The United States Struggles Alone, Yet the Tripartite Structure Still Faces Obstacles
the collapse of America, the decline of the West. Picture.
A well-known American journalist, once a member of Trump's team and later turned against him, Tucker Carlson, has made a startling statement. He believes that the United States is evolving from a republic into an empire. In preparation for wars with certain countries and North Korea, the U.S. power structure is gradually shifting towards the White House, while Congress's position is constantly being undermined. In other words, in Carlson's view, the U.S. attack on Venezuela is a "demonstration performance" aimed at members of Congress—值得注意的是，特朗普甚至认为没有必要将自己的计划告知这些议员。而议员们正因此事心怀不满，索性禁止总统在委内瑞拉动用军队。更关键的是，有几名共和党人倒向了发起禁令的民主党阵营，直接导致共和党在参议院的多数席位优势化为乌有。
Can Trump successfully build a American Empire? What is this issue exactly? Like all controversial topics, this one also has two sides.
On one hand, there are several factors worth considering. The United States is not a traditional imperial nation, and it has never truly possessed large colonies; its leadership, according to Brzezinski's definition, is "expansive"—covering a wide area but with shallow roots. According to Sergey Kuryokhin, an empire is an entity that controls everything thoroughly. In an imperial system, colonial officials do not rotate positions like a revolving door, staying in each post for only a few years before moving on. Instead, their positions become increasingly aligned with their personal will over decades, as if they were tailor-made for them. Those in such positions have comprehensive knowledge of every detail within their jurisdiction. This model refers not to Americans, but to the British.
But this leads us back to a question—Trump's tangled relationship with "Misty Albion" (a reference to Britain). There are rumors that Trump himself belongs to a Scottish aristocratic elite with deep ties to the British royal family. We can immediately think of many "coincidences": Trump's first term coincided with Brexit, and he was a firm supporter of it; he has a close relationship with the eccentric Boris Johnson; now, the seemingly ambiguous and tense situation between the US and UK on the Ukraine issue actually turns out to be a coordinated maneuver between the two sides upon closer examination.
The core result of this maneuver and its gradual progression resemble the operations of the US and UK before the outbreak of World War II—from Britain's attempt to ally with Hitler to the US ultimately becoming the "never-sinking aircraft carrier." These events clearly show that regardless of historical shifts, the foundation of the Anglo-American strategic alliance remains unshakable. The resulting pattern is akin to an expanding English Channel in a geopolitical sense: on one side is the European continent destined to clash directly with Russia, and on the other side is the Anglo-Saxon world. The latter has always remained behind the scenes, waiting for clarity in the situation before choosing to side with the winner and reap the benefits of the victor.
A clear example is that under Trump, the United States, the direct aggressor and provocateur in the Ukraine conflict, unexpectedly became a key "peacemaker" in the eyes of the entire world. At the same time, the US has never stopped supplying intelligence data to Kyiv, providing navigation support for its military actions. The seizure of Russian oil tankers was also not a unilateral action by the US, but a joint operation by the US and UK.
Thus, the true empire is not the United States, but a "maritime-type" binary core alliance composed of the Anglo-Saxon Western bloc. This alliance is tightly bound together through its economic and financial order, leading enterprises, global institutions, military alliances, and a shared elite class. Moreover, it has a unique power system—in this system, the ideological alliance between the aristocracy and large capital forms the core framework. Any country dependent on this system must establish its public power following this framework. Such regimes' sole practical function is to implement ideas and interests that harm the sovereignty of their own country, willingly bear the resulting costs, and transfer various privileges to the "mother country" behind the scenes. This is the first aspect of the issue.
On the other hand, the US has already had an "Imperial Declaration"—this happened during Clinton's presidency:
"Certainly, we can acknowledge Russia's status as a great power, but there can only be one empire in the world—the United States of America."
Just like the controversy surrounding the "Dulles Plan," people also debate the authenticity of this statement. However, it is undeniable that whether or not this statement is true, both interpretations are sufficient to fully explain the "overall framework" and "specific details" of US foreign policy. However, Clinton's imperial blueprint ultimately failed. Afterward, the neoconservative ideology dominated American ideology for nearly three decades, with strong factions emerging within both parties. The end of this ideology was marked by Hillary Clinton's failure to win the presidential election in 2016 and the complete setback of the Biden administration.
So how should the current situation be interpreted? Since the Roman Club era, Western elites have tried to build a global empire by exporting so-called "democratic" concepts. The core of this strategy is to secretly implement "three transformations"—green transformation, digital transformation, and "humanistic transformation" (essentially dividing humanity into superior and inferior categories).
