Why the Washington-London Axis Can’t Win

For all their blustering about “human rights” and “moral superiority”, the trans-Atlantic powers are pursuing a policy of confrontation and war, on all fronts. With China, after the “chip war” initiated by the U.S. government, the Chinese government has now ordered a ban on the purchase of chips from the U.S. manufacturer Micron. The Biden Administration denounced the move as “intolerable” and “economic coercion”, although the same practice by Washington is deemed acceptable. In Europe, the EU Commission is pressing ahead with moves for “de-risking” trade with China, which is just another name for “de-coupling”, but designed to sound less threatening for the European economies.

As for Russia, there has been a dangerous escalation in the warnings and provocations militarily, in addition to the West’s rejection of offers for negotiations (cf. below). President Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan gave Ukraine a de facto green light to launch strikes against Russian territory, including Crimea, prompting an official protest from the Russian Foreign Ministry to U.S. diplomats in Moscow. On the same day, May 26, the same ministry mooted the possibility of breaking diplomatic relations with the U.K. over reports of direct British military involvement in cross-border attacks against Russia.

Moscow is also proceeding with the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, as NATO prepares nuclear missions in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the “major offensive” by Ukrainian forces, announced in great pomp for months now, continues to be postponed.

However, the policy pursued by Washington and London, and dutifully supported in European capitals, faces major obstacles. Not least among them, the collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system, which is thoroughly bankrupt, as evidenced in the banking crisis. In addition, the very real danger of a nuclear war is forcing more and more circles in the U.S. and Europe to demand a serious change in policy. As for the vast majority of the “Global South”, comprising some 85% of the world’s population, they refuse to go along with the wars and the looting policies.

This problem was addressed in an editorial in the Financial Times of May 23, under the headline “Taking Stock of the G7 Hiroshima Summit”. The editors are basically satisfied with the West’s gameplan for orchestrating a showdown with Russia and China, but lament that the world outside the West is not on board with that policy, at all.

“Garnering support from the so-called ‘global south’ will however continue to be a major challenge for the G7. Economic ties between these nations and Russia and China are a barrier…. With China also building ports and doling out billions in aid and investment across Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, stronger dialogue will only go so far….The G7 will need to follow through on promises to support developing nations with investment and climate finance.”

Promises, as the FT suggests, will certainly be forthcoming. But significant investments in the real economies of the Global South will not. In fact, today’s trans-Atlantic financial system is incapable of providing the funds and the productive credit needed to ensure actual development. That’s why it must be replaced, completely.