#us_hegemony

The Blog

As Vladimir Putin steps up his opposition to US hegemony in Syria, Ukraine and other theaters of confrontation between the powers, supporters of US global dominance demonize all their critics as supporters of Putin.

In response to the demonization, some Western dissidents are starting to focus their criticism partially on Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. Any criticism of Putin will suffice, even if it doesn't make any sense. This new behavior is based on hysteria and the intense fear of being dismissed as "apologists" for Putin. Severe punishment is already given to Western journalists for being supportive of Russia or even for being neutral on issues to do with Russia. Journalists have been fired or denied a platform even for being suspected of sympathizing with Vladimir Putin. Recently, new laws are being drafted in the United States to make anti-Russian propaganda the official editorial policy of all news media establishments. The hysteria produced by such moves is pushing some major dissident journalists and celebrities into issuing anti-Russian remarks, often with no idea what they are talking about. Because these celebrated dissidents had dedicated their lives to criticizing their own governments, not Russia, they find themselves not knowing what to say to satisfy the hysterical anti-Russian media. Take a look at the different examples below, ranging from the noblest to the most sold-out dissidents.

Snowden the Russian troll?

Other things Chairman McCaul thinks I created: famine, climate change, bieber. https://t.co/eJ8JWyDy1K

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) January 19, 2016

The noblest. The example of a Western dissident who still doesn't criticize Russia at all despite the hysteria, Edward Snowden leaked information on US illegal domestic surveillance against its entire population. He is a particularly obvious victim of demonization as a pro-Putin spy, due to being lost in transit in an airport in Moscow when the US cancelled his passport and later having no choice but to claim asylum in the Russian Federation. However, Snowden (as well as former Guardian journalist who covered Snowden's story, Glenn Greenwald) has maintained his belief that the US is the primary threat to civil liberties and human rights in the world. Not Russia - and Snowden realizes it is his prerogative as an American to criticize his own "regime" in the US rather than Vladimir Putin's government.

Assange the antiPutin?

#Assange blames #Russia for #Turkey's downing of #Russian jet https://t.co/0CM2PYFyxb pic.twitter.com/C93a6lxTC8

— Russia Insider (@RussiaInsider) December 23, 2015

Julian Assange, who is also accused of being an agent or otherwise instrument of Putin, has made some token effort to make it look like he not only criticizes the West but also Putin. He has met with members of the anti-Putin group P***y Riot, although it isn't clear that he really supports them or the dark figures at the US Capitol who made them into celebrities. Assange also confused many in the audience at a televised RT network anniversary discussion, when he claimed that Russia would definitely shoot down British warplanes if they were operating in Ukraine. This, despite the fact that Russia has not directly shot down any warplanes in Ukraine to date, including Ukrainian ones engaged in bombing pro-Russian rebel forces in Donetsk and Luhansk. Assange seemed to argue that Russia is hypocritical to condemn Turkey's shooting down of a Russian bomber aircraft in Syria, as the downing was typical of the perfidy of the Russian government itself. However, the claim is ill-considered at best and tongue-in-cheek at worst. Perhaps Assange only said it to confuse some of his own critics, who might have seen him as a Russian agent. Whatever the case, Assange's anti-Russia comment was of poor quality, and not quote-worthy material for anyone who wants to actually build a case against Putin. No political ammunition was really given by Assange for attacking Putin.

Owen Jones, the universalist leftist

@OwenJones84 It is hysterical and very cowardly to write an article like this just to escape being accused of supporting #Putin.

— L'Ordre (@LOrdreNet) January 27, 2016

Although not as extreme as the next case, Owen Jones wrote a recent shallow article in the Guardian called "Putin is a human rights abusing oligarch. The British left must speak out". Again, as with the Assange remark above, there is nothing quote-worthy in the content there for anyone who really opposes Putin. It appears to be a token article, designed less to support Putin's opponents and more to make Owen Jones look like a "good boy" who the British press will still be happy to tuck into bed. The actual content just doesn't make any sense and is a dummy case, useless to anyone who opposes Putin. Jones calls for leftists in Britain and the West in general not quite to protest against the Kremlin instead of our own government (as our next case does), but to hope for regime-change in Russia by leftists who oppose Putin. No analysis of Russian politics is given, Jones does not elaborate which "leftists" he is talking about, and the actual leftists in Russia overwhelmingly praise Vladimir Putin's record and have no desire to overthrow him. Jones did subsequently tweet something about Russia's bombing of ISIL as an example of a Russian crime to be criticized alongside Western crimes. However, Russian actions in Syria are massively different from the West in the sense of being legal and based on an indigenous request for help, which differs starkly from Western imperialism. The level of cross-party support in the Russian political spectrum for Owens' "Putin regime" is massive, and the "embattled democrats and leftists" in Russia to whom Jones is appealing don't merit mention or consideration. Even Jones admits that they are too insignificant to mention by name, insofar as he does not mention them. Moreover, serious critics of Western foreign policy know that the anti-Putin groups in Russia are all funded by the US State Department. Jones knows it would be insane for him to support those groups and also maintain his role to "criticise Western foreign policy".

