The Geopolitical Game: US Influence, South Sudan, and the Unipolar World Order - African American Facts Not Taught in Public Schools

Introduction: A Complex Web of Geopolitical Manipulation

The assertion that South Sudan’s independence from Sudan was not solely the result of a tribal battle, but rather a U.S.-backed project, highlights the deeper layers of geopolitical maneuvering in the post-Cold War era. This statement ties together a series of global political events and decisions, especially in the context of U.S. foreign policy, NATO expansion, and the unipolar world order. These projects, often engineered by the U.S. and its allies, are not simply about regional disputes or conflicts but reflect larger strategic goals to maintain dominance in global politics.

The process of establishing South Sudan as an independent state is framed within the broader context of U.S. influence, the post-Cold War unipolarity, and the broader objectives of NATO and Israeli-American relations. The complex interplay of these elements is what shaped not only the fate of Sudan but the entire Middle East and Eastern Europe. By understanding the political dynamics around NATO expansion, U.S. interventions, and strategic alliances, we can begin to see how these events shaped much of the current global order.

1. U.S. Military and Political Influence in Sudan

South Sudan’s Independence: A U.S. Project
The claim that South Sudan’s secession from Sudan was not just a tribal battle, but a product of U.S. intervention, reflects a broader narrative of U.S. influence in Africa and the Middle East. While South Sudan’s tribal conflicts were certainly a factor, U.S. involvement, both militarily and diplomatically, was crucial in the creation of the state.
- Example: The U.S. spent years supporting South Sudanese rebels, providing both military aid and diplomatic backing. This was part of a larger strategy to weaken Sudan, a country that had been under the rule of President Omar al-Bashir, who had been seen as hostile to U.S. interests in the region, especially regarding its support for certain militant groups.
- The U.S. saw the breakup of Sudan as a way to secure its influence in the region, ensuring that Sudan would no longer be a unified, powerful state that could challenge U.S. interests, particularly in terms of energy resources and regional influence.

2. NATO Expansion: A Catalyst for Global Tensions

The Expansion of NATO and Russia’s Reaction
The narrative shifts to NATO’s enlargement after the Cold War, which significantly contributed to the tensions between Russia and the West. Starting in 1999, countries like Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic joined NATO, violating agreements made during German reunification. Russia strongly objected to NATO’s eastward expansion, but it was largely ignored by the U.S. and its allies.
- Example: The expansion was seen by Russia as a betrayal of post-Cold War agreements and a direct threat to its sphere of influence. The U.S., by pushing NATO’s enlargement, aimed to secure its dominance in Europe and ensure that no other regional power, such as Russia, could challenge its unipolar position in the world.

The 2001 Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy

September 11th and the Shift to Seven Wars
After the 9/11 attacks, U.S. foreign policy took a sharp turn towards aggressive military interventions. According to General Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander, the U.S. had already planned to engage in a series of wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, which involved taking down regimes that were seen as supporting terrorism or were in opposition to U.S. interests.
- Example: The “seven wars in five years” included Afghanistan, Iraq, and others that were intended to secure U.S. hegemony and deal with regional threats like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Saddam Hussein regime. This agenda was also closely aligned with Israeli interests, particularly in the Middle East.

3. Netanyahu’s Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy

The Clean Break and One-State Solution
One of the central ideas behind many of these wars, according to the speaker, was the influence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his political allies. The 1996 document, “Clean Break,” which outlined a strategy for dismantling the Palestinian Authority and creating a Greater Israel, was cited as a precursor to U.S. interventions in the Middle East.
- Example: Netanyahu’s vision of a one-state solution—where Israel controls all the territory and any opposing forces are eliminated—was mirrored by U.S. actions in the Middle East. This alignment of U.S. foreign policy with Israeli objectives has been a consistent theme in the region.

4. The Long-Term Goals of U.S. Global Hegemony

Unipolarity and the U.S. Strategy
The overarching goal behind many of these actions was the preservation of unipolarity, where the U.S. remains the dominant global power. This strategy was not just about responding to immediate threats, but about reshaping the world order to secure U.S. and allied interests long-term. The conflicts in Sudan, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe were part of this larger vision of global control, which often involved destabilizing regions and reshaping them to align with U.S. interests.
- Example: U.S. involvement in Sudan, the wars in the Middle East, and the enlargement of NATO were all steps taken to solidify a world order in which the U.S. could dictate terms and ensure that rival powers like Russia or China did not rise to challenge its global supremacy.

5. The Broader Impact of NATO Expansion

NATO’s Second Enlargement in 2004
The second wave of NATO enlargement in 2004 saw seven more countries join the alliance, which further inflamed tensions with Russia. This time, countries that were once part of the Soviet sphere, such as the Baltic states and Romania, became part of NATO, significantly expanding the alliance’s reach.
- Example: Russia’s protests against NATO’s expansion were brushed aside, and the U.S. continued to push its agenda of unipolar dominance. This expansion violated the understanding that NATO would not encircle Russia after the end of the Cold War, which led to lasting tensions between Russia and the West.

6. The Global Geopolitical Game: Beyond Political Parties

U.S. Politics as a Tool for Long-Term Projects
The speaker suggests that U.S. politics—whether under Clinton, Bush, or Obama—is secondary to these long-term geopolitical projects. The real game is about maintaining global hegemony through strategic interventions and alliances. The day-to-day political landscape often hides the larger, more consistent objectives of the U.S. government.
- Example: The personal politics of the U.S. president or Congress do not necessarily dictate these global projects. Instead, the overarching goal of U.S. global dominance transcends political parties, ensuring that the strategies of NATO expansion and Middle East interventions continue despite changes in leadership.

Conclusion: A Game of Power, Not Just Politics

This analysis of South Sudan’s creation, NATO’s expansion, and the broader U.S. foreign policy agenda reveals a world where geopolitical maneuvers are more significant than partisan politics. While these events have local and regional implications, they are also part of a larger strategy to maintain global unipolarity and suppress challenges to U.S. dominance. The interventions in Sudan, the Middle East, and the Eastern European sphere show how the U.S. has continually reshaped the global order to serve its interests, often through covert and overt means. By understanding this, we can better comprehend the motivations behind many of the conflicts and geopolitical moves that define the contemporary world.