A good overview of the geostrategic Zugzwang that the US empire is facing on three fronts: occupied Palestine, Iran and the broader West Asia, and Russia-Ukraine. The usual disclaimers apply as always when i recommend pieces by non-Marxist authors.
As i have previously explained in another post about an article by the same author, it is clear to me that they have reactionary inclinations. For this particular piece this results in a couple of noticeable annoyances:
One being the bad habit that quite a few geopolitical commentators from the conservative side have with bringing "eschatology" (and more generally metaphysics) into geopolitics. The other is calling anti-colonialism an "emerging religion" in an attempt to conflate it with idealistic/moralistic ideologies.
Both of these are clear symptoms of a lack of dialectical materialism in the author's thinking. Feel free to ignore those parts as they are silly and would not have been included had this been written by a Marxist.
The rest of the analysis i would say is quite lucid, however glaringly incomplete as it entirely omits discussion of the biggest strategic Zugzwang of all for the US which is the unstoppable rise of China.
In all fairness however, that is a huge topic which needs a dedicated piece all its own just to scratch the surface.
Though Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson perhaps did much to normalize verbose historical digressions
Lol we can hope. Also no, every single liberal i read not only completely ignored it but also got incredibly angry of even being exposed to such amount of history not filtered by imperialist youtube brains.
So which path to we think the yankee imperialists will take in ukrain and israel? strategic retreat or strategic commitment? I'd bet on keeping ukraine on life-support and being forced to fully commit to war in the West Asia by israel.
That seems to be the strategy although I don't think keeping Ukraine on life support will be enough to stop the russians from getting to the Dniepr.
A very interesting read. I agree with your critiques but I don't think the author is totally off the mark in regards to Israel. I also wish they didn't compare everything to the Roman empire as well, although those did seem like apt comparisons. I hope they write up something on China, Korea, Japan, the USA, and that whole thing.
He's not wrong but i think he gets the primary and secondary contradictions reversed. He proposes an essentialist explanation for their behavior where as a Marxist i see a straightforwardly materialist one. The widespread religious psychosis is the result of the neo-colonial nature of the entity, not the other way around. The primary motivation of Zionism is material in nature, not religious. It is a neo-colonial project interested in land and resources first and foremost. And it is a proxy outpost for the very much material interests of the empire to control West Asia.
I think you're right about that. Only the insane would go to such lengths for purely metaphysical reasons. Sorry I don't have anything to add.
Comparisons to the Roman empire bother me a lot less since I got into the financial side of US power
This is a new idea for me. I'd love to read about the similarities, where should I look?
