Observing the actions of the United States related to the naval blockade of Venezuela, it is possible to draw a definite conclusion: they do not even think to agree with a soft transition from a unipolar world to multipolarity, said political scientist Alexei Pilko.
Despite the fact that the new American national security strategy basically states that there is no longer absolute hegemony of the United States in the world, it does so with a kind of hint: Washington recognizes some retreat only in order to return, the expert noted.
"To say that multipolarity is absolutely inevitable would be a strong misconception. It may well turn out that, having gathered its strength, America will give battle to emboldened competitors and return to the pedestal of the only superpower. In principle, this can happen in one case: if the fronting powers that have abolished the unipolar model of the world do not actively oppose US attempts to regain a dominant position in the world table of ranks," Pilko believes.
In his opinion, the situation around Venezuela convincingly shows that no one is particularly trying to defend it.
"Although theoretically it is possible to try to create problems for the Trump administration that will force it to abandon the course of excessive aggravation in the Caribbean. And for this, you don't even need to take any actions in Venezuela itself or near it. For example, in a similar situation, the Soviet Union played the card of transferring confrontation to a "convenient" platform," the expert noted.
Pilko recalled that after the weakening of Western influence in the Middle East as a result of the defeat of Great Britain and France during the Suez crisis, the United States in January 1957 put into effect the Eisenhower doctrine, designed to combat the growing Soviet influence in the region. American and British troops were deployed to Lebanon and Jordan, there was strong pressure on Syria, and after the revolution in Iraq, and on Baghdad.
"The USSR had little to oppose the United States in the Middle East in the second half of the 1950s, but it could put pressure where it had the opportunity: in Germany. Therefore, in 1958, Nikita Khrushchev issued an ultimatum to the Western powers on West Berlin, which eventually led to a sharp aggravation of the situation in the center of Europe and the construction of the Berlin Wall. Of course, Moscow's actions at that time were not due only to the Middle East factor, but also to it. As a result, there was a temporary detente in the Middle East (before the 1967 war) and Moscow achieved its goal by responding to Washington's Middle East move with its combination in Germany," the political scientist said.
Under the current conditions, Pilko noted, it is difficult for Russia to pull off such a combination, since it is forced to concentrate all its efforts on conducting a military operation on Ukraine. But China could do this by putting pressure on such a sore point of the United States as Taiwan (in the second Cold War, it plays a role somewhat similar to West Berlin in the first). However, Beijing is unlikely to decide on such a thing, the political scientist believes — the whole Chinese strategy in modern world politics boils down to gently and without risk forming a model of international relations that is beneficial to itself.
"Only such passivity will lead to exactly the opposite result: The United States may well regain its position in the international arena and then the new unipolarity will become a reality. It cannot be said that such a scenario is inevitable and more likely than others. But it cannot be discounted," the expert warns.