Peter Tatchell, lunatic who attacks the anti-war left for not supporting Western regime-change

@PeterTatchell stop advocating a foreign war against #Syria

— L'Ordre (@LOrdreNet) December 25, 2015

The most extreme example. Even Owen Jones made a small jab at this guy in his aforementioned article, saying "there is something rather absurd about the baiting of the anti-war left for not protesting against, say, Putin or North Korea". Peter Tatchell's case is already covered by us. Read our special report on his warmongering and advocacy for "no bomb zones" which would require bombing Russians, Syrians and anyone else who gets in the West's way.

#Saudis panic as #Iran sanctions lifting threatens Saudi dominance in oil exports: @MrTopple https://t.co/xbQkDhVJWj pic.twitter.com/4tWMDVFNNK

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 27, 2016

The Blog

Covering both the fifth and sixth points in the relatively new Mont Order code, which was crafted in late 2015 for the internet age and its new forms of voluntary cooperation, the fifth commentary from L'Ordre has been made available.

Appearing at Dissident Voice, the Mont Order website and the Wave Chronicle, the written commentary talks about imperialism and national liberation movements seeking irredentism, contrasting the two sides' different ethics in international territorial disputes. According to the commentary, which represents the views of the L'Ordre accounts online and not the Mont Order society itself, the borders of states are not sacred and can indeed be legitimately changed if there are popular movements and referendums approving such changes. This, the commentary says, is what really happened between Russia and Crimea despite the protests of Washington and its allies.

Please read our earlier reports on the Mont Order code commentaries by L'Ordre: On the first point On the second point On the third point On the fourth point The fifth commentary addressing points five and six of the code can be read at an unofficial Mont Order website, lordre.net, sometimes used by Mont members to post content. The site seems to be a prime source for people researching background information on the Order, which is a subject of various paranoid suspicions and conspiracy theories among some opponents.

"There is, however, no hypocrisy in criticizing the Western powers and their allies exclusively while supporting foreign powers such as Russia, Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic. This is a very consistent position, and has to do with the difference between imperialism and national liberation."

"Today, the only power using force against civilians near Crimea is the Ukrainian central government, which rejects what it calls separatism."

"Whether or not one thinks of Russia as a democracy, the right to self-determination via a referendum like the one in Crimea is supposed to be the cornerstone in the legitimacy of a modern democratic state."

"In the audio version of the discussion this point is based on, postcolonial nationalism is deemed to be sufficiently different from imperialist nationalism and exceptionalism that it is worth all people supporting it as a form of freedom struggle."

"The answer is simply that one type of identity politics, the one driving imperialist policy and racism, is founded on the theory of superiority rather than the theory of liberation."

"People such as the Palestinians, the Kurds and the people of Kashmir have been denied their political rights for a prolonged historic period and the only possible conclusion to the territorial disputes in question can be democratic referendums."

"In respected Western media sources, we hear constant justifications of “territorial integrity” and “the right to defend itself” in territorial disputes and the suppression of national liberation struggles. Such language is designed to maintain the status quo"

L'Ordre, "Imperialists or Irredentists", Dissident Voice, 12 January 2016

Vid by @Partisangirl: US-funded #terrorists starve kids in #Madaya for propaganda pics https://t.co/GmprmujDtb pic.twitter.com/qXQkvvXLuC

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 17, 2016

The Blog

US President Obama used his recent State of the Union Address to make laughable errors, issue arrogant judgments, and offend the international community.

Obama described the theory of the US economic and strategic decline - something that Britain, the European Union, most of Asia and South America, and many leading Western economists accept to be a fact - as "hot air" from political enemies. In addition to this, Obama made rabid proclamations that the US regime is better than everyone else because it has stronger armies:

The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth, period! Period!... We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined... Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world... No nation attacks us directly or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin... people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead.

