The Path to the Post-American World: Reformation or Destruction?

Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard


On October 19th, Burundi, and on October 25th, Gambia, decided to withdraw from the agreement on the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was used by the Americans as an effective instrument of pressure on the not-enough-loyal regimes and punishing the disobedient. In this way, the boomerang of launched-by-US-process of destruction of international structures has returned to them.

They were lucky — so lucky

The USA is a very young country, which was very lucky for the first 200 years of its existence. Just at the time when the colonists disputed with George III because of taxes, rose a revolt and unleashed a “war for independence”, London found itself with limited options for control of sea lanes. Under Louis XVI the French fleet, for the first time in a hundred years, was able to withstand the British as equals. If it was not, then one of the naval blockades would have been enough in order to bring the colonies to obedience, and today we wouldn’t know any USA .

Then the revolution happened in France, which gave rise to Bonaparte. Napoleon was immersed in wars on the European continent, and the French fleet lost the ability to compete with the English one. As a result, he sold to US (for $15 million) Louisiana — a third of the modern United States’ territory at the time, not counting Alaska.

Withdrawal of Florida from the long-decrepit Spain, as well as two-thirds of newborn Mexico also was not a very difficult operation. Militarily, neither the Spaniards (at least on the American continent), nor the Mexicans could resist the United States.

Washington was able to purchase because Russia, who was defeated in the Crimean war, feared a new conflict with England. The latter did not hide its claims to Alaska. By selling this territory, it’s not money that Russia received, but an ally in the Western hemisphere. In fact, the transaction was caused by the same reason as the sale by Napoleon of Louisiana.

In fact, the most severe for all the history of the U.S. was the 200 years old (until the last decades of the 20th century) war with the Indians, and the most bloodiest – the Civil war between the North and the South.

READ:  The Strike on the “Streams” Was an Act of Demonstrating US Superiority

So the success in international policy itself (including two world wars) fell into the American basket — simply as the result of fierce competition between the European powers. As a result the naive faith of Americans (including the most hardened politicians) in their exclusiveness and their absolute ignorance of the boomerang effect, which in common parlance is expressed by the words of the famous anecdote: “And us, for what?”.

Any politician, except us, knows that if you set a precedent of changing the rules of the international arena in their favor, sooner or later, the new rules will be used against you. Moreover, it is guaranteed that you will lose more than you gained in the beginning.

And it is exactly for this reason that Russia’s attitude to any changes in the borders is very careful (even if theoretically these changes could be in its favor). It’s not enough to occupy territory (or to gain another advantage) — you need to be sure that nothing will happen to you because of it, i.e. that you won’t be obliged in the foreseeable future to pay more for the free acquisition than it is worth.

Little boomerangs are already in flight

In recent months, the U.S. began a campaign to discredit Russia in international organizations. Under the pretext of “barbaric bombing” of Aleppo, they started to discuss the idea of excluding Russia from the UN Security Council. However, since this is impossible without destroying the whole structure of the United Nations, this Monday they launched a project to squeeze Moscow out of the UN Council on Human Rights (HRC). Like, 80 humanitarian organizations are concerned about the “Russian war crimes in Syria.”


Nothing has happened yet. The UN, its Security Council and HRC are operating as normal, but the little boomerangs are already in flight. On October 19th, Burundi, and on October 25th, Gambia decided to withdraw from the agreement on the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Meanwhile, the ICC was used by the Americans as an effective instrument of pressure on the not-enough-loyal regimes and punishing the disobedient. Thus, its jurisdiction does not extend to States that are not part of the ICC.

Of course, if they had the means to use force they could extend the jurisdiction to anyone. But the fact of the matter is that the two not-the-biggest-and-influential African countries defy the country that still consider themselves to be the global hegemon, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the punitive international body created by it.

In fact, the US has still not managed to destroy the rules and organizations that impeach them starting, while their own structures started to crumble. This is the best proof that, despite the agony of the American hegemony, which has claimed thousands of lives in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, a multipolar world already exists.

Waiting for the new Tehran

It is exactly in the same way that the rules of the game in the world after the Second World War were finally issued in Yalta and Potsdam in 1945. But they began to be written (and in fact its main features had been agreed, though not detailed) in Tehran in 1943, when it became clear that the Axis countries will be defeated by the United Nations.

By analogy, we can conclude that the time of a new Yalta and Potsdam, which will outline the final contours of the post-American world, will come in the year 2020.


But we already are very close to the new Tehran. The preliminary conference of the future winners can be expected in 2018 (it is unlikely to be in time for 2017).

It is better to restructure than to destroy and build anew. That’s why Russia and its allies very cautiously approach any changes to the rights and powers of international organizations and also to the composition of their governing bodies. No matter how powerless the UN is in some cases, humanity has no better mechanism for comparing positions and searching for compromises.

If the organization is destroyed, there will be political atomization of international politics. In fact, we will return to the state of the late 19th — early 20th century, when the agreements were signed and alliances of all against all were created, and when many countries ensure their participation in the same alliance of simultaneous friendship with the enemies of their allies.


It is easier to ruin something than to create

If the Russian approach will prevail, the restructuring of international organizations will happen slowly in the course of heavy discussions, and will be accepted only by those decisions, the inevitability of which will be imperiously dictated by time itself and supported by the consensus of all centres of power, both old and new.

If the American approach will win, under the pretext of restructuring, existing international organizations will be urgently destroyed, and the creation of new ones in their place will fail due to the lack of consensus of main players and irreconcilable contradictions between the existing centers of power.

We have to admit that the American approach is more likely to succeed. Because to break is not to build. Not only individuals, but humanity as a whole (including many hardened politicians) are supporters of simple and radical solutions (and it is especially in this way that wars begin).

However, I think that the victory of the American approach to the restructuring of international organizations will harm the United States itself. Washington is rapidly losing credibility and influence in the world. In a year or two America may not recognise herself.

Until the UN and other international structures operate in standard regime, Washington will retain considerable influence on international politics.


It is just like this that in the 1990’s the status of a permanent member of the Security Council allowed the weakened Russia to maintain its influence on global processes.

If these structures are destroyed, the weight of each state will be determined by its actual condition. And it’s not for certain that in two years, the U.S. will be more influential than Brazil (not to mention China), and that someone will want to listen to France or Britain.

Also not for certain is that the winners in the hybrid Third World War, creating a new global political structures, will envisage a warm place for the US and Europe. Germany and Japan in 1945, not only in the Security Council, but in the UN in general, was not allowed entrance (they were accepted much more later).

However, the US is a young country, which has not yet had to deal with the boomerang effect.

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.