Reference News Network, January 13 report: The Hong Kong Asia Times website published an article by Ravindra Kand on January 10 titled "Capitalism in War: The Accounting of American Foreign Policy." Excerpts follow:
Decline of power rarely results from lack of strength, but more often from misunderstanding the nature of power.
The fall of the Roman Empire was not due to a single invasion, but rather due to excessive structural expansion. Rome expanded much faster than its capacity to integrate, govern, and legitimize.
The decline of the British Empire occurred when its commitments exceeded its economic and political capabilities. It was the product of overextension combined with denial of reality.
Their problem lay in confusing influence with control, strength with sustainability, and victory with legitimacy.
American capitalism has been one of the most efficient engines of innovation and growth in history. Unfortunately, it also shaped an American strategic mindset ill-suited for geopolitics. America handles geopolitics like business: emphasizing speed, destruction, return on investment, and short-term profits. However, geopolitics is not a market, and nations are not products.
Complex systems respond to pressure nonlinearly, often producing unexpected results. For years, the pattern demonstrated by the United States has been: capable of quickly entering conflicts, but lacking effective exit plans.
The mission in the U.S. plan is to make the world safer, but the result is the opposite. Numerous cases such as the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria clearly show that U.S. interventions involve action without any solutions; they have influence but lack legitimate authority.
In Iraq, the U.S. intervened with overwhelming force, believing that regime change would quickly bring stability. However, what followed was long-term national division, rebellion, and regional instability. The problem was not military capability, but strategic vision.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. showed unprecedented persistence, but lacked coherence in its objectives. Over 20 years, the agenda shifted from counterterrorism to nation-building, eventually evolving into an unstructured withdrawal. The collapse of the U.S.-backed government did not happen suddenly, but was the logical outcome of a series of contradictory actions.
In Libya, the U.S. intervention was swift and tactically successful, but the strategic void could not be ignored. Toppling the country's regime was seen as the end of the game, not the beginning of a new era. Its consequences were the collapse of the state, the rise of militias, and the spread of instability across North Africa and the Mediterranean region.
These are not isolated incidents. They stem from a consistent logic of action: decisive intervention, expecting rapid change, and withdrawing once the costs exceed visible benefits.
Venezuela is no exception. Economic pressure, sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and regime change are all based on the same assumption: external pressure will quickly produce political outcomes. External pressure may weaken or change a regime, but it also intensifies resistance, deepens people's suffering, erodes American legitimacy, and fails to bring real stability.
This raises an unsettling question: What is the real intention behind this? Is it to promote democratic values or economic exploitation?
Each failed intervention exacerbates the next failure. The erosion of credibility is not due to insufficient U.S. power, but because of its capricious and calculating use of power.
Globally, when interests are at stake, U.S. foreign policy intervenes forcefully; but when patience is required, it disappears. This is the risk of the quiet loss of U.S. influence, which requires urgent course correction.
History tells us that the shaping of global order in each era depends less on who is the strongest, and more on how power is used. In the 19th century, the determining factor was territorial expansion; in the 20th century, it was industrial scale and military alliances; in the late 20th century, it was leadership institutions and innovation. But the 21st century seems to be drifting toward a completely different logic, contrary to instinct and tradition.
Power is no longer maximized through continuous action, intervention, or coercion. Instead, it will be determined by strategic restraint—consciously choosing not to dominate, not to intervene, not to force, even if such capacity exists.
To achieve victory is not by forcing outcomes, but by absorbing pressure, enduring fluctuations, maintaining operations under stress, and avoiding irreversible commitments.
The decisive advantage of the 21st century is not domination, but strategic endurance. This means exercising power wisely and patiently, rather than constantly demonstrating strength.
Empires rarely collapse from a single action. Their decline lies in each action diminishing future options, each victory gaining strategic leverage while paying a greater price due to loss of legitimacy. History will never forgive empires that conflate action with direction, influence with legitimacy. (Translated by Wenyi)
Original: toutiao.com/article/7594817469395583539/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author(s) alone.