Different countries have different attitudes to "one-sidedness" and the dominance of the United States on the world stage, but all serious politicians are aware that the world today largely revolves around the axis of American power. Even such a skeptic as Paul Kennedy (a well-known American political historian), who warned the American elite about the possibility of" imperial overstrain", resigned himself. Struck by the overwhelming success of the American blitzkrieg in Afghanistan, he stated: "Never before has there been such an imbalance of power in the world. Pax Britannica was relatively cheap. The British army was significantly smaller than the European armies. The famous Royal Navy was almost equal in power to the two closest rivals. Now all the navies of the world, taken together, can not compete with the American naval superiority.

Napoleon's France and Philip II's Spain had powerful enemies and were only part of a multipolar system. The Roman Empire covered vast territories, but it was opposed by another great empire in Persia and an even larger one in China. No comparison!" However, he considers it premature to apply the definition of "empire" to the United States.

Some of the founding fathers of the United States thought differently. Alexander Hamilton, drafting the first paragraph of the Federalist Document, described America as an empire that in many ways was "the most interesting in the world." Thomas Jefferson often referred to the United States as the"empire of freedom."

The "Republicans" in power in Washington are particularly close to "political idealism", a tendency to ideological rhetoric. For them, the manifesto of a "Pre - Established Destiny" is not an empty phrase-it is like a mission entrusted to the United States, a kind of mandate from above to spread the values of freedom and democracy around the world. "A preordained Fate... - clarifies the famous American historian J. R. R. Tolkien. Pratt - became the justification for almost any increment of territory that the United States had the will and power to acquire."

With this in mind, the" Democrats "tend to limit themselves to more modest means - responding to immediate threats, as they are understood in Washington - patrolling the" imperial borders", police flights over Iraq, pacifying the Balkans, and keeping conflicts in Latin America under the lid.

The fight against international terrorism is gradually taking on the features of a new "crusade". Every empire waged wars for its stated purposes. And for their own survival. Inertia and stagnation are fatal to the imperial body. Any deviation from the already occupied geopolitical positions threatens to destroy the whole organism (remember the USSR). The current US strategy is little subject to subjective will. It obeys the laws of power struggle.

In the mix of American politics, including military, there has always been a place for moralism, but it was primarily based on

page 20

economic calculation. And the mix was excellent, stone by stone firmly laying the foundation of the imperial building. In 1899, President McKinley suddenly became concerned about the Philippines. After several sleepless nights, he admits, "I got down on my knees and thanked almighty God for his insight and guidance. One night it came to me... There is nothing left for us but to take them (the Filipinos - S. L.) all under our wing, and train the Filipinos, and raise them, and civilize them, and Christianize them..." McKinley, however, did not say a word that the United States has a much more important strategic interest in the Philippines: to add to its energy policy infrastructure includes local coal mines. The booming American Pacific Fleet needed fuel. At the same time, there was an opportunity to actually patronize the foreign and domestic policy of the Philippines, with its rich natural resources.

Then the arrogance of McKinley's intentions awakened the so-called Anti-Imperialist League, which, by the way, included the famous Mark Twain, the "father" of Tom Sawyer. One of its members, Edward Carnegie, even offered to buy the islands for $20 million, just to delay the US military machine from there. It didn't work out. There was a bigger prize at stake.

Nothing is new under the moon. Now, it seems, the US is determined to bring the torch of democracy to the Islamic world. The first results of the fight against international terrorism are impressive. In the year since 9/11, the United States has made significant geopolitical and geo-economic gains. The most significant is the consolidation of Americans not only in Afghanistan, but also in Central Asia and Transcaucasia. In many ways, the issue of transportation of Caspian oil is predetermined - the Americans prefer to diversify the pipeline routes as much as possible, avoiding dependence on Russians and Arabs. The Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which is undesirable for Moscow, is becoming a reality. The old project of a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to the Pakistani port of Karachi, to the Arabian Sea, has been revived. Transportation of the "main oil" should bypass Russia. The next step is the implementation of the Euro-Asian transport corridor through Ukraine, which, experiencing a need for fuel, Georgia has pledged to help from the technical side. As in the Philippines, the stakes are more than high - the key to influencing the internal political processes of the respective countries. Only a shell may remain of the CIS in the future.

After Afghanistan, Iraq again took the place of the priority goal of the American strategy.

Permanent link to this publication: