Krystian Kamiński:
The president of the United States has announced his resignation from moving for re-election. After a failed debate and many accidents, the likelihood of specified a movement increased dramatically, the more there were more and more signals of the Democratic Party's elite turning against its candidacy. In this text we will look at Joe Biden's legacy of abroad policy.
Joe Biden began his presidency with the slogan "America is back", although a simple return to carefree post-winter hegemonism was no longer possible due to a change of global power arrangement. The withdrawal from Afghanistan in the first year of the presidency announced a retreat from the farthest ideological ambitions of liberal interventionism, "the end of an era of large military operations for the conversion of another states," as Biden himself said in August 2021. It is worth recalling that, as a senator, in 1975 he voted against additional support for South Vietnam in the face of the final North offensive, which was about to wipe out the government in Saigon almost as rapidly as the Taliban swept distant by the American Afghan authorities in the summertime of 2021. Biden even voted against the 1991 Iraq attack. This is crucial given that George Bush elder in the condition of the collapse of the russian Union was then given the support of most of the planet (including the USSR after Gorbachev's rule) and the UN safety Council resolution as a formal basis.
I'm tired of the Capitan behind the ship's network.
SUMMARY OF THE abroad POLICY OF JOE BIDEN
The president of the United States has announced his resignation from moving for re-election. After a failed debate and many accidents, the probability of specified a movement increased dramatically, the more so erstwhile it appeared... pic.twitter.com/O1Y0AQAiAC
But besides this “goose” lifted the wind of post-cold triumphalism – Biden powerfully supported the attacks on the Serbs in Bosnia in 1995 and the attack on Yugoslavia in 1999, i.e. in practice detaching Kosovo, This was the first case of the armed forcing of border change in Europe, given that most of the European Union and NATO countries, including, of course, the US, recognised the statehood of the Republic of Kosovo, almost immediately after the unilateral declaration of independency by its rulers. Already then a fresh circular of territorial revisions on the continent was opened, which in February 2022 "blowed us to the face" of the war in Ukraine.
Biden not only supported the attack on Afghanistan, but possibly the biggest mistake of the American abroad policy of the post-cold war era – the demolition of the Iraqi state in 2003 and the effort to liberally "nation building" in that country, which opened the way for Iran. Biden had already sought a way out of Iraq in 2006, but with colonial manners – through the concept of converting the country into a federation of ethno-religious regions, which brought to head the Sykes-Picot agreement, which was... the origin of the problems of the modern mediate East. Later, Biden argued against expanding the contingent of American forces in Iraq from 2009 to 2011. He was right. At the end of that period, Barack Obama announced the end of an armed operation in Iraq (in practice any US troops stay to this day), not achieving any clear political goal. Biden was besides to rise concerns about the 2011 attack on Libya.
From this very brief description of his biography at the level of global policy emerges a figure of flexible policy, whose flexibility is shifted to instability. The presidency was just spent on zigzag between the option of defending global hegemony, inactive supporting a large condition of the American elite, and the precedence of engagement (priority at the expense of the mediate East), in view of the expanding deficiency of strength and resources,.
Middle East
Although the United States maintained a sanctioning government against Syria, it did not launch another circular of mass support for the armed anti-government groups Obama provided. Biden was besides 1 of the more critical of Israel's U.S. presidents. He suspended the run of formal designation and support for the annexationist and colonial policy of Israel led by Donald Trump. However, it was adequate to attack Hamas on Israel to liberate old reflexes. The U.S. became active in the massive material and operational support of Tel Aviv, taking into account the goals and manner of conducting the war by Benjamin Netanyahu, it brought the administration costs in interior policy (against circumstantial social groups from the back of his camp) and external – Trump's success in normalizing the relation between the U.S. and Israel's arabian allies was relativized. The former, with Saudi Arabia in the lead, clearly moved closer to the Chinese and even Russian positions (operation under OPEC Plus, position towards the war in Ukraine). Chinese effectively mediating the normalization of relations between Saudis and Iran, which even lead to a preliminary agreement of conflicted Palestinian groups, this event depicts the erosion of Washington's influence in the region.
In the case of the mediate East conflict, Biden's policy was an effort to find indirect solutions – full support for Israel, simultaneous halting the supply of dense bombs erstwhile the Israelis manifestly ignored the Bidenian reservations about the attack on Rafah in the Gaza Strip, only to unlock their transportation after a fewer weeks, despite the fact that Netanyahu's attitude did not change anything.
Despite the manifestation of U.S. Navy's force, Yemeni Ansarullah launched a run to challenge the key foundation of the American superpower – ruling on the planet ocean, attacking ships on 1 of the world's key maritime trade routes. Biden responded with the impact of drones and rockets, which did not affect Hutich's behaviour and potential, while liberated the recent, more powerful hit of Israel on Hudad. This conflict is widening against Washington's strategy.
War in Ukraine
It should be stressed, however, that it has collided with the top safety crisis in Europe for decades, the largest war on our continent after 1945. Biden had to decide whether the periphery of an ageing, increasingly little innovative, economically stagnant, comparatively disarmed continent without political leaders from a real event and with divided, imploding, and demoralized in a serious part of societies, is inactive a key theatre for affirming American credibility. Biden felt that yes and engaged in Ukraine's support seriously.
