Via South Front,
2020
was a year full of surprises. It marked the advent of a new reality
which may, with an equal probability, lead humanity to a new dark age or
to a global digital dystopia. In this context, there is little room for
a positive scenario of sustainable development that would benefit
people in general, as opposed to just a group of select individuals and
special interest groups. The heft of shifts in 2020 is comparable to
what European citizens felt on the eve of another change of the
socio-economic formation in the early 17th and 20th centuries.
The
past year began with the assassination of the Iranian military genius
General Qasem Soleimani by the United States, and it ended with the
murder of the prominent scholar Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by the Israelis.
In early January, Iran, expecting another aggressive action from the
West, accidently shot down a Ukrainian civil aircraft that had
inexplicably altered its course over Tehran without request nor
authorization. Around the same time, Turkey confirmed the deployment of
its military in Libya, beginning a new phase of confrontation in the
region, and Egypt responding with airstrikes and additional shows of
force. The situation in Yemen developed rapidly: taking advantage of the
Sunni coalition’s moral weakness, Ansar Allah achieved significant
progress in forcing the Saudis out of the country in many regions. The
state of warfare in northwestern Syria has significantly changed,
transforming into the formal delineation of zones of influence of Turkey
and the Russian-Iranian-Syrian coalition. This happened amid, and
largely due to the weakening of U.S. influence in the region. Ankara is
steadily increasing its military presence in the areas under its
responsibility and along the contact line. It has taken measures to
deter groups linked to Al-Qaeda and other radicals. As a result, the
situation in the region is stabilizing, which has allowed Turkey to
increasingly exert control over most of Greater Idlib.
ISIS cells
remain active in the eastern and southern Syrian regions. Particular
processes are taking place in Quneitra and Daraa provinces, where
Russian peace initiatives were inconclusive by virtue of the direct
destructive influence of Israel in these areas of Syria. In turn, the
assassination of Qasem Soleimaniin resulted in a sharp increase in the
targeting of American personnel, military and civil infrastructure in
Iraq. The U.S. Army was forced to regroup its forces, effectively
abandoning a number of its military installations and concentrating
available forces at key bases. At the same time, Washington flatly
rejected demands from Baghdad for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops
and promised to respond with full-fledged sanctions if Iraq continued to
raise this issue. Afghanistan remains stable in its instability.
Disturbing news comes from Latin America. Confrontation between China
and India flared this year, resulting in sporadic border clashes. This
situation seems far from over, as both countries have reinforced their
military posture along the disputed border. The aggressive actions of
the Trump administration against China deepen global crises, which has
become obvious not only to specialists but also to the general public.
The relationship between the collective West and the Russian Federation
was re-enshrined in “the Cold War state”, which seems to have been
resurrected once again.
The turbulence of the first quarter of 2020 was overshadowed by a new socio-political process – the corona-crisis,
the framework of which integrates various phenomena from the Sars-Cov2
epidemic itself and the subsequent exacerbation of the global economic
crisis. The disclosure of substantial social differences that have
accumulated in modern capitalist society, lead to a series of incessant
protests across the globe. The year 2020 was accompanied by fierce
clashes between protesters professing various causes and law enforcement
forces in numerous countries. Although on the surface these societal
clashes with the state appear disassociated, many share related root
causes. A growing, immense wealth inequality, corruption of government
at all levels, a lack of any meaningful input into political decision
making, and the unmasking of massive censorship via big tech
corporations and the main stream media all played a part in igniting
societal unrest.
In late 2019 and early 2020 there was little reason for optimistic projections for the near future.
However, hardly anyone could anticipate the number of crisis events and
developments that had taken place during this year. These phenomena
affected every region of the world to some extent.
Nevertheless, Middle East has remained the main source of instability,
due to being an arena where global and regional power interests
intertwine and clash. The most important line of confrontation is
between US and Israel-led forces on the one hand, and Iran and its so
called Axis of Resistance. The opposing sides have been locked in an
endless spiral of mutual accusations, sanctions, military incidents, and
proxy wars, and recently even crossed the threshold into a limited
exchange of strikes due to the worsening state of regional
confrontation. Russia and Turkey, the latter of which has been
distancing itself from Washington due to growing disagreements with
“NATO partners” and changes in global trends, also play an important
role in the region without directly entering into the confrontation
between pro-Israel forces and Iran.