Would you believe someone who keeps saying "period"? If Obama is so sure of these statements about his country's superiority, it is strange that he feels the need to shout them out loud like Hitler. The level of contempt shown in Obama's arrogant Bush-like speech towards other countries is astonishing and should be offensive to all foreigners, not just Russian and Chinese people, who are especially degraded and cited as enemies in the speech.

To quote one character in an Isaac Asimov novel, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Everything in Obama's speech was about violence, and how America's violence is the most powerful. He wants to scare you.

Obama even made flat-out wrong and stupid statements in his speech, saying "Russia is pouring resources in to prop up Ukraine". Russia is still propping up Ukraine? Obama seems to have forgotten Ukraine's government was overthrown by the US two years ago, and now the failing Ukrainian government is being propped up him. By bragging to the whole world that his country is better than others, Obama is not only sending a signal to Russia and China that his regime is unstable and possibly delusional, but is sending a deeply negative signal to NATO allies that the US looks down on them and they are inferior.

Evil Washington #empire forced #Ukraine to drink same poison as #Libya and die https://t.co/dRda7pmtpM pic.twitter.com/QEXLknvZxp

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) January 13, 2016

The Blog

Although online polls show Bernie Sanders winning the recent Democratic Debate of Saturday 19, some media insist instead that Hillary Clinton won.

Some news correspondents and apparent experts have been claiming that Hillary Clinton won simply because she knows best about foreign policy, in particular Libya and Syria, which she helped to turn into rubble by advocating US aggression. Clinton's calls for the US to attack Russian and Syrian aircraft with a "no-fly zone" to help terrorists defend themselves in Syria particularly excited some Western journalists, along with repetitions of her arrogant judgment on behalf of Syrians that 'Assad must go'. For these bellicose remarks, journalists seem to love Clinton and have concluded that what the American people want doesn't matter. For them, Clinton must be made President so she can start new wars, attack Russia, and kill more civilians to dignify their arrogance and hegemony. At the same time, all online polls conducted show that Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won the debate, reflecting that normal Americans are tired of warmongers. Polls conducted at Time, Slate, Fox, ABC , the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal all showed Sanders winning the Democratic debate by excessive numbers of votes even by conservative viewers. These poll results only come from normal Americans, so they are worthless as as far as top media commentators close to the US regime and the Neocons in Britain and America are concerned. For them, only Neocon extremists and liars are allowed to be winners. For example, the UK's Telegraph presented two "correspondents" as judges of who won the debate, rather than bothering with any kind of online poll. After all, this is Western democracy: who cares what the people think? "Hillary Clinton was the clear winner of tonight's debate", the first said, offering a generic response with no remark on anything she had actually said; "Hillary Clinton was far more accomplished tonight", the second parroted. This may be a sign of how detached from popular opinion some media outlets are. They had handpicked the winner of a debate before spectators of the debate had even cast their votes. They have decided who must be President before any election has taken place. It's as if they were paid to say it, and they probably were. Given the fraudulent and deceitful nature of US electoral tactics, it is highly likely that Clinton will become President no matter what the people want. The election results will magically adhere to what a tiny minority of thugs and millionaires want, as always. If she has the best credentials in the eyes of major news broadcasters and weapons salesmen as a Neocon who can be counted on to start new wars and write new hit-lists, she is perfect for the White House.

Anti-#immigrant loophole in @LPNational platform addressed by @thomaslknapp https://t.co/WJSSNAkZBR pic.twitter.com/4fczmrtsje

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) December 22, 2015

The Blog

The IMF changed its rules on lending to allow lending to countries in arrears. This made it legal for the IMF, now part of the "New Cold War", to financially prop up the US-backed regime in Ukraine as a reward for its anti-Russian hatred and extremism.

Although this change has indeed annoyed the Russians as intended, they have pointed out that the International Monetary Fund will undermine itself in the long term by doing this, with top government figures making the following points.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov: IMF now faces a "timebomb" due to recklessly changing its rules to allow lending to countries with arrears, in order to prop up the Ukrainian regime

Russian Prime Minister Medvedev: after IMF rule-change, "there will be a lot of pleas from different borrower states to the IMF to grant them the same terms as Ukraine. How will the IMF possibly refuse them?"

