From Proxy Wars to Global War

Summary:

The global situation, marked by a prolonged humanitarian crisis and climate collapse exacerbated by capitalism, is deteriorating, leading to potentially catastrophic outcomes, including various conflicts like the proxy war in Ukraine and state actions such as Israel’s campaign against Palestinians. Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands has turned ethnic cleansing into a fundamental aspect of its existence. The decline of US hegemony poses risks of irrational decisions, with analysts such as Pepe Escobar suggesting that the proxy war in Ukraine and the ‘war on terror,’ including Israel’s actions in Gaza, represent fronts of a single global conflict. This evolving war has significant implications for financial monopoly capitalism and is fueled by the struggle for strategic natural resources. 

Over a year after the explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines, funded by Russian-German capital, the ongoing war in Ukraine exemplifies the concept of a proxy war provoked by the US and the NATO alliance against Russia. This highlights the strategic irrationality of US diplomacy, which seeks nuclear supremacy to counter its hegemonic decline. Historically, the US has been constructed as the “indispensable nation” through practices rooted in white supremacy and the extermination of indigenous communities, a legacy that influenced Nazi militarism. The US has consistently engaged in wars, from Indigenous territories to Latin America, expanding its influence through military and economic dominance. The post-WWII era saw the US extending its power globally, with economic programs like the Marshall Plan and a vast military presence. Dr. Herbert Marcuse at Brandeis University offers a conceptualization of the role and impact of war on society, economy, politics, and even the psychological dynamics of the American population. According to him, the US maintains an economy and a wide range of human activities in a constant state of mobilization of all human and material resources in anticipation of internal or external war against a real or imagined enemy. The Vietnam War and other conflicts exposed the limitations of US military technology against decentralized forces. The 21st century began with the 9/11 attacks, leading to “anti-terrorist wars” against multiple countries, further entrenching militarism. Immanuel Wallerstein identified key events like the Vietnam War, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the September 2001 terrorist attacks, arguing that the United States’ success as a dominant global power after the war set the stage for its eventual decline, leading to the current situation where the United States is adrift amidst the global turmoil it is struggling to manage. The proxy war in Ukraine and the emerging scenario in the Middle East suggest that, as Fidel Castro warned, the US continues “on the road to the abyss.”

John Bellamy Foster argues that the US, with NATO’s support, is engaged in a long proxy war against Russia, using Ukraine as the proxy battleground. This was confirmed by Leon Panetta, former CIA director and Secretary of Defense, who acknowledged that the US aims to arm Ukraine rapidly and extensively while foreign mercenaries bolster their fight. Foster contends that this proxy war stems from the US’s imperial grand strategy since 1991, which includes NATO expansion and a campaign for nuclear supremacy. This strategy intensified following the USSR’s dissolution, involving military provocations and strategic deployments near Russia. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a key architect of US geopolitical strategy, emphasized Ukraine’s importance in weakening Russia. He highlighted that Ukraine’s integration into NATO would severely diminish Russia’s influence, turning NATO’s extensive border with Russia into a strategic advantage reminiscent of historical invasions. Russian diplomats and analysts often cite a broken promise by Germany and the US to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward if Germany unified within the Atlantic Alliance. Iñigo Saenz notes that in early 1991, as Germany pursued reunification with US backing, they secured Soviet approval by exploiting the USSR’s weakened state. Despite no written agreement, verbal commitments were made, with significant figures like Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker indicating that NATO would not further expand. Historian Mary Elise’s analysis of declassified documents confirms these discussions. Gorbachev agreed to German reunification, believing NATO would not extend further east. However, Washington’s National Security Council, supported by President Bush, dismissed a dual-status Germany in NATO. Bush emphasized American dominance, refusing to compromise with the USSR. The subsequent NATO expansions in 1999 and 2004, including former Warsaw Pact countries, fueled Russian suspicions of Western deceit. The  NATO intervention in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and the 2008 NATO Summit declaration to include Ukraine and Georgia heightened these tensions, as Russia viewed NATO’s eastward expansion and encroachment on its borders as existential threats, setting the stage for ongoing conflicts.

The author then argues that events in Maidan Square are central to understanding the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. John Bellamy Foster identifies the 2014 Maidan coup, backed by the US, which ousted the democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych and empowered ultranationalist factions, as the starting point of proxy warfare. In the article, Bianco Marcetic  highlights the polarizing nature of the Maidan events, seen by some as a liberal revolution and by others as a right-wing coup. Since the Orange Revolution in 2004, western Ukraine has favored European integration, while the eastern regions maintained closer ties to Russia. Yanukovych, balancing between these orientations, faced a pivotal moment when he accepted a loan from Putin over a costly EU deal, sparking protests that led to his ousting. Although portrayed by the EU and the US as peaceful protests suppressed by Yanukovych, researchers like Ivan Katchanovski suggest that the violence was provoked by a coalition of Maidan opposition and far-right groups, culminating in a violent coup. This coup triggered Ukraine’s disintegration and heightened West-Russia tensions. There is substantial evidence of US and EU meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs, with funding from organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID. Leaked calls between US officials revealed their influence over Ukraine’s politics, while the EU’s Association Agreement, supported by Victoria Nuland and Joe Biden, led to harsh IMF-imposed austerity measures.