As in the recent years, Syria
and Iraq remain the greatest hot-spots. The destruction of ISIS as a
terrorist state and the apparent killing of its leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi did not end its existence as a terror group. Many ISIS cells
and supporting elements actively use regional instability as a chance
to preserve the Khalifate’s legacy. They remain active mainly along the
Syria-Iraq border, and along the eastern bank of the Euphrates in Syria.
Camps for the temporary displaced and for the families and relatives of
ISIS militants on the territory controlled by the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) in north-eastern Syria are also breeding grounds for
terrorist ideology. Remarkably, these regions are also where there is
direct presence of US forces, or, as in the case of SDF camps, presence
of forces supported by the US.
The fertile soil for
radicalism also consists of the inability to reach a comprehensive
diplomatic solution that would end the Syrian conflict in a way
acceptable to all parties. Washington is not interesting in
stabilizing Syria because even should Assad leave, it would strengthen
the Damascus government that would naturally be allied to Russia and
Iran. Opposing Iran and supporting Israel became the cornerstone of US
policy during the Trump administration. Consequently, Washington is
supporting separatist sentiments of the Kurdish SDF leadership and even
allowed it to participate in the plunder of Syrian oil wells in US
coalition zone of control in which US firms linked to the Pentagon and
US intelligence services are participating. US intelligence also aids
Israel in its information and psychological warfare operations, as well
as military strikes aimed at undermining Syria and Iranian forces
located in the country. In spite of propaganda victories, in practice
Israeli efforts had limited success in 2020 as Iran continued to
strengthen its positions and military capabilities on its ally’s
territory. Iran’s success in establishing and supporting a land corridor
linking Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iraq, plays an important role.
Constant expansion of Iran’s military presence and infrastructure near
the town of al-Bukamal, on the border of Iraq and Syria, demonstrates
the importance of the project to Tehran. Tel-Aviv claims that Iran is
using that corridor to equip pro-Iranian forces in southern Syria and
Lebanon with modern weapons.
The Palestinian question is also an
important one for Israel’s leadership and its lobby in Washington. The
highly touted “deal of the century” turned out to be no more than an
offer for the Palestinians to abandon their struggle for statehood. As
expected, this initiative did not lead to a breakthrough in
Israeli-Palestinian relations. Rather the opposite, it gave an
additional stimulus to Palestinian resistance to the demands that were
being imposed. At the same time, Trump administration scored a
diplomatic success by forcing the UAE and Bahrain to normalize their
relations with Israel, and Saudi Arabia to make its collaboration with
Israel public. That was a historic victory for US-Israel policy in the
Middle East. Public rapprochement of Arab monarchies and Israel
strengthened the positions of Iran as the only country which not only
declares itself as Palestine’s and Islamic world’s defender, but
actually puts words into practice. Saudi Arabia’s leadership will
particularly suffer in terms of loss of popularity among its own
population, already damaged by the failed war in Yemen and intensifying
confrontation with UAE, both of which are already using their neighbor’s
weakness to lay a claim to leadership on the Arabian Peninsula.
The
list of actors strengthening their positions in the Red Sea includes
Russia. In late 2020 it became known that Russia reached an agreement
with Sudan on establishing a naval support facility which has every
possibility to become a full-blown naval base. This foothold will enable
the Russian Navy to increase its presence on key maritime energy supply
routes on the Red Sea itself and in the area between Aden and Oman
straits. For Russia, which has not had naval infrastructure in that
region since USSR’s break-up, it is a significant diplomatic
breakthrough. For its part. Sudan’s leadership apparently views Russia’s
military presence as a security factor allowing it to balance potential
harmful measures by the West.
During all of 2020, Moscow
and Beijing continued collaboration on projects in Africa, gradually
pushing out traditional post-colonial powers in several key areas.
The presence of Russian military specialists in the Central African
Republic where they assist the central government in strengthening its
forces, escalation of local conflicts, and ensuring the security of
Russian economic sectors, is now a universally known fact. Russian
diplomacy and specialists are also active in Libya, where UAE and Egypt
which support Field Marshal Khaftar, and Turkey which supports the
Tripoli government, are clashing. Under the cover of declarations
calling for peace and stability, foreign actors are busily carving up
Libya’s energy resources. For Egypt there’s also the crucial matter of
fighting terrorism and the presence of groups affiliated with Muslim
Brotherhood which Cairo sees as a direct threat to national security.
