1 Comment

Interesting article pulling together a number of key geopolitical threads.

Seems to me it's fair to assume the US has chosen aggressive confrontation and unlimited economic coercion to maintain dollar hegemony - including fine grained sanctions, manufactured crashes, fomenting regime change, forcing bankruptcies, etc etc. The only question mark is how far America will go militarily.

My rule of thumb is the US doesn't care about dead foreigners and only cares about dead Americans if there's meaningful blowback that can't be kept out of headline news or used to ramp up public backing for increased military action. Neocon thinking dominates US government foreign policy. Nuclear brinkmanship is part of their modus operandi, but America doesn't want nuclear holocaust. Where does that create a red line for the State Department? Your guess is as good as mine.

Given how far and how hard America intends to push full-scale dominance to maintain US dollar hegemony - which includes the continued imposition of neoliberal privatization plundering of the world, especially the Global South - there's only one way for the rest of the world to be free to prosper under a pluralist self-determined sovereignty: multipolarity under internationally recognized law, not unipolarity under the double standards of the rules-based neocolonial order.

The US is implaccably opposed to multipolarism. The US/UK (and, by necessity, Russia and China) don't recognize international law for themselves. BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are, like many of their member nations, nibbling at the edges of dedollarization. At present, however, there's NO significant coordinated effort to escape IMF, World Bank, SWIFT, USD/EUR/GBP/YEN oligopoly.

Until the major non-dollar nations grow some balls and put real economic muscle (risk) into an alternative to the US-led financial system, no alternative will happen. America's control and the West's rigged game of exploitation, plunder and peonage will continue to rule the world. At everywhere else's expense.

Expand full comment