ISIS is on the run (almost wiped out), Mark Zuckerberg is going to speak to the senate on the recent data-mining scandal, and Trump has promised to pull U.S. troops out of Syria soon. Everything seems right with the world, but then another gas attack happens.
On April 7, Syrian troops moved into one of the last ISIS strongholds of Douma. Surrounded on all sides, with no reinforcements incoming, there was no hope for the Islamic fighters in the town. The Syrian troops would have had no problem taking them out. Instead, unbelievably, the Syrian troops decided to drop nerve gas on the town.
40 civilians were killed in an innane and utterly useless attack. The Assad regime, who has in the past been criticized for its use of gas attacks on rebel-held cities in Syria, had been doing well in the public eye in recent months. Now their reputation is in the drain yet again.
Why would this have happened then? What was the logic behind the attack? There are many conspiracy theories making the rounds on the internet, some more believable than others. Some believe it was orchestrated in conjunction with Syria’s ally, Russia.
Considering the recent uptick in tensions between Russia and the U.S., this could very well be the case. Beginning with the unlawful seizure of the Crimea by Russian troops in 2014, moving to the supposed Russian interference within the U.S. elections in 2016, and moving on to the diplomatic tensions caused by the poisoning of a Russian double-agent in London.
Could Russia have been the catalyst for the attack? A provocation for the U.S. to continue to stay in Syria would have been its ultimate purpose. Conveniently, the attack came only days after Trump’s announcement of full troop withdrawal within six months. The Russians, who also have a stake in the Syrian conflict, may be using it to keep the U.S. distracted.
With the attention of the world’s only superpower on another “unwinnable” Middle Eastern war, Russia and other enemies of the U.S. ultimately have more free agency to pursue their own agendas unimpeded.
Speaking of superpowers, are we truly still the only one in the world? In the past decade, it seems that China has become relatively equal to the U.S. (when looking at their economic and military might). China, more than any other nation, should be America’s main concern on the world stage.
More recently, China has begun expanding their diplomatic influence across the seas. The 20th century saw the U.S. emerge from isolationism to take the world by storm, planting military and/or diplomatic bases in nearly every country on earth. During that time, China was staunchly suspended in self-imposed exile. Now, in the 21st century, it seems that the opposite is occuring.
As the United States recedes into relative isolationism (with the rise of populist Donald Trump, the erection of the U.S./Mexico border wall imminent, and with strict tariffs beginning to be emplaced on China), the People’s Republic of China seems to be filling the void left by America.
Plans for a Moscow-Beijing bullet train are in the works, a massive scheme to build and acquire the rights to ports along the Pacific is already underway, and the expansion of diplomatic and military relations into places such as Africa have been happening for years now.
What do all of these occurrences point to? Some are saying that we are witnessing the prelude to another global conflict. One that would ultimately pit the waning American-NATO power bloc against the waxing Sino-Russian bloc. It could also be leading to a second Cold War. Who can really tell?
There is one thing that I know for sure though; we are living in some interesting times. The world is changing before our eyes. Whether we like it or not, we are going to have to deal with the reality of it in the decades to come.