The
Sahel and the vicinity of Lake Chad remain areas where terror groups
with links to al-Qaeda and ISIS remain highly active. France’s limited
military mission in the Sahara-Sahel region has been failure and could
not ensure sufficient support for regional forces in order to stabilize
the situation. ISIS and Boko-Haram continue to spread chaos in the
border areas between Niger, Nigeria, Cameroun, and Chad. In spite of all
the efforts by the region’s governments, terrorists continue to control
sizable territories and represent a significant threat to regional
security. The renewed conflict in Ethiopia is a separate problem, in
which the federal government was drawn into a civil war against the
National Front for the Liberation of Tigray controlling that province.
The ethno-feudal conflict between federal and regional elites threatens
to destabilize the entire country if it continues.
The explosive
situation in Africa shows that post-colonial European powers and the
“Global Policeman” which dominated that continent for decades were not
interested in addressing the continent’s actual problem. Foreign actors
were mainly focused on extracting resources and ensuring the interests
of a narrow group of politicians and entities affiliated with foreign
capitals. Now they are forced to compete with the informal China-Russia
bloc which will use a different approach that may be a described as
follows: Strengthening of regional stability to protect investments in
economic projects. Thus it is no surprise that influential actors are
gradually losing to new but more constructive forces.
Tensions
within European countries have been on the rise during the past several
years, due to both the crisis of the contemporary economic paradigm and
to specific regional problems such as the migration crises and the
failure of multiculturalism policies, with subsequent radicalization of
society.
Unpleasant surprises included several countries’
health care and social protection networks’ inability to cope with the
large number of COVID-19 patients. Entire systems of governance in a
number of European countries proved incapable of coping with rapidly
developing crises. This is true particularly for countries of southern
Europe, such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece. Among eastern
European countries, Hungary’s and Romania’s economies were particularly
badly affected. At the same time, Poland’s state institutions and
economy showed considerable resilience in the face of crisis. While the
Federal Republic of Germany suffered considerable economic damage in the
second quarter of 2020, Merkel’s government used the situation to
inject huge sums of liquidity into the economy, enhanced Germany’s
position within Europe, and moreover Germany’s health care and social
protection institutions proved capable and sufficiently resilient.
Coronavirus
and subsequent social developments led to the emergence of the
so-called “Macron Doctrine” which amounts to an argument that EU must
obtain strategic sovereignty. This is consistent with the aims of a
significant portion of German national elites. Nevertheless, Berlin
officially criticized Macron’s statements and has shown willingness to
enter into a strategic partnership with Biden Administration’s United
States as a junior partner. However, even FRG’s current leadership
understands the dangers of lack of strategic sovereignty in an era of
America’s decline as the world policeman. Against the backdrop of a
global economic crisis, US-EU relations are ineluctably drifting from a
state of partnership to one of competition or even rivalry. In general,
the first half of 2020 demonstrated the vital necessity of further
development of European institutions.
The second half of 2020 was marked by fierce mass protests in Germany, France, Great Britain, and other European countries. The
level of violence employed by both the protesters and law enforcement
was unprecedented and is not comparable to the level of violence seen
during protests in Russia, Belarus, and even Kirgizstan. Mainstream
media did their best to depreciate and conceal the scale of what was
happening. If the situation continues to develop in the same vein, there
is every chance that in the future, a reality that can be described as a
digital concentration camp may form in Europe.
World media, for
its part, paid particular attention to the situation in Belarus, where
protests have entered their fourth month following the August 9, 2020
presidential elections. Belarusian protests have been characterized by
their direction from outside the country and choreographed nature. The
command center of protest activities is officially located in Poland.
This fact is in and of itself unprecedented in Europe’s contemporary
history. Even during Ukraine’s Euromaidan, external forces formally
refused to act as puppetmasters.
Belarus’ genuinely existing
socio-economic problems have led to a rift within society that is now
divided into two irreconcilable camps: proponents of reforms vs.
adherents of the current government. Law enforcement forces which are
recruited from among President Lukashenko’s supporters, have acted
forcefully and occasionally harshly. Still, the number of casualties is
far lower than, for example, in protests in France or United States.
Ukraine
itself, where Western-backed “democratic forces” have already won,
remains the main point of instability in Eastern Europe. The Zelenskiy
administration came to power under slogans about the need to end the
conflict in eastern Ukraine and rebuild the country. In practice, the
new government continued to pursue the policy aimed at maintaining
military tension in the region in the interests of its external sponsors
and personal enrichment.
For the United States, 2020
turned out to be a watershed year for both domestic and foreign policy.
Events of this year were a reflection of Trump Administration’s
protectionist foreign policy and a national-oriented approach in
domestic and economic policy, which ensured an intense clash with the
majority of Washington Establishment acting in the interests of global
capital.
