{"id":66060,"date":"2004-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-19T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/08\/19\/lamorce-dun-changement-colossal-des-centres-de-puissance\/"},"modified":"2004-08-19T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-08-19T00:00:00","slug":"lamorce-dun-changement-colossal-des-centres-de-puissance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/08\/19\/lamorce-dun-changement-colossal-des-centres-de-puissance\/","title":{"rendered":"L’amorce d’un changement colossal des centres de puissance<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

L’amorce d’un changement colossal des centres de puissance<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t19 ao\u00fbt 2004 Nous attirons l’attention de nos lecteurs sur ce texte publi\u00e9 ce jour sur atimes.com<\/a>, et intitul\u00e9 : \u00ab The inevitability of a Eurasian alliance.<\/em> \u00bb Son int\u00e9r\u00eat est notamment que son auteur est W Joseph Stroupe, \u00e9diteur en chef de GeoStrategyMap.com, un magazine g\u00e9opolitique online<\/em> sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9 dans l’analyse strat\u00e9gique et la pr\u00e9vision. Stroupe est un sp\u00e9cialiste de l’analyse g\u00e9opolitique, tr\u00e8s connu et \u00e9cout\u00e9. Son analyse refl\u00e8te sans aucun doute une tendance sp\u00e9cifique de l’\u00e9volution de la pens\u00e9e g\u00e9opolitique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’int\u00e9r\u00eat du texte est d’abord dans l’analyse qu’il fait de l’\u00e9volution de la puissance am\u00e9ricaine. En effet, toute la logique d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Stroupe est non seulement que l’alliance entre Asie et Europe est in\u00e9vitable, mais d’abord qu’elle sera et est d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 favoris\u00e9e par le d\u00e9clin de la puissance de l’Am\u00e9rique. Les quelques paragraphes ci-apr\u00e8s, extraits du texte de Stroupe, d\u00e9crivent ce d\u00e9clin selon l’auteur.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab There exist forces of mutual attraction drawing Europe and Asia together, as well as external forces driving them together. Additionally, a growing power vacuum left in the wake of the United States’ economic, diplomatic and military decline, coupled with intensifying opposition to its increasingly militarized and unilateral foreign policy, is fueling a widespread and accelerating realignment of states on the Eurasian landmass, where such states increasingly pursue a course of greater independence from the US and a closer alignment with their Eurasian partners.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb With regard to the decline of US military power, and the resulting power vacuum that currently exists and is growing, it is becoming clear that the United States, the last superpower, can no longer dictate and control global and regional events as it once did. In spite of America’s exceedingly powerful high-tech military, it cannot control events in Iraq or Afghanistan to bring stability and peace. Matters are actually moving toward greater instability and even chaos in those two countries. This fact has regionwide, and even global, implications and repercussions. The aura of America’s virtual omnipotence, backed by its unequaled military, has been severely tainted, and is collapsing. On display to the entire world at large is the inability of the military of the last superpower effectively to subdue and control, post-invasion, two small and relatively insignificant powers, Iraq and Afghanistan.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The past two years have demonstrated the very real limits of military power in general, and of the United States’ military power in particular. Hence, the decline in America’s military power is both real and perceived. It is real because the US lacks the sizable forces it once had, is seriously overdeployed and overstretched in its military commitments, and in various ways has shown it has pointed vulnerabilities to asymmetrical methods of attack. Its decline is perceived because that former aura of invincibility it once had has been removed. Both the perception and the reality of America’s military decline is immensely important, for it gives various nations deep second thoughts about forming, or continuing, military agreements and alliances with the US. It also encourages certain other nations to purchase weapons systems and adopt strategies (including the making of alliances) designed to blunt, and even to cut short, America’s military influence in their particular part of the world.