against expansionist ventures by making them believe that these ventures have a respectable and noble purpose. In accordance with the zeitgeist, imperialism wears the mask of progress and moral superiority. The pretense of democracy, human rights and humanitarian concern is just an update of the old use of Christianity as a justification for colonization.
Another interpretation, held by a minority, is that all great powers are imperialists, vying to establish their hegemony. They are therefore “all the same” and equally reprehensible. Some invoke Lenin and his analysis of the inter-imperialist character of the First World War. As a capitalist power, Russia would be just as wrong in Ukraine as the United States. Moreover, confusion between the internal features of a country and its external relations leads to a perception of Russia’s and China’s foreign policies based only on an assessment of their internal regimes, in this case negative.
This interpretation is mistaken because it is detached from history and reality. Lenin’s thesis was relevant for his time, but the global situation has changed greatly, and this must be taken into account. 2024 is not 1914. The U.S.-Russia-China confrontation is not between powers in the same situation or sharing a similar status. They are not rivals. The United States is the global imperialist hegemon which, until recently, had Russia and China under its thumb. The latter are striving to break away from this grip by strengthening their sovereignty.
Russia and China are not about to dominate the world as Germany was set to do in 1914, let alone through war. Russia does not have the economic weight to be a hegemon, and China does not need war, as it is already successfully sailing towards economic primacy. Only the United States has an interest in provoking conflict, as the ultimate means of perpetuating itself by derailing a natural evolution that would put an end to its hegemony. Unable to compete, it pursues a strictly negative and destructive policy, based on the rationale that the chaos it wreaks will leave it victorious by default. Finally, neither Russia nor China proselytize or try to impose their system or ideology, unlike the United States. Relationships with them are internationally defined, and do not require the acceptance of preconditions, inner changes or self-denial.
There is no inter-imperialist conflict because China, although a major economic power, is not imperialist; it does not extract wealth from abroad by coercive means. If China is not an imperialist today, could it become one along the pattern of the Western powers? This is neither predetermined nor excluded, and no one can predict the future. The question remains open. Potentially, China could become imperialistic; at present, it is not. What is certain is that, regardless of the nature of their regimes or even their intentions, Russia and China are doing a service now by thwarting the United States, undoubtedly imperialist in the present. By helping to loosen the U.S. stranglehold on the world, they are enabling it to regain margins of independence and reorganize itself. It is up to it to take advantage of this opportunity. It is a breath of fresh air, regardless of what comes next.
The United States has some 750 military bases in over 80 countries, while China’s and Russia’s military bases can be counted on the fingers of one hand. It has troops in nearly 170 countries, while Russia has only the Wagner Group in Africa. The Americans spend $900 billion a year on their military-industrial complex. That is more than the next ten countries put together, and far more than Russia, which spends $60 billion a year. American weapons are deployed offensively abroad, while Russian and Chinese weapons are deployed defensively on their own territories. The Americans have intervened militarily 250 times in the world since 1991, while China’s last and most rare external intervention dates back to 1979, and Russia has intervened three or four times, each time at the request of a sovereign state (Syria) or the self-proclaimed states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine. The United States has imposed “sanctions” on 40 countries representing a third of the world’s population, while Russia and China are victims of those “sanctions”.
There remains a third interpretation, the most explanatory of the global conflict. The main issue now is whether or not the United States will succeed in bringing down Russia and China in order to prolong the life of its imperialism. The American dream is to bring about their collapse without having to fight, but direct war is not off the table. For the world, the choice is between an imperialist status quo imposed by force, or its relaxation through a successful defense of historical evolution. A close look at the course of events and the removal of the distorting lenses of propaganda are enough to grasp the meaning of the current phase. The problem facing the population has nothing to do with “values”, “democracy”, “dictatorships”, the “inter-imperialist struggle” or any other schema plastered over reality. It boils down to a single question: to support the continuation of US imperialism, or to help ending it.