In addition to the unresolved traditional
problems, America’s problems were made worse by two crises, COVID-19
spread and BLM movement protests. They ensured America’s problems
reached a state of critical mass.
One can and should have a
critical attitude toward President Trump’s actions, but one should not
doubt the sincerity of his efforts to turn the slogan Make America Great
Again into reality. One should likewise not doubt that his successor
will adhere to other values. Whether it’s Black Lives Matter or Make
Global Moneymen Even Stronger, or Russia Must Be Destroyed, or something
even more exotic, it will not change the fact America we’ve known in
the last half century died in 2020. A telling sign of its death throes
is the use of “orange revolution” technologies developed against
inconvenient political regimes. This demonstrated that currently the
United States is ruled not by national elites but by global investors to
whom the interests of ordinary Americans are alien.
This puts the terrifying consequences of COVID-19 in a new light. The disease has struck the most vulnerable layers of US society. According
to official statistics, United States has had about 20 million cases
and over 330,000 deaths. The vast majority are low-income inhabitants of
mega-cities. At the same time, the wealthiest Americans have greatly
increased their wealth by exploiting the unfolding crisis for their own
personal benefit. The level of polarization of US society has assumed
frightening proportions. Conservatives against liberals, blacks against
whites, LGBT against traditionalists, everything that used to be within
the realm of public debate and peaceful protest has devolved into
direct, often violent, clashes. One can observe unprecedented levels of
aggression and violence from all sides.
In foreign policy, United States continued to undermine the international security system based on international treaties. There
are now signs that one of the last legal bastions of international
security, the New START treaty, is under attack. US international
behavior has prompted criticism from NATO allies. There are growing
differences of opinion on political matters with France and economic
ones with Germany. The dialogue with Eastern Mediterranean’s most
powerful military actor Turkey periodically showed a sharp clash of
interests.
Against that backdrop, United States spent 2020
continuously increasing its military presence in Eastern Europe and the
Black Sea basin. Additional US forces and assets were deployed
in direct proximity to Russia’s borders. The number of offensive
military exercises under US leadership or with US participation has
considerably increased.
In the Arctic, the United States is acting as a spoiler, unhappy with the current state of affairs. It
aims to extend its control over natural resources in the region,
establish permanent presence in other countries’ exclusive economic
zones (EEZ) through the use of the so-called “freedom of navigation
operations” (FONOPs), and continue to encircle Russia with ballistic
missile defense (BMD) sites and platforms.
In view of the urgent
and evident US preparations to be able to fight and prevail in a war
against a nuclear adversary, by defeating the adversary’s nuclear
arsenal through the combination of precision non-nuclear strikes, Arctic
becomes a key region in this military planning. The 2020 sortie by a
force of US Navy BMD-capable AEGIS destroyers into the Barents Sea, the
first such mission since the end of the Cold War over two decades ago,
shows the interest United States has in projecting BMD capabilities into
regions north of Russia’s coastline, where they might be able to effect
boost-phase interceptions of Russian ballistic missiles that would be
launched in retaliatory strikes against the United States. US
operational planning for the Arctic in all likelihood resembles that for
South China Sea, with only a few corrections for climate.
In
Latin America, the year of 2020 was marked by the intensification
Washington efforts aimed at undermining the political regimes that it
considered to be in the opposition to the existing world order.
Venezuela
remained one of the main points of the US foreign policy agenda. During
the entire year, the government of Nicolas Maduro was experiencing an
increasing sanction, political and clandestine pressure. In May,
Venezuelan security forces even neutralized a group of US mercenaries
that sneaked into the country to stage the coup in the interests of the
Washington-controlled opposition and its public leader Juan Guaido.
However, despite the recognition of Guaido as the president of Venezuela
by the US and its allies, regime-change attempts, and the deep economic
crisis, the Maduro government survived.
This case demonstrated
that the decisive leadership together having the support of a notable
part of the population and working links with alternative global centers
of power could allow any country to resist to globalists’ attacks. The
US leadership itself claims that instead of surrendering, Venezuela
turned itself into a foothold of its geopolitical opponents: China,
Russia, Iran and even Hezbollah. While this evaluation of the current
situation in Venezuela is at least partly a propaganda exaggeration to
demonize the ‘anti-democratic regime’ of Maduro, it highlights parts of
the really existing situation.