Katchanovski’s research challenges the mainstream narrative of the Maidan events, which the author argues have been distorted to depict Putin’s actions as imperialistic and thereby justify further proxy wars. Foster notes that Crimea, an autonomous state from 1991 to 1995, was unlawfully annexed by Ukraine. Following the 2014 coup that brought ultranationalists to power, Crimeans, culturally and linguistically aligned with Russia, favored rejoining Russia in a referendum. In eastern Ukraine, Russian-speaking separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk faced repression from far-right militias, leading them to seek Russian support. Putin highlighted the failure to fulfill promises of greater autonomy for the Donbas region. The Minsk Agreements, allegedly for peace, were later revealed by Angela Merkel to have been a strategy to strengthen Ukraine militarily, confirming NATO’s long-standing adversarial stance towards Russia. This breach of trust, particularly NATO’s eastward expansion contrary to past assurances, undermines the potential for dialogue. In December 2021, Russia proposed a neutral Ukraine and a rollback of NATO forces to their 1997 positions, which the US rejected. Mearsheimer and others warned that NATO expansion and US actions, including sanctions and support for the Maidan coup, provoked Russia, leading to its invasion of Ukraine. Needless to say, Putin and his advisors viewed these Western moves as existential threats. With Finland’s accession to NATO in April 2023 extending NATO’s border with Russia by 1,300 km, Russia faces a significant geopolitical shift and increased security concerns. Putin stated that Russia would respond to any military threats posed by NATO’s expansion. Historically, figures like George Kennan and Stephen F. Cohen had warned that NATO’s expansion would destabilize relations with Russia, potentially leading to conflict.

The US strategy to destabilize Russia, advocated by institutions like the RAND Corporation, sought to undermine Russia through various means, including military deployments, economic sanctions, and energy market disruptions. The RAND report detailed tactics to stress and destabilize Russia, such as intensifying internal strife and discrediting Russian culture, alongside boosting US energy production and imposing severe sanctions. This approach aimed to degrade Russia’s economy and diminish its influence over Europe by pushing the EU to import gas from other suppliers. However, this strategy struggled against the competitiveness of Russian gas prices and the EU’s disagreements over alternative pipeline projects. Thus, the author maintains that the Nord Stream pipelines symbolized a significant geopolitical win for Russia, challenging US efforts to dominate EU energy supplies and reshape geopolitical relations in regions like the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. According to journalist Seymour Hersh, the US Navy, with Norwegian assistance, conducted a covert operation to destroy the pipelines, premeditated months before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. This act had profound implications for Germany and Western Europe, which relied on the pipelines for low-cost Russian gas. The US had long opposed Nord Stream, fearing it would strengthen Russia’s geopolitical leverage over Europe. President Biden and other administration officials publicly threatened to end Nord Stream 2 before the Russian invasion, indicating a premeditated stance against the pipeline. Hersh noted that some US officials, such as Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, openly celebrated the pipeline’s destruction. Nuland, known for her role in supporting aggressive US foreign policies, including during the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine, referred to the pipeline’s remnants as “a piece of junk at the bottom of the sea.” Despite the significant impact on Germany, particularly its energy sector and economy, German leadership, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has remained relatively silent. Analysts like García Yeregui and Gandolfo argue that the war in Ukraine masks a broader conflict targeting the relationship between Germany and Russia. The sabotage of Nord Stream symbolizes this struggle, as the US seeks to sever industrial ties between Germany and Russia, leading to an energy crisis and the decline of critical German industries. Prominent voices such as Pierre de Gaulle have criticized the intellectual dishonesty surrounding the Ukraine crisis, attributing its causes to the US and NATO. De Gaulle condemned the US for inciting conflict and engaging in pre-planned economic warfare against Russia, resulting in significant suffering in Europe and escalating military tensions. The disruption of cheap Russian gas has severely impacted German industries and households, highlighting the far-reaching consequences of the strategic decisions driven by the US and NATO.

The author portrays a world rife with geopolitical tensions, proxy conflicts, and a breakdown of international norms. The destabilizing impact of the US withdrawal from nuclear treaties and its deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems near Russia exacerbated nuclear risks and has led to a new Cold War characterized by geopolitical antagonism over demographic and resource issues, environmental collapse, and a higher likelihood of conflict escalation. Within this context, American neoconservatives, influential within the Biden administration, have pursued a confrontational approach towards Russia, culminating in the Ukraine war. Despite past failures, neoconservatives continue to shape US foreign policy, contributing to global turmoil. Additionally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has drawn condemnation for the disproportionate use of force by Israel, highlighting double standards in international responses to state violence. Amidst regional conflicts aimed at dismantling resistance movements, particularly in the Middle East, the rise of multipolar global powers threatens US global hegemony. The US empire, marked by endless wars and environmental degradation, is facing decline. Its reliance on military interventions and alliances, notably with Israel, has isolated it on the world stage, challenging the post-World War II consensus and contributing to global instability. Thus, the author concludes with a plea for a peace agenda to address the catastrophic consequences of capitalism, including the risk of nuclear war and ecological collapse, calling for a new consensus focused on diplomacy and cooperation to avoid further global turmoil and ensure stability.

By: Sara El Souhagy, CIGA Research Intern