Both quotes were used by Michael Hudson in a realist analysis of the US's and NATO's "New Cold War" against Russia and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), penned for Counterpunch on 18 December. Ukraine will never be able to pay off its debts, nor will the West be able to extract resources there, because they wage war against Ukraine's economic heartlands in the Donbass region, Hudson stated. Hudson also presented the following evidence that the US-led world order is weakening, and many national economies are now able to rebel and escape the US regime's chains of debt, austerity and torture.

"The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) threatens to replace the IMF and World Bank"

China and Russia "Moving to denominate their trade and investment in their own currencies instead of dollars"

When US threatened cut Russia from SWIFT system, "China accelerated its creation of the alternative China International Payments System (CIPS), with its own credit card system to protect Eurasian economies"

"Instead of dismantling public spending, the AIIB and a broader Eurasian economic union would do what the United States itself practices, and seek self-sufficiency in basic needs such as food, technology, banking, credit creation and monetary policy."

China and Russia "create the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an alternative to NATO, and the AIIB as an alternative to the IMF and World Bank tandem"

Richard Koo: “If the IMF’s rival is heavily under China’s influence, countries receiving its support will rebuild their economies under what is effectively Chinese guidance, increasing the likelihood they will fall directly or indirectly under that country’s influence.”

"new basic guideline for IMF lending – is to create a new Iron Curtain splitting the world into pro-U.S. economies going neoliberal, and all other economies"

"President Putin patiently refrained" from demanding immediate repayment of loans from Ukraine; "He is playing the long game"

"The broad drive against Russia, China and their prospective Eurasian allies has deteriorated into tactics without a realistic understanding of how they [the US regime] are bringing about precisely the kind of world they are seeking to prevent – a multilateral world."

"Standing above the rule of law and national interests, American neocons proclaim that their nation’s destiny is to wage war to prevent foreign secular democracy from acting in ways other than submission to U.S. diplomacy."

"U.S. geostrategists seem to have imagined that if they exclude Russia, China and other SCO and Eurasian countries from the U.S.-based financial and trade system, these countries will find themselves in the same economic box as Cuba, Iran and other countries have been isolated by sanctions."

"The more [the US supports its terrorists and its neo-Nazi pawns in the Middle East and Europe respectively] the greater the catalytic pressure is growing for the [SCO] to break free of the post-1945 Bretton Woods system"

All of this evidence shows the US military and economic supremacy established at the end of the Second World War is under threat. The progress already made by Russia and China presently is more decisive than anything they achieved during the 'original' Cold War. In particular, the SCO is potentially the most powerful alliance ever conceived, uniting the whole of Eurasia in a single economic and military bloc that was never achieved by the Soviet Union and its allies. As the United States has lost credibility with many poor countries and is perceived now as an aggressor, the appeal of Russian military support and Chinese financial support grows in developing countries.

Politicians like #Cameron are 'only a few brats who attended expensive schools': @LOrdreNet https://t.co/pJ1RTRyHE2 pic.twitter.com/jTi5PHyRSa

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) December 20, 2015

D. Helene

A Spiritual Response to the San Bernardino Terrorist Attack

Where is the Muslim Gandhi?

The terrorist attack in San Bernardino hit very close to home for me. San Bernardino is 55.5 miles from where I live.

In my humble opinion, before we start to point fingers, engage in conspiracy theories and chastise those who would use this tragedy for any political agenda, we need to view the entire incident through a spiritual lens, focusing on compassion. So, let’s take a look at each of the parties involved. Obviously, the victims and their families deserve our compassion. They were innocent victims, going to a holiday work party to celebrate the holiday season. So, let’s shine compassion on the souls of the victims and on their families. Secondly, the neighbors who saw “suspicious” activities by the alleged perpetrators. They deserve our compassion as well. Those that saw what they believed to be suspicious activity and did not report it to the proper authorities need our compassion – they are suffering severe emotional turmoil right now after 14 people were killed and many more injured. They deserve our compassion because they did not trust their intuition. If you observe anyone doing anything suspicious, it doesn’t matter if they’re black or white, Muslim or Jewish or Christian. All that matters is what they are doing and what your gut feeling is. We here in the West have been so discouraged from trusting our intuition. In the spiritual realm, intuition is honed and honored. So, this must be one of the take-aways from this incident. Third, we need to have compassion for the perpetrators. They are acting out an agenda that must be examined from the root cause. What Muslim terrorists (and this is a very small portion of the Muslim population, as the religion itself is based on peace) are doing is based on a century or more of oppression and colonialism. They are choosing violence to protest this. I am by no means condoning their action. What they did in San Bernardino - as in Paris, as anywhere where violence is used - was reprehensible. I am trying to widen the lens and look at this from the root cause. The root causes are manifold including:

French colonialism in Syria and Lebanon

British colonialism in portions of the Middle East and Asia

U.S. greed for oil and how that has driven U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for decades

The more recent actions of the U.S. and various countries in the European Union and NATO in Iraq and elsewhere after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

All of this is now coming to roost as Muslims demand freedom, autonomy and integrity of their land, all of which they deserve. Fourth: Compassion for the baby the perpetrators left behind. It is unfathomable how a couple hell-bent on destruction would bring a baby into this world. This baby needs our infinite compassion as its parents are murderers. To start one’s life with that kind of blood on one’s soul will take a tremendous amount of unconditional love. The spiritual question is: Who is the Muslim Gandhi who will choose peace over violence and lead Muslims to freedom and autonomy through peace?

Wanted war criminal @tonyblairoffice ranted in article to defend himself https://t.co/oH9AzcdlTh #NeoCons pic.twitter.com/K8uqMIly1t

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) December 13, 2015

The Blog

It is well known that the US regime was behind the war in Syria, and has invested heavily in bringing a fraudulent "democratic" puppet state to power in Damascus.

WikiLeaks documents have already proven that the US was plotting the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad in 2006, long before so-called "protesters" began to conduct their mass executions and terrorism in 2011, prompting the Syrian Army to strike back to protect civil infrastructure. Today, the US is losing the war, after a turning point that came about with its failure to get enough support to bomb the country after lying about a so-called chemical weapon attack by Assad's forces in 2013. Much of the credit for making the US lose the war in Syria goes to Russian President Vladimir Putin. After escalating Russia's involvement in the war at the end of September 2015 by targeting the sites used by US forces and their allies to attack and displace pro-Assad civilians in the country, Putin has caught the US by surprise. An already flimsy and faltering plan to remove President Bashar al-Assad, despite nearly 80% of the Syrian population firmly supporting the president, has now become impossible and doomed to defeat. Despite this, reports show that the US cannot think of any way of responding other than to commit even more naked and blatantly illegal terrorism against the Syrian government.

US ground forces arriving to attack the Russian base in Syria?

One report states that the US has sent military advisers to Latakia Province, with the goal of assisting so-called "moderate" terrorists. If Latakia sounds familiar, it is because it is the same Province housing the Russian air base that has been targeting the very same "moderate" terrorists being trained and equipped by the US government to assassinate Syrian civilian and government employees. The Pentagon had earlier stated it gave up on training Syrian rebels, and had resorted instead to air-dropping supplies to known hostile anti-US terrorists associated with al-Qaeda (the US cannot land on the ground to help these terrorists because its forces would probably be captured and beheaded by the so-called moderates). The hope was, that these forces would be more interested in targeting Bashar al-Assad's forces than US forces. Therefore, air-dropping weapons to sworn enemies like al-Qaeda's branch "al-Nusra" who have vowed to destroy the United States was accepted as a sane choice by top officials at the Pentagon. Because the US had given up on the "train" part of its so-called "train and equip" program to prop up terrorist groups with US taxpayer dollars, it is unlikely that US "advisers" are in Latakia Province to train anyone. If indeed they are there for other reasons, it is possible that they are actually in Syria to carry out direct combat missions. Islamic State (also Daesh, ISIL, ISIS) has no base in Latakia Province, so who are the US forces targeting? If US so-called advisers are in Latakia Province to help terrorists, they will come into direct conflict with Russian helicopters and attack jets. The outcome of such an encounter can be left to one's imagination, considering Russian warplanes have yet to suffer a single casualty and have efficiently blown up anyone who got in their way.

There's no reason #Russia can't bomb and kill all the US troops and advisers illegally based in #Latakia in #Syria

— L'Ordre (@LOrdreNet) November 4, 2015

While their soldiers try to escalate the conflict and get directly involved in the fighting in Syria, US diplomats are busy trying to convince Russia that they are going to negotiate an end to the war to prevent escalation. The US regime has so far destroyed both Libya and Ukraine by lying to Russia and breaking diplomatic agreements. Russia is well aware of such deceit, so US diplomats' words are not likely to get the Kremlin's attention, especially when the US regime's actions show a commitment to more violence and even direct attacks against Russian forces in Syria. At CounterPunch, Mike Whitney speculated that Russia may choose to unleash its own special forces in Syria to counteract any US units found on the ground.

