Re: After Iraq?

For as much as I would wish to see the emergence of a multipolar world, I just 
don't think this can happen without EU leadership.  Sadly, I believe the EU 
and the Euro are the only factors that can end the US dollar hegemony, upon 
which the mighty Pentagon also rests.  Russia is not even being allowed to 
join OPEC, īt is humiliated and it is in no state of going around planet earth 
provoking the US.  Europe and Japan are vital for the US insofar they 
partially cover for the massive US trade deficit through FDI and US Treasury 
Bonds.  Besides, I really wonder to what extent the Russian military apparatus 
would be able to stand up to the hyper technological US armed forces.






>===== Original Message From Threehegemons@aol.com =====
>I've been thinking lately about the prospects that the Russian military will 
be dragged into the mess the Americans are making.  Consider:
>
>Russia has been uneasy about all US military interventions in 
South/East/Central Asia.  Whereas European liberals welcomed the bombing of 
Belgrade, Russia consistently denounced this policy, because of historic ties 
to the Serbs, and, I suspect, strategic interests its difficult to quickly 
identify.  Before the US bombing of Afghanistan, the northern alliance was 
seen as a Russian sponsored project. Now it is installed in Kabul, but the 
Americans are still there. Its hard to determine exactly what's going on in 
Afghanistan today--certainly Russia still has concrete reasons to be uneasy 
about chaos on its Southern border.   Rumsfield has accused Russia of offering 
modest assistance to Iraq. Russia can't possibly be happy about the prospect 
of the US strengthening ties to some of the former Soviet republics in the 
South so it can fight more wars in the region. I have also heard rumors that a 
popular Russian internet site offering military analysis may be a pipeline for 
Iraqi p!
> ropaganda.
>
>Consider also:  The US has made it clear it plans to deepen its intervention 
in the region, as  noted in the article Khaldoun posted. No conventional army 
stands in the US' way.  If Iran were to announce tommorrow that it is testing 
a nuke, this would impede the US, but it seems unlikely.  'Terrorist' attacks 
on US troops or even on US soil seem unlikely, in the short term, to reverse 
US involvement in the region.
>
>Russia, unlike Western Europe (but like the US), still has a vital 
militaristic culture.  In the short, perhaps even medium term, Europe is out 
of ideas as to how to stop the US.  The UN isn't effective, and Western Europe 
probably doesn't want to iniatate economic warfare (although it may be pushed 
in this direction through popular pressure).  Could Russia begin to emerge as 
the military arm of Europe, offering arms, and perhaps even troops, to Syria 
or Iran to defend themselves? Russia may plausibly believe that the US would 
worry about the Russian military in a way it does not worry about Iraq, Syria, 
etc.  Could a messy game of 'chicken' ensue?
>
>BTW, just so I don't clutter your mailbox with extra posts, my problem with 
the War for the Dollar theory is timing--the US/Britain broke off and began 
bombing Iraq in 1998 (I believe, haven't looked up the date recently).  Iraq 
went to the Euro in 1999.  Certainly the Euro is one element in the declining 
ability of the US to control Europe  and the semiperiphery.
>
>Steven Sherman

Damian Popolo
PhD candidate
Newcastle University
Department of Politics
Room 301