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Additionally, the decline of the United States’ diplomatic power is working in conjunction with the aforementioned decline in military power to cause a contraction of US influence throughout the Eurasian landmass, in spite of the proliferation of its military bases there. In only a few short years, the US has been changed from the unquestioned global diplomatic leader into a supplicant that pleads and demands, but mostly does not receive, the tangible support of the international community, and has even been forced repeatedly to plead (unsuccessfully) of its own (previously) pet alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The US, by all standards of measure, has been ravaged of its once-great diplomatic power, largely as a result of its own foolish squandering of such once-great power. And as that power and influence do rapidly contract, a diplomatic realignment of individual states and of existing alliances is occurring, as well as the significant formation of new alliances. This is manifesting itself as states and alliances (such as the European Union and NATO) pursue a course of increasing independence from the US, and as some even pursue a course of direct opposition to the last superpower. The scale and depth of such independence from, and even direct opposition to, the US was unthinkable only a few years ago, but it is continuing to grow and even to accelerate.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb America’s economic decline both creates a power vacuum to disrupt the former pro-US alignment and stance of many states on the Eurasian landmass and exerts energetic influence to cause economic realignment along lines of independence from the US. The former comfort of having one’s economic wagon hitched firmly to the US economy as the sole leading global economic engine has rapidly turned to deep discomfort in the face of America’s economic decline, the current US economic \u00a0\u00bbrecovery\u00a0\u00bb notwithstanding.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Growing fear of US economic instability in the face of mushrooming debt and the bad, shortsighted economic policies coming out of Washington are motivating Europe and Asia to strengthen and deepen their own economic ties on many different levels. They are having to consider seriously what they would do if the US dollar collapsed, catching them in an unprepared state. They cannot afford the risk of seeing their own economies crash in the event that instability in the US economy becomes too great. Along those lines, as the global price of crude oil continues to climb, Eurasian observers note how the formerly renowned US economic stability and strength, as symbolized by the dollar, is becoming significantly unhinged, as the deep imbalances produced by massive US debt forcefully manifest themselves. Hence, in the atmosphere created by US economic decline, Europe and Asia seek to solidify their own economic strength, significantly and intentionally independent of the US economy. Failure to do so is not an option for Eurasia. Hence a number of positions have been recently taken which demonstrate these facts. The EU and Russia continue to pursue strategic economic cooperation even with those states labeled as evil by the US strategic economic ties between Europe, Russia, and Asia are quickly becoming very extensive.<\/em> \u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tOn voit la vigueur de cette analyse et l’on mesure \u00e9videmment l’\u00e9volution qu’a subie, ces derniers mois, la perception de la puissance am\u00e9ricaine. Ce type de textex montre bien un changement d\u00e9cisif dans ce laps de temps tr\u00e8s court, ce qui v\u00e9rifie l’id\u00e9e d’un temps historique qui change \u00e0 une rapidit\u00e9 extraordinaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Il y a trois ans, le 11 septembre 2001 et les quelques mois qui ont suivi (sans parler des ann\u00e9es pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes qui allaient dans le m\u00eame sens), l’Am\u00e9rique \u00e9tait la puissance invincible \u00e0 laquelle tout le monde devait se rallier.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Il y a un an et demi, l’Am\u00e9rique se transforma tr\u00e8s rapidement en le plus puissant des rogue states<\/em> dont tous devaient se garder et se m\u00e9fier.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Aujourd’hui, la d\u00e9cadence et peut-\u00eatre l’effondrement de la puissance am\u00e9ricaine sont de plus en plus admis comme des possibilit\u00e9s, voire des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s proches. Ce facteur du d\u00e9clin acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9 de l’Am\u00e9rique est en train de devenir la principale question des relations internationales.