US says it will no longer conduct military interventions. What's the catch?

Why does the USA abandon military interventions policy?

On Wednesday, March 3, US President Joe Biden released the official National Security Strategic Guidance, in which he called China "the only rival" capable of challenging the United States and the "open international system."

China as the main threat to the United States

"China, in particular, has rapidly become more assertive. It is the only competitor potentially capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open international system," the US president pointed out.

"Russia remains determined to enhance its global influence and play a disruptive role on the world stage. Both Beijing and Moscow have invested heavily in efforts meant to check U.S. strengths and prevent us from defending our interests and allies around the world," Biden added.

"By restoring U.S. credibility and reasserting forward-looking global leadership, we will ensure that America, not China, sets the international agenda, working alongside others to shape new global norms and agreements that advance our interests and reflect our values," the document says.

Intervention is no longer a US priority

When commenting on the document, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said that the Biden administration did not intend to promote democracy abroad through military operations.

"We will not promote democracy through costly military interventions or by attempting to overthrow authoritarian regimes by force. We have tried these tactics in the past. However well intentioned, they haven't worked," Blinken said.

Blinken added that Biden would only use force when the mission and the goals are clear and achievable, come in line with US values ​​and laws.

The Biden administration will strive to promote democracy by setting an example for other countries and by rewarding partners for their democratic reforms, he said.

It's not about democracy - it's about geostrategy

Konstantin Blokhin, a political scientist and leading researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told Pravda.Ru, that the question is not about promoting democracy, but about US geostrategy: "They did not initially want democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Americans wanted to take those countries under their control. "

"They did not turn Iraq and Afghanistan into prosperous Arab Emirates, because there was no need to contain Russia, like it was during the confrontation with the USSR. Just think about it: the US-led war in Iraq and in Afghanistan cost American taxpayers eight trillion dollars. This amount is dozens times the size of GDP of those countries. Dozens! And what did they achieve?" the political scientist wondered.

No war can be won against Russia

According to Konstantin Blokhin, the United States will rely on other instruments in geostrategy: sanctions, support and financing of the opposition, which, in their opinion, will be effective.

Joe Biden, as a representative of the Democratic Party, will use human rights issues as a lever of pressure on Russia, Konstantin Blokhin continued in his interview with Pravda.Ru.

Military intervention against Russia is impossible, so the only way to weaken Russia is to do it from within. The United States will try to put pressure on Russia in the same way as it did during the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was in power, putting pressure of economic sanctions from within, putting human rights for the foreground in the first place.

"We will be constantly criticized for this, and the Americans will try to target the liberal opposition that is oriented towards the West to destabilize the situation from the inside," the Americanist said.

Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, RSS!

Author`s name Lyuba Lulko