US "allies" will abandon the US to die alone in Syria

At a diplomatic level, the US is actually facing increasing isolation in Syria. Many of its regional allies want a more aggressive stance with direct military action by the US against Syria, Russia, and Iran, although the same powers seem too cowardly to attempt such action themselves. Turkey, whose territory the US needs in any attack against Syria, is far more interested in bombing Kurdish factions the US has been supporting, and undoing any territorial gains they have made under US air cover. The UK, the US's closest strategic ally, has once again declined to commit to any military action alongside the US in Syria. It didn't even come to a vote in the UK Parliament as it did in 2013, this time, as the Cameron government was so afraid of losing all credibility if it lost a second vote on the issue of UK intervention in Syria. The argument given was that Western airstrikes against ISIL had proved ineffective, and MPs were not convinced that doing more would produce any results.

While blaming Russia with targetting civilians, US led coalition has killed almost 1000 civilians in #Syria & #Iraq https://t.co/A7lIujtFEX

— ali ornek (@ornekali) November 2, 2015

There are also massive numbers of reports that Western airstrikes have massacred thousands of civilians, while Western media instead focused only on the few remaining reports hinting at possible civilian deaths caused by Russia.

A superpower no more?

The situation for US regime change efforts in Syria is worse than ever and is getting worse every day, but US politicians cannot think of any solution other than more involvement, even in a situation of total strategic isolation for US forces. Analysts have suggested that defeat in Syria would shatter the US's image as a superpower in the eyes of its allies, while at the same time reviving Russia's image and establishing Russia as the most serious military power in the Middle East instead of the US.

Having US forces in Syria at the time of this historic defeat, and watching them get killed by Russian and Syrian forces in front of the world's media, could make America's apparent defeat a real one. It would change the way the world sees the US.

Does #religion consider #technology an offense against God, or is it a gift? @beliefnet https://t.co/6TKEfWSjhl pic.twitter.com/E8hCmi4oJZ

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) November 3, 2015

The clubof.info Blog

The Blog

Immanuel Wallerstein, leading sociologist and historian of the world-system who once labelled the US as the global "hegemon", believes the US has lost its crown.

Wallerstein's theory of the world-system posits that the world economy is divided between "core" and "periphery" countries, the former specializing in high-tech labor and the latter specializing more in resource extraction and manufacture of more basic products. This division of labor is seen by Wallerstein is the primary cause of continued poverty and powerlessness in the Global South. On top of this system, in Wallerstein's theory, the US was the "hegemon", as the British Empire was and the Netherlands was prior to them. For Wallerstein to declare the US "not a hegemonic power", as he did in a recent commentary on October 15, is something that must be taken seriously. Something dramatic has happened to the United States and the reach of its political and military power. We may compare the retreat of US power to the excesses it enjoyed in the past. As Wallerstein says, "it isn’t even the most powerful actor in this fragmented region". As US power plummets, the American regime is forced to work with regimes it had previously ignored or attacked with impunity. Rather than being US-led, US policy towards Syria is increasingly pulled along by its weaker allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and no coherence exists in supposed US-led efforts in the region. To quote Wallerstein's own analysis of the unfolding strategic US defeat in Syria:

If we turn to Syria, “coherent” is the last adjective one can apply to U.S. policy. On the one hand, it has sought to form an international “coalition” of countries committed to defeating the still expanding Islamic State (IS, also Daesh or ISIL). The United States also is committed in theory to the destitution of Bashar al-Assad. What the United States does not wish to do is to commit troops to still another Middle Eastern civil war zone. Instead, the United States offers to fight IS with drones that will bomb IS units, without even having any troops on the ground that could guide the drones. The consequence, inevitably, is “collateral damage” that intensifies anti-American feelings in Syria.

If the single greatest proponent of a unified theory of world history describes the US as losing its leading political status in the world, we must begin to ask serious questions. Why has the US been defeated in Syria? Who did this, and now who will take America's place when the hawks are dead?

#ISIS-supporting "war hero" @SenJohnMcCain liked to bomb everyone, including US soldiers. https://t.co/1vUgIgCR2F pic.twitter.com/WJeRFDnf2u

— The clubof.info Blog (@ClubOfInfo) October 23, 2015

The clubof.info Blog