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa logique de ces constats entra\u00eene \u00e9videmment la th\u00e8se de l’auteur, bas\u00e9e sur la recherche de la puissance qui devrait n\u00e9cessairement remplacer la puissance am\u00e9ricaine comme centre stabilisateur du monde. Stroupe estime que la situation actuelle de la puissance am\u00e9ricaine, c’est-\u00e0-dire son d\u00e9clin, conduit effectivement \u00e0 une dynamique de substitution d\u00e9sormais en marche, et m\u00eame d\u00e9sormais irr\u00e9sistible. \u00ab Formerly, the predominant global view was that independence from, or even direct opposition to, the US was virtual suicide. However, that fear-based view has recently been mostly discredited in favor of one that admonishes and encourages independence from the US in the diplomatic, economic and military spheres. The new philosophy is working quite nicely for those who have adopted it, and is progressively drawing power away from the US and placing it in the hands of weaker powers, which are learning to act collectively, to form meaningful and mutually beneficial alliances, in order to counterbalance, and even roll back, US global dominance.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette th\u00e8se conduit Stroupe \u00e0 conclure que cette puissance sera n\u00e9cessairement un ensemble Europe-Asie dans la mesure o\u00f9 les \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui le favorisent sont d\u00e9j\u00e0 en marche. Stroupe place la Russie au cur de ce processus, notamment en raison de sa position unique en tant que lien entre l’Europe et l’Asie. C’est l’aspect de la th\u00e8se qui nous semble le plus discutable, mais plut\u00f4t dans sa formulation et dans son orientation que sur le fond du point ainsi soulev\u00e9. Certes, la Russie serait n\u00e9cessairement au centre g\u00e9ographique de cette alliance mais il est moins s\u00fbr, \u00e0 notre sens qu’elle en sera l’inspiratrice, voire m\u00eame le moteur. Nous verrions plut\u00f4t une coordination de plusieurs actions, voire de plusieurs alliances de facto<\/em>, o\u00f9 l’on trouverait ici ou l\u00e0 la Russie, bien entendu.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa th\u00e8se de Stroupe ne nous semble valable que dans la mesure o\u00f9 elle d\u00e9signerait plut\u00f4t un rassemblement d’int\u00e9r\u00eats n\u00e9cessairement suscit\u00e9 par l’effacement de l’Am\u00e9rique, c’est-\u00e0-dire une v\u00e9ritable r\u00e9volte anti-am\u00e9ricaine suscit\u00e9e par le d\u00e9clin am\u00e9ricain. L’alliance euro-asiatique deviendrait plut\u00f4t, alors, un mod\u00e8le gigantesque pour l’organisation des relations internationales, avec le centre de gravit\u00e9 passant de la zone transatlantique \u00e0 la zone continentale euro-asiatique, une revanche g\u00e9opolitique de la masse terrestre contre la masse navale. Bien entendu, toujours selon notre appr\u00e9ciation, cette \u00e9volution g\u00e9opolitique n’est que la cons\u00e9quence d’une formidable \u00e9volution des communications, avec l’effondrement de la puissance am\u00e9ricaine repr\u00e9sent\u00e9e de fa\u00e7on virtualiste et son effondrement per\u00e7u extr\u00eamement rapidement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn dernier point est remarquable dans l’analyse de Stroupe : sa perception dont il nous fait part de la rapidit\u00e9 des \u00e9v\u00e9nements qu’il pr\u00e9voit. C’est un point essentiel, qui correspond \u00e0 l’analyse que nous faisons de la situation actuelle et de son \u00e9volution, et l\u00e0 aussi un signe de l’\u00e9volution, \u00e9galement tr\u00e8s rapide, de la perception des changements en cours. Cette perception est elle-m\u00eame un moteur, sans le moindre doute, de l’\u00e9volution en cours : nous voulons dire par l\u00e0 que la perception de la rapidit\u00e9 des \u00e9v\u00e9nements, nourrie par les \u00e9v\u00e9nements eux-m\u00eames et la perception qu’on en a. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab How do we know that trigger is most likely to occur soon, in mere months, perhaps even this autumn near the US presidential elections, for example? Because we can measure the intensity of the forces and the rapidity of the movement of events currently placing a terrific and increasing strain on the international order, and we can measure the intensity of those forces against the history of past tectonic-plate shifts to see that the current form of the international order cannot endure such strains for long. The interval of time until the massive plate shifts occur must be measured in months, and not in years. In the resulting geopolitical and global economic reordering of things, as a center of power, the approaching Eurasian alliance will be quite formidable indeed.<\/em> \u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

L’amorce d’un changement colossal des centres de puissance 19 ao\u00fbt 2004 Nous attirons l’attention de nos lecteurs sur ce texte publi\u00e9 ce jour sur atimes.com, et intitul\u00e9 : \u00ab The inevitability of a Eurasian alliance. \u00bb Son int\u00e9r\u00eat est notamment que son auteur est W Joseph Stroupe, \u00e9diteur en chef de GeoStrategyMap.com, un magazine g\u00e9opolitique… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66060","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66060","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66060"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66060\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}