Anyone who questions the scale of American engagement in the war should look at the map and see how peripheral Ukraine is to the US, and at the same time regret that the existing material military support for Kiev is already greater than 2 decades of support for South Vietnam's armed forces...
This is not just about material support. Training, as well as operational support through the satellite and electronic surveillance system, possibly the assistance of military personnel on site, with the usage of key elements of precision weapons (as they revealed in their case the French) provided the Ukrainians with the essential grounds for conducting specified modern operations, which stopped the first Russian offensive actions from many directions and saved for Zelensk Kiev, or possibly himself. It is believed that without US support Ukraine would have fallen in 2022.
Biden's realistic goal towards Ukraine was to prevent this country, or what would become of it, from becoming an undisputed Russian sphere of influence, and to make it a carrot, a chaotic half of the Americanum Empire, upon which the imperial ambitions of the Kremlin are wiped and disciplined. His goal was not to start a war with Russia until the parade of triumph in Red Square. The course of war points to the worsening effects of this strategy, hence, I believe that even without a change in the White House, Washington would yet force Volodymyr Zelenski to any form of at least freezing the conflict, whose bills the Ukrainians pay. It appears that Biden never gave up the thought of specified a change in Russian policy that Moscow would become a predictable partner behind the PRC for its power in the long term. Moscow and Beijing's current level of cooperation is simply a nightmare of American politics.
In consequence to the Russian invasion, Biden has already achieved large success in consolidating Washington's global camp, an imperial US field. European but besides far east allies, in a reasonably disciplined way, entered into competition with Russia, supporting broad sanctions and supporting Ukraine more or less. 1 effect was the displacement of Russian energy natural materials from European markets, among others by the US. Biden succeeded in inviting Australians, Japanese, Koreans and fresh Zealanders to the NATO summits, while taking steps towards a more multilateral architecture of American influences in East and South-East Asia. The American policy has moved distant from the hub and spoke pattern for more multilateral formats, as I erstwhile wrote.
Biden launched as part of this ideological narrative, in which he probably, as an American liberal, even partially believes, the communicative of the clash between the planet of democracy and the axis of autocracy. While it has any power in the ecumen of the West, on a global scale it is already treated as an annoying hypocrisy or dangerous fanaticism, as you can see in the attitude taken by the Global South in relation to the Russian-Ukrainian War, the way Russia was able to enter into an alternate economical cycle, marginalizing the importance of the West in its economy. This year's threats by Saudis about the abandonment of western debt papers at G7 if the West decides to take over frozen Russian assets show that Biden could not halt or even slow down the structure of planet trade, safety and politics.
The West was alone with respective serious old allies co-opted earlier, with little and little influence on what American theorists call "global governance".
Biden increased U.S. military presence in the east borders of NATO, although inactive in 2021 he ordered "a review of the global presence" suggesting military roll-up of parts of its posts as an outcast of the "cold war". At the same time, he did so in a rotational presence format so that his allies would never consider this presence to be given erstwhile and for all to make her a hostage to his own politics, and the politicians of Law and Justice were disappointed in their naivety. With any success, although surely not adequate to offset the effect of global balance of forces, Biden besides forced European allies to increase safety and defence spending. So he followed in Trump’s footsteps, but he did so in a more conciliative way.
In a clash with China, after Trump lost the trade war on steel and this akin mass production, Biden has alternatively chosen the most crucial fields of action – innovative technologies. In the field of cutting off Chinese from American know-how and slowing down the improvement of Chinese semiconductor sector, he achieved noticeable successes. Narrational derisking tactics alternatively of decoupling, which is simply a gradual cut-out break-up with China alternatively of fast build-up, ironically, of the Chinese wall, besides prompted European allies to become increasingly strict rhetoric towards Beijing, which was reflected in this year's papers of the European Union and NATO. The door to the latter's engagement in the Far East theatre was lifted. This Biden pointed out as a priority, restoring permanent military presence in Taiwan and prompting its authorities to increasingly harsh anti-Pekine declarations, after the election of fresh president Lai Ching-te.
At the same time, however, Biden was incapable to reverse changes in the structure of global capitalism in which the Americans lost the "control package". The reindustrialisation of America, dollar and digital financial marketplace indicators has not started seriously, in short, and in simplification they do not find serious coverage in material goods produced by the American economy. This, in fact, is crucial and for the internal, socio-economic crisis of the US, in which the masses of workers, and even the mediate class, experience comparative pauperisation against the background of the economical elite. The function of the dollar as the currency of the planet continued to be questioned, though slowly.
Joe Biden's presidency resembled the voyage of a utilized ship, whose captain was increasingly tired of struggling with expanding divisions in the crew. He had to balance between Scylla and Charybda, conflicting vectors of interior and external politics of America. However, in this turbulent and ever-changing world, abroad policy is not a slow cruise but a race requiring fast response, decisive action and a clear imagination of the future Therefore, the future president of the United States will not be only reactionary. It will face a challenge of changing global dynamics, which makes it much harder to keep American dominance in an increasingly multipolar world. After 4 years of Joe Biden's tenure, we see that he would not have given the ship a fresh direction to “take the wind off the sails.”
The article was published on 30.07.2024 New Deal.