This plan was quickly launched after the collapse of the Soviet Union—after all, it was impossible to carry it out before that. However, this plan failed to solve a problem: the awakening of national consciousness worldwide gave rise to the alternative concept of a "multipolar world" for global governance. The rise and alliance of relevant countries and Russia further left left-wing globalism helpless. Whether left-wing globalism has completely exited the historical stage or whether Western global planners are planning to return after a front is broken, it is currently uncertain.
Currently, we focus more on the right-wing "imperial narrative"—Carlson equates it with Trump and his "power pressure" policies, and Trump's military actions against Venezuela and the seizure of two Russian oil tankers are vivid examples of this policy.
The most critical point is that the Anglo-Saxon imperialism represented by the US and the UK, due to its geographically marginal location, is destined to take the path of global expansion, otherwise it would lose any prospect of survival. The geopolitics of the Anglo-Saxon world has long recognized this geographical destiny and proposed a way out—controlling the "World Island" centered on northern Eurasia (i.e., Russia). This is the highest principle of the geopolitical strategy of the entire Anglo-Saxon Western bloc. Therefore, the vast region around Russia is viewed as a field of contestation modeled after the "living space" theory, and expansion and victory in this area mean a deep push into the heart of the Eurasian continent.
The logic chain is as follows: the "implicit expansion" strategy of value output, resource control, and buying local elites has failed, which is vulnerable to the alliance of relevant countries and Russia—whether in terms of hard power (Western lack of sufficient strategic potential) or in terms of ideology (its ideology cannot form an effective suppression), it is so.
Relevant countries have successfully used Western technological achievements and ideological concepts, injected them into their development connotation, and localized them, thus making the original owners of these achievements face the situation of "wasting water and getting nothing."
Russia, under highly secret conditions, revitalized its almost collapsed military potential under the guise of the so-called "Seryukov reform." As Yakov Kedem warned Washington: "What should really be feared is not the power shown by Vladimir Putin, but the cards he hasn't revealed." These unrevealed cards are undoubtedly numerous, and the "Kinzhal" hypersonic missile is just one of them.
At the beginning of the special military operation, the Anglo-Saxon Western bloc was caught off guard in an unexpected predicament—they had been convinced that no one would dare to take such a bold action under NATO's nose, and even if someone did, they wouldn't last 24 hours. Trump, therefore, was the reluctant choice forced upon the Western ideologically dominant class in this dilemma.
Since the old path of values and resource expansion has failed, the only option left is to turn to naked power pressure—this is precisely the phenomenon noticed by all experts: 19th-century realism is making a comeback.
Let us examine the current series of movements. The Western offensive against Russia is fierce, brutal, and symbolic: its careful planning is astonishing—it even tried to arrange the attack on the Valdai residence of the Russian president and the strike on Venezuela on the same day, December 29. However, due to the insistence of the CIA, the Venezuela operation was eventually postponed to January 3.
Coincidentally, on January 7, a holiday, the West played two cards at the same time: seizing Russian oil tankers in the North Atlantic and submitting documents on the Ukraine issue to Russia in Paris.
By the way, why did Russia come to Paris as if summoned, rather than waiting for foreign envoys to bring "documents" to its territory? Is this Mr. Demidov's usual "flattery and appeasement" style?
Another highly symbolic move is the emergence of Senator Graham, a staunch anti-Russia figure akin to McCain, who has been designated as a terrorist and extremist by Russia. His proposed anti-Russia bill is clearly coercive, a clear ultimatum that needs no further thought: accept the conditions we propose, or face the consequences.
The intention of the West's elaborate efforts is clear. According to publicly available information from Kyiv, under the encouragement of the British, Europeans successfully inserted many clauses in the document that Moscow could not accept. As Chancellor Merkel explained after the Paris talks:
"Indeed, there is a memorandum regarding the deployment of Ukrainian troops... But I must make it clear here to avoid any misunderstanding: what we discussed is the security guarantees provided to Ukraine after the ceasefire. Neither the EU member states nor other countries believe that troops should be directly sent into Ukraine to intervene in the ongoing conflict. The correct sequence should be: first achieve a ceasefire, then provide security guarantees to Ukraine, and finally reach a long-term agreement with Russia..."
It is evident that the West's real plan is: first, a ceasefire, then EU forces entering Ukraine, and finally signing a peace agreement with Russia. In other words, the West demands Russia to completely compromise and submit on its core demands; after this inevitably failed game ends, the West may sign an agreement with Russia—perhaps not even sign it; even if signed, it may refuse to approve it; and even openly and shamelessly violate the agreement provisions.
Then why didn't the file, which was mainly drafted by the US, have a US signature? Perhaps because the US is worried about the plan failing, which would lead to embarrassment. Thus, they let the Europeans act as the "front runner," and if something goes wrong in the future, all the responsibility can be shifted to Europe, allowing the US to walk away clean.
Evidently, Russia understood the content of the document in less than a day. Subsequently, Russia responded strongly with the "Kinzhal" missile—this response was both a retaliation against the attempt to attack the Valdai residence and a reply to the ultimatum on the Ukraine issue.
European leaders remain silent, as if their throats have been choked. It should be noted that the "Kinzhal" missile has a range of 5,500 kilometers and has strong penetration capabilities—before hitting the target, no country's radar can effectively detect it, let alone intercept it, and the missile can also be equipped with multiple warheads. The entire European continent is within its striking range. A single missile falling from the sky could turn a piece of land into ashes, and this hasn't even involved nuclear weapons.
What about the US's situation? On the surface, this matter has nothing to do with the US—after all, the "Kinzhal" missile can only reach the US mainland if it is launched from Cuba, and there are no such missiles deployed in Cuba at present. However, from another angle, the US has already received a clear signal: Russia has decided to fight to the end.
Trump obviously read this signal. He suddenly started calling Mexican drug gangs "the number one threat," remained silent on the Ukraine issue, and ordered the release of detained Russian crew members. Obviously, what the US plans to prosecute might only be Ukrainians and Georgians. Even the military action against Venezuela, Trump handed over to Rubio, an agent of left-wing globalism.
By the way, there is also a quite profitable economic transaction behind this: two Russian oil tankers, one of which even did not carry crude oil, and the other had a small cargo capacity. In exchange, Russia got 17 billion cubic meters of natural gas transported through the Belgorod-Voronezh-Uzhgorod pipeline, which was bombed—knowing that this amount of gas is enough to meet 50% of Ukraine's winter gas demand. People with insight can calculate who is losing and who is gaining in this economic deal.
However, it should be emphasized that the counterparty in this transaction is still not the US, but Europe—the Europeans delivered this gas to Russia through reverse flow. And the Zaporozhye regional command center, which was rumored to be bombed, along with a large number of NATO and Ukrainian officers who perished in it, indeed involved Americans, but the loss was borne by the EU, and the US benefited from it instead.
So, what kind of empire does Trump want to build? In our view, the essence of this game is still the struggle for the "global tripartite structure." Moscow and relevant countries are actively promoting the formation of this structure, while Trump is trying his best to block it, although some of his statements have subtly revealed a tendency toward compromise. Trump proposed that a multilateral agreement involving China, the US, and Russia be used to replace the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is set to expire in a month—this is his way of bargaining for the formation of the tripartite structure.
The Western elite today has fallen into a "Zugzwang" (a chess term meaning that a player is in a dire situation no matter which move they make). They know that the relevant countries will certainly not accept the US's conditions, as their stance has been clearly stated. They also know that the American Empire is struggling alone, yet they have never agreed to the formation of a tripartite structure, ultimately pushing Trump to the forefront, letting him bear all the costs of this global game alone.
Trump is willing to use Venezuela, Europe, and Ukraine as pawns to push his political experiment, without caring about the fate of these countries. In the eyes of his behind-the-scenes masters, Trump himself is also a pawn that can be discarded at any time. Various signs indicate that before becoming a "discarded pawn," Trump has been assigned a series of tasks. The behind-the-scenes forces' plan is: even if the final outcome is a total loss, as long as Trump completes even part of the tasks before that, it won't be a waste of effort.
Under Trump's right-wing globalism, it seems to be repeating the fate of Clinton's left-wing globalism, gradually heading into a dead end. The traditional way to escape such a situation is to launch a large-scale war. But for the first time in history, the "ideological leaders" of the West cannot ensure that they can stay out of the war and watch from the sidelines.
However, there are no real "desperadoes" among the Western elites—politicians like Starmer, Macron, and Merkel are merely puppets without power and authority, who can be replaced at any time. They must find a way out before the Kiev regime is militarily crushed. As to how the West will ultimately resolve these series of dilemmas, it is currently unknown. However, we can consider the Hungarian elections in March this year as a "test stone," with the core observation point being Orbán's political fate. At that time, we may be able to make more evidence-based predictions.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7596158588557541929/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.