The Eastern Axis countries and the United States must once again sign the provisions of the Yalta Conference.
By Abdool Naser Noorzad, Security and Geopolitical Researcher, especially for Sangar
In the current global structure, where attempts to balance power at the international level are evident, the US has serious competitors who are on the unwanted axis of the balance of power against them and are trying to use the American order for their interests. That is why I say that the Eastern Axis is trying to become a competitor to the US. This axis includes countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea and they are making a coordinated and organized effort to weaken the US-led world order. However, these efforts should not be seen as attempts to change the international system. Rather, these efforts, largely supported by China and Russia, are based on scoring points, exploiting liberal institutions and trying to expand influence. Both Asian powers are trying to achieve their strategic goals without incurring economic and defense costs.
When we look at the coordinated efforts of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, all following the same path to demands based on American thinking, we realize that this was caused by the weakness, arrogance, and greed of the United States itself, which failed to include these countries in the structure of the international system that they dominated after the collapse of the bipolar system. On the contrary, with indifference and arrogance, it rejected their vital demands and paved the way for the formation of such an axis.
In this regard, if we consider China first, this country represents the greatest long-term challenge to the interests of the United States. America needs serious investments to contain its excessive economic, political, and military activities and prevent its real manifestation in the international arena of competition.
Now, when it is too late and much time has been lost, America is trying to first destroy this half-hearted Eastern alliance against American gigantism. This approach is more obvious if we proceed from the strategy of creating a split in the alliance between the eastern powers. But it seems that the United States is going down the wrong path. It is wrong to prioritize China at the expense of ignoring Ukraine. Russia's victory increases global threats. The United States believes that it can distance Russia from China through negotiations and compromises, and being confident in the Russians' views on world affairs and the United States' position, it can easily deal with China. But the Russians have more on their minds than Ukraine, and this is simply not negotiable. The Russians are an immeasurable people. They take advantage of every small situation and opportunity to display strategic greed. In the past, it has been proven that the approach based on negotiations and mutual understanding with Russia did not produce good results. Obama's weak response to Russia's aggression in Georgia and Ukraine emboldened Putin. Now that Russia's position in the Ukrainian conflict has been strengthened, the Baltic states will be seriously threatened. Accordingly, the US position is much more fragile, weaker, and full of challenges.
During his second term, Trump will inherit a world that is much more hostile than before. He admits that he can easily solve the Ukrainian issue and end the conflict between the West and the East in this country, but it is not as easy as it seems. However, such serious challenges as Russia, Iran, China, and BRICS, as well as the spread of hotbeds of conflict on several continents at the same time, have involved this country in destructive and complex diplomacy. Meanwhile, it is becoming clear that the Biden government's policy of interaction and compromise has exposed the weakness of the United States. Now Trump, taking into account the failures and changes in American society, its decline in power, and gigantism, is trying to first create a hole in the anti-American structure in the East, and then, using the existing hole, fill the void of his lost influence. On the other hand, revisionist powers such as China, Russia, and Iran and anti-American structures on four continents - Europe, America, Africa, and Asia - draw strength from the retreat of the United States and strive for world hegemony. However, it is challenging to accept that the US will soon cease to be a force in the international system. The weakness of the implementation of hegemonic demands and the evidence on the ground point to a decline in the power it wielded twenty years ago.
At the same time, Trump's rise to power carries a message for the new America. For the United States under Trump and based on the ideas of his team, it is necessary to consider first America with its interests that will help maintain its position in the international system, then allies who will take on the burden of security, economic, and political responsibility themselves, and then the world that was important to the United States at least 10 years ago. The Americans know very well that with a little negligence or continuation of the wrong path of the Democrats' policies of the Biden, Obama, and Clinton eras, given the changing nature of the distribution of power, the capabilities of competing powers, and the creation of an atmosphere of Americanism, this country will simply not be able to regain its lost positions.
Accordingly, American strategists advise the new American administration that the United States should not neglect competition in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, since enemies will quickly fill the gaps caused by the weakness of US leadership in world affairs. However, for Trump, who has unconventional ideas in his head, these issues have not yet regained their importance. Part of the message of American strategists on preserving and expanding the power of the United States is that it should share its defense technologies with its allies to strengthen joint capabilities. This means strengthening the sense of political, military, and economic convergence and the strength of the defensive wall of America and its allies against the excessive demands and historical complexes of the transformative East.
But for Trump, American power will have value and meaning only in the hands of the Americans themselves. Trump does not attach importance to strategic partnerships and believes that this concept has no immediate meaning in terms of time and immediate American needs in the world. With a unique personality, he demands the maximum profit from each transaction. This approach for the United States, the liberal Western world, the NATO pact, and the concept of America's strategic alliance with its allies means a change like the alliance of the West against the East.
American analysts studying the nature of the strategic alliance of the United States and NATO believe that Trump should simplify the processes of arms procurement by his allies and create more reserves for their exports to these allies. Isolationist views on military spending are wrong and downplay the importance of American military superiority. Meanwhile, Trump is moving in the other direction, embracing isolationist views and abandoning the liberal institutionalist approach in the form of the American Peace Doctrine.
However, since this fundamental weakness is evident in the US thinking under Trump, US rivals such as China and Russia, understanding this mindset of Trump and the weakness of the US in managing global affairs, are investing in asymmetric capabilities to counter US military superiority. Both Asian powers are trying to avoid the excesses that the US has traditionally been accustomed to. The two Asian powers have a strategic and far-sighted view that if the United States abandons its allies in the Middle East, it will ultimately benefit China and Russia, which will effectively mean a strategic victory for these powers.
In addition, with the growing influence of China and Russia in these regions, maintaining alliances with traditional US allies in the Middle East and other parts of the world, which has been the official policy of the US government since World War II, takes on a different color and character. However, it is still unclear what course and policy the US will pursue towards these allies under Trump. Will the policy of maintaining alliances with them remain on the agenda or will these US allies fall into the clutches of Russia and China, as in the second hypothesis?
America's rivals are well aware that Trump deeply resents the generosity of previous US administrations towards their allies. But Trump is determined to implement this plan, and America will do everything possible to maintain its position. In this regard, as is clear from the situation, the US under Trump must commit to long-term strategies and increased investment in defense to maintain military superiority. This is what Trump has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to from the very beginning of his presidency. Trump’s unconventional actions regarding foreign aid funds indicate that the United States needs to restructure its fiscal priorities to avoid unnecessary spending and strengthen the defense budget. Because America knows that defense spending is insufficient and must increase significantly to counter global threats.
For Trump's America, China is the most important and serious threat. Declaring a trade war with China by imposing exorbitant tariffs on Chinese exports indicates that Trump must have found alternative plans to change the trade path with his trading partners. On the other hand, the issue of competition in the field of weapons, military, and defense between the United States and China is a serious problem.
China spends $ 711 billion annually to strengthen its armed forces, and while the United States is facing a reduction in its military budget, China continues to increase military spending. The scale of China's increased investment in its armed forces is enormous compared to America's efforts in this area. China, taking into account the development of technology, artificial intelligence, electronic and computer warfare, and combat means, is eager to win in future competitions, taking into account the lessons of the defeat of the former Soviet Union in the arms race with the United States.
At the same time, Putin’s achievements in Eastern Europe and the challenges he poses to traditional American hegemony in most parts of the world show that the era of soft power politics and diplomacy and the creation of a chain of American hegemony may be over. Shortly, it may be replaced by an arms race and the use of hard power against American expansionism. In this regard, a transformation of military approaches and a broader vision of security is necessary. In this arena, the United States needs military forces capable of countering coordinated and multiple threats. The threats range from cybersecurity to the arms race, from the economy and attempts to create a giant money chain to the implementation of American ideas.
Asian powers are well aware of all these problems and are aware of the weaknesses of the United States in recognizing these threats and creating decision-making chains that are the result of its bureaucratic system. Whereas the decision-making process in Asia is completely different, simple, and does not require much time. Despite the fundamental differences in ideological thinking regarding the post-American world, economic trade with the West, and invisible competition on other continents where American dominance was obvious in the past, Russia and China still have mutual understanding and strategic cooperation in confronting the resurgent America. But what is the problem that these two Asian powers have not yet been able to accept an alternative to American ideology? Therefore, their efforts in the arena of competition in the international system and confronting Americanism do not have any guiding goal and are not very obvious.
China, which relies on liberal rules, free market, trade, and economy to obtain huge financial benefits, does not want to confront the United States. Rather, the core of China's strategy in confronting Americanism is to build a bridge of understanding and seize opportunities that can ensure China's economic interests along with America without conflict or clash.
However, the Eastern Axis countries and the United States need to sign the provisions of the Yalta Conference again to peacefully resolve the current conflicts. This peaceful minimum is a way to eliminate ambiguity and confusion in the analysis of contemporary international anarchism on its way to a post-polar world. Let's see what path the Asian powers, as well as the United States and its allies, will choose to resolve this acute international crisis.
