There are other strategic conclusions regarding the reduction of Russian influence in this region and the increasing role of Turkey, an important ally of the US and one of Russia's most important traditional opponents.
Turkish influence in the region is gradually increasing, both in Azerbaijan, where the majority of the population speaks Turkish, and in Georgia, where Turkey has taken away Russia's status as its largest trading partner.
According to reports from Istanbul, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey have concluded a trilateral agreement on regional security. It is reported that the document contains articles on the fight against terrorism and organised crime and on the protection of a number of oil pipelines, in particular the US-backed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan project, which involves the transport of Caspian oil through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to the Mediterranean coast.
It is reported that the agreement includes the use of air bases by Turkey in Azerbaijan, the first deployment of Turkish troops in the Caucasus since the First World War.
All operations will be controlled and implemented under the leadership of the United States. During his visit to Washington, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Egewitt discussed the question of the bases in Azerbaijan. Turkish personnel are also on their way to Georgia to modernise their military infrastructure. It is remarkable that this trilateral agreement does not include Armenia, which shares a border with all three countries. The Armenian representatives expressed their concern that the new military cooperation agreement could lead Azerbaijan to revive its claim to Nagorno-Karabakh and to a resumption of hostilities.
The United States' aggressive plans against Iraq pose a serious threat. At the same time, not a single piece of evidence has been produced in the United States to show that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 11 September. Even the American CIA no longer makes such statements.
The recklessness of American foreign policy is of great concern to US allies in Europe. Christopher Patten, the European Union's Head of External Relations, expressed his concern that the US military success in Afghanistan "could have strengthened some dangerous instincts: that the use of military force is the only basis for real security, that the US can only rely on itself and no one else, and that allies can be used as optional applications.
Currently, the US is responsible for destabilizing the entire structure of international relations. Any government in conflict with US foreign policy today risks being targeted for a military attack in the name of a "war on terror".
The US does not stop at nothing in achieving its economic and geostrategic goals. With its operation in Afghanistan, it has begun an adventure in a region full of nuclear weapons and social, political, ethnic and religious conflicts exacerbated by extreme poverty.
The New York Times writes in an article published on 2 October 2001 entitled "In Pakistan, an unreliable ally": "Planning an important role in the "war on terror", this is a weak and troubled state, America faces the danger of causing a catastrophe in a place where civil violence is common and where nuclear weapons exist.
The war against Iraq also entails enormous risks, ranging from the complete destabilization of the situation in the Middle East to the planetary conflict between Christians and Muslims that has been under discussion in America for years. Bush is doing everything he can to make this prediction come true.
The fact that US actions pose a threat to the international community is even confirmed by its European allies. In particular, Gerhard Schroeder said in an interview with Spanish El Pais published on September 6, 2002: "According to my information, no one has a clear idea of what political regime could be established in the Middle East or in moderate Arab countries, or what kind of military intervention by the political regime in Iraq could lead to. That is what we need to know. There are so many arguments against starting a military intervention that I would be against a possible attack even if the UN were to support it.
The main content of the modern American global strategy is to assert the status of the USA as the only superpower through the use of anti-terrorist slogans and under the guise of war against terrorism.
However, US measures are counterproductive and pose a threat to the whole world. They have serious destructive consequences for the United States itself. As the English historian Herbert Butterfield wrote: "In the history of the heaviest blows from heaven, those who believe they can determine the course of events themselves fall on their heads by playing providence not only for themselves but also foretelling the distant future, examining it through the prism of false calculations and making risky bets where the slightest mistake is unacceptable.
The end.