The turbulence in Bolivia ended in a
similar manner, when the right wing government that gained power as a
result of the coup in 2019 demonstrated its inability to rule the
country and lost power in 2020. The expelled president, Evo Morales,
returned to the country and the Movement for Socialism secured their
dominant position in Bolivia thanks to the wide-scale support from the
indigenous population. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that these
developments in Venezuela and Bolivia would allow to reverse the general
trend towards the destabilization in South America.
The regional
economic and social turbulence is strengthened by the high level of
organized crime and the developing global crisis that sharpened the
existing contradictions among key global and regional players. This
creates conditions for the intensification of existing conflicts. For
example, the peace process between the FARC and the federal government
is on the brink of the collapse in Colombia. Local sources and media
accuse the government and affiliated militias of detentions and killings
of leaders of local communities and former FARC members in violation of
the existing peace agreement. This violence undermine the fragile peace
process and sets conditions for the resumption of the armed struggle by
FARC and its supporters. Mexico remains the hub for illegal migration,
drug and weapon trafficking just on the border with the United States.
Large parts of the country are in the state of chaos and are in fact
controlled by violent drug cartels and their mercenaries. Brazil is in
the permanent state of political and economic crisis amid the rise of
street crime.
These negative tendencies affect almost all
states of the region. The deepening global economic crisis and the
coronavirus panic add oil to the flame of instability.
Countries
of South America are not the only one suffering from the crisis. It
also shapes relations between global powers. Outcomes of the ongoing
coronavirus outbreak and the global economic crisis contributed to the
hardening of the standoff between the United States and China.
Washington and Beijing have insoluble contradictions.
The main of them is that China has been slowly but steadily winning the
race for the economic and technological dominance simultaneously
boosting own military capabilities to defend the victory in the case of a
military escalation. The sanction, tariff and diplomatic pressure
campaign launched by the White House on China since the very start of
the Trump Presidency is a result of the understanding of these
contradictions by the Trump administration and its efforts to guarantee
the leading US position in the face of the global economic recession.
The US posture towards the South China Sea issues, the political
situation in Hong Kong, human rights issues in Xinjiang, the
unprecedented weapon sales to Taiwan, the support of the militarization
of Japan and many other questions is a part of the ongoing standoff.
Summing up, Washington has been seeking to isolate China through a
network of local military alliances and contain its economic expansion
through sanction, propaganda and clandestine operations.
The
contradictions between Beijing and Washington regarding North Korea and
its nuclear and ballistic missile programs are a part of the same chain
of events. Despite the public rhetoric, the United States is not
interested in the full settlement of the Korea conflict. Such a scenario
that may include the reunion of the North and South will remove the
formal justification of the US military buildup. This is why the White
House opted to not fulfill its part of the deal with the North once
again assuring the North Korean leadership that its decision to develop
its nuclear and missile programs and further.
Statements of
Chinese diplomats and top official demonstrate that Beijing fully
understands the position of Washington. At the same time, China has
proven that it is not going to abandon its policies aimed at gaining the
position of the main leading power in the post-unipolar world.
Therefore, the conflict between the sides will continue escalating in
the coming years regardless the administration in the White House and
the composition of the Senate and Congress. Joe Biden and forces behind
his rigged victory in the presidential election will likely turn back
from Trump’s national-oriented economic policy and ‘normalize’ relations
with China once again reconsidering Russia as Enemy #1. This will not
help to remove the insoluble contradictions with China and reverse the
trend towards the confrontation. However, the Biden administration with
help from mainstream media will likely succeed in hiding this fact from
the public by fueling the time-honored anti-Russian hysteria.
As
to Russia itself, it ended the year of 2020 in its ordinary manner for
the recent years: successful and relatively successful foreign policy
actions amid the complicated economic, social and political situation
inside the country. The sanction pressure, coronavirus-related
restrictions and the global economic crisis slowed down the Russian
economy and contributed to the dissatisfaction of the population with
internal economic and social policies of the government. The crisis was
also used by external actors that carried out a series of provocations
and propaganda campaigns aimed at undermining the stability in the
country ahead of the legislative election scheduled for September 2021.
The trend on the increase of sanction pressure, including tapering large
infrastructure projects like the Nord Stream 2, and expansion of public
and clandestine destabilization efforts inside Russia was visible
during the entire year and will likely increase in 2021. In the event of
success, these efforts will not only reverse Russian foreign policy
achievements of the previous years, but could also put in danger the
existence of the Russian statehood in the current format.
Among
the important foreign policy developments of 2020 underreported by
mainstream media is the agreement on the creation of a Russian naval
facility on the coast of the Red Sea in Sudan. If this project is fully
implemented, this will contribute to the rapid growth of Russian
influence in Africa. Russian naval forces will also be able to increase
their presence in the Red Sea and in the area between the Gulf of Aden
and the Gulf of Oman. Both of these areas are the core of the current
maritime energy supply routes. The new base will also serve as a
foothold of Russia in the case of a standoff with naval forces of NATO
member states that actively use their military infrastructure in
Djibouti to project power in the region. It is expected that the United
States (regardless of the administration in the White House) will try to
prevent the Russian expansion in the region at any cost. For an active
foreign policy of Russia, the creation of the naval facility in Sudan
surpasses all public and clandestine actions in Libya in recent years.
From the point of view of protecting Russian national interests in the
Global Oceans, this step is even more important than the creation of the
permanent air and naval bases in Syria.
As well as its
counterparts in Washington and Beijing, Moscow contributes notable
efforts to the modernization of its military capabilities, with special
attention to the strategic nuclear forces and hypersonic weapons. The
Russians see their ability to inflict unacceptable damage on a
potential enemy among the key factors preventing a full-scale military
aggression against them from NATO. The United Sates, China and Russia
are in fact now involved in the hypersonic weapon race that also
includes the development of means and measures to counter a potential
strike with hypersonic weapons.
The new war in Nagorno-Karabakh
became an important factor shaping the balance of power in the South
Caucasus. The Turkish-Azerbaijani bloc achieved a sweeping victory over
Armenian forces and only the involvement of the Russian diplomacy the
further deployment of the peacekeepers allowed to put an end to the
violence and rescue the vestiges of the self-proclaimed Armenian
Republic of Artsakh. Russia successfully played a role of mediator and
officially established a military presence on the sovereign territory of
Azerbaijan for the next 5 years. The new Karabakh war also gave an
additional impulse in the Turkish-Azerbaijani economic and military
cooperation, while the pro-Western regime in Armenia that expectedly led
the Armenian nation to the tragedy is balancing on the brink of
collapse.
The Central Asia traditionally remained one of the areas
of instability around the world with the permanent threat of militancy
and humanitarian crisis. Nonetheless, despite forecasts of some
analysis, the year of 2020 did not become the year of the creation of
ISIS’ Caliphate 2.0 in the region. An important role in preventing this
was played by the Taliban that additionally to securing its military
victories over the US-led coalition and the US-backed Kabul government,
was fiercely fighting ISIS cells appearing in Afghanistan. The Taliban,
which controls a large part of Afghanistan, was also legalized on the
international scene by direct talks with the United States. The role of
the Taliban will grow and further with the reduction of the US military
presence.
While some media already branded the year of 2020 as one
of the worst in the modern history, there are no indications that the
year of 2021 will be any brighter or the global crises and regional
instability will magically disappear by themselves. Instead, most likely
2020 was just a prelude for the upcoming global shocks and the acute
standoff for markets and resources in the environment of censorship,
legalized total surveillance, violations of human rights under
‘democratic’ and ‘social’ slogans’ and proxy wars.
The
instability in Europe will likely be fueled by the increasing
cultural-civilizational conflict and the new wave of newcomers that have
acute ideological and cultural differences with the European
civilization. The influx of newcomers is expected due to
demographic factors and the complicated security, social situation in
the Middle East and Africa. Europe will likely try to deal with the
influx of newcomers by introducing new movement and border restrictions
under the brand of fighting coronavirus. Nonetheless, the expected
growth of the migration pressure will likely contribute to the negative
tendencies that could blow up Europe from inside.
The
collapse of the international security system, including key treaties
limiting the development and deployment of strategic weapons, indicates
that the new detente on the global scene will remain an improbable
scenario. Instead, the world will likely move further towards
the escalation scenario as at least a part of the current global
leadership considers a large war a useful tool to overcome the economic
crisis and capture new markets. Russia, with its large territories, rich
resources, a relatively low population, seems to be a worthwhile
target. At the same time, China will likely exploit the escalating
conflict between Moscow and the US-led bloc to even further increase its
global positions. In these conditions, many will depend on the new
global order and main alliances within it that are appearing from the
collapsing unipolar system. The United States has already lost its
unconditional dominant role on the international scene, but the
so-called multipolar world order has not appeared yet. The format of
this new multipolar world will likely have a critical impact on the
further developments around the globe and positions of key players
involved in the never-ending Big Game.
