I watched an interview with an American politician, a former officer, named Scott Ritter, and I will choose some of the sentences he said, which are extreme, powerful — true — but unfortunate, where he says: [[ America is not an ally to anyone. Frankly: America does not have (allies), but (tools). The entire Middle East is linked to us, and their connection to us is not as allies but as (tools), they are (submissive) countries. And we have (betrayed them), and (let them down) often, yet they (do not have the ability to distance themselves), because they are deeply (financially), (security-wise) involved in the United States. And they know that if the United States gets (angry), we ((end their existence)). And he says to the journalist conducting the interview: Excuse me for this language. So, the United States only uses them as (tools). Simply and frankly, they are (submissive) countries. He adds: we do not have (friends), we have (entities), (we use) to achieve our goals. This should be the final lesson for everyone. They think they bought the loyalty of / Trump, but look how / Trump dealt with that]] .
This is the lesson the world needs to (learn) from any relationship with the United States of America.
What is this domination? What is this arrogance? What are these insults? What is this disregard, in sovereign states, supposed to be independent, and members of the United Nations?
It is natural for a state — any state — to be linked in relationships with many other countries. For the exchange of benefits and gains, as these are relationships of mutual interests, all parties must profit, a policy of (win - win situation ). There are many types of relationships including: — diplomatic, commercial, economic, political, military, cultural among others. Each type of these relationships has a different purpose that contributes to enhancing cooperation and understanding between countries. These relationships are managed through diplomatic mechanisms and channels (bilateral or multilateral), to serve national interests. It is supposed that the countries are (solid sovereign units), such that each country acts (independently), without any higher authority over it.
And the most important thing is that these relationships between countries are characterized by (parity), (mutual benefit).
There are also other types of relationships that link countries including: cooperation relationships, coordination relationships, and alliance relationships. The Americans have added relationships of (dependency), (submissiveness), and (instrumentality) for achieving their goals. The Americans do not recognize (alliance) relationships between countries.
We should understand and know that there are (imposed relationships), (and voluntary relationships). The voluntary relationships are friendly, where the interests of the countries meet, and are framed by signing joint agreements (characterized by parity), (and driven by the convergence of interests).
There are also (imposed relationships), coercive, forced, imposed by a dominant, controlling country, on countries that are weaker than the dominant state. Here the relationships are imposed, and are unjust, and unbalanced, and most importantly they are (unfair). In this type of relationships, the conditions of parity and equality and consideration of the interests of both contracting parties are not met. Then, this relationship is a relationship of (subjugation), where the stronger party does not consider the interests of the weaker party. It is more correct not to call these relationships between countries, but rather the relationship is (a relationship of dependency), (and submission), (and submission), rather it is (a relationship of acquiescence).
If relationships between states consider the interests of both parties, even if one of the parties is stronger than the other, these are called (alliance) relationships. Here, (the stronger party) meets with (the weaker party), to become allies, perhaps where the weaker party finds protection in the stronger party. And the stronger party seeks such a relationship even to gain an alliance, and thus to expand the influence of the strong state. This relationship will have some equality, even if (the balance is tipped) towards (the stronger) over (the weaker part).
It is supposed that relationships between countries should not be relationships of dependency, where the framework allows the strong to dominate and (weaken) the weak, control them, plunder their resources, confiscate their independence, dominate their decisions, and exceed their limits in dealing with them. If relationships between states take this track — and this is what happens and prevails in this era — in international relations now, then this is considered (colonialism) in a new dress, and in a new form with new mechanisms of control, sometimes being more insidious and worse than the old colonialism, which was characterized by control of the land by occupying it.
This type of relationship is characterized by a big flaw, and at least it can be described as (a relationship of dependency) (and not a relationship of mutual interests) and it does not rise to the level of (an alliance relationship).
It is logical, and from reasoning, that no country should be linked to another (in a losing relationship), so as not to be involved in (injustice), and not achieve gains for the nation.
I find it necessary that these descriptions and terms thrown by / Scott Ritter, should not be overlooked, because they are important, and deserve reflection on their meanings and objectives. Plus, they represent a disregard for countries that are supposed to have at least some dignity and respect, and I reiterate some of the terms mentioned by the American politician and former officer, which are that America has no allies, but has: — [[Tools / Submissive countries / Do not own the ability to distance themselves from America, although we have betrayed them and let them down / Because they are deeply involved in America financially, and security-wise / If America becomes angry then it ends their existence / America has no friends, we have entities we use to achieve our goals]].
And I conclude with one sentence: If (parity) is absent in the relationships of countries, (submission) attends, (and dependency is confirmed).
