The specter of a possible future Beijing-Moscow-Berlin strategic business alliance is roaming the rapidly aging "New American Century". Take the initials of the three capitals and call it BMB.

The possibility is being seriously discussed at the highest levels in Beijing and Moscow, with Berlin, New Delhi, and Tehran also reporting keen interest. But don't bring it up inside the Washington Beltway or at NATO headquarters in Brussels. There, today and tomorrow, the focal point is the new version of Bin Laden - Caliph Ibrahim, or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This man is a self-proclaimed prophet, a godly man with a penchant for beheadings. The mini-state and terrorist movement he created has provided a feast of acronyms - ISIS/ISIL/IS - for the hysterics in Washington and elsewhere.

However, no matter how often Washington refurbishes its global war on terror, the Eurasian geopolitical landscape will continue to shift. The short-lived "unipolar moment" on the historical scale is on the decline, and this shift will not come to an abrupt end simply because the American elite refuses to recognize it. For them, the end of the era of "total domination (full-spectrum dominance)," as the Pentagon likes to call it, is unthinkable. But the notion that one indispensable state must control all spheres-military, economic, cultural, cyber, and outer space-is, after all, close to religious doctrine. The preachers of American exceptionalism don't care about equality. What they do is, at best, a "coalition of the willing" (a concept developed in the 1990s to refer to military interventions outside of UN peacekeeping operations), like plugging in a group of "40+ countries" to fight ISIS/ISIL/IS, which are either waving flags on the sidelines (or, in some cases, shouting from the sidelines), or they're not. These countries are either waving flags on the sidelines (or secretly planning it) or sending a plane or two to Iraq and Syria.

So how does one implement the concept of "total domination/full-spectrum dominance" when the two real contenders, Russia and China, are beginning to increase their presence? Washington's approach to the hotspots of Ukraine and the Asian Seas can be characterized as divisive and isolating.

In order to continue to maintain the status of the Pacific Ocean as the quintessential "American lake", the Obama administration has been "returning to Asia" in recent years. This has not involved much military action, but the U.S. has gone to great lengths to provoke confrontation between China and Japan; focus on energy disputes in the South China Sea; and strengthen alliances in Southeast Asia. At the same time, it has moved into the area of future trade agreements, trying to finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

On Russia's western frontier, the embers of regime change in Kiev have been rekindled by the Obama administration (with the region's "cheerleaders," Poland and the Baltic states, fanning the flames). Putin and the Russian leadership, clearly see this as a real threat to Moscow. Unlike the U.S., whose sphere of influence (and military bases) is global, Russia does not retain any significant influence within other countries in its Soviet-era neighborhood. And when it comes to Kiev, for most Russians, it is not "other countries" at all.

Washington and its NATO allies seem to be descending a new iron curtain from the Baltic to the Black Sea, in which they are increasingly interested, and Ukraine is the tip of the spear. In the BMB's view, this is an attempt to isolate Russia and impose new barriers between Russian and German relations. The ultimate goal is to divide Eurasia and prevent them from moving toward trade and commercial integration in the future through avenues beyond Washington's control.

From Beijing's point of view, Washington has broken every red line imaginable on Ukraine in order to harass and isolate Russia. According to the Chinese leadership, this looks like a concerted effort to destabilize the region and shift the situation in the direction of the United States. An entire elite in Washington, ranging from neoconservatives and Cold War "liberals" to humanitarian interventionists in the mold of Susan Rice and Samantha Power (former and current U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., respectively), supports this action. Of course, if you've been following Washington's perspective on the Ukrainian crisis, these views seem as outlandish as Martians. But looking at the issue from the heart of the Eurasian continent, and especially from a rising China with a new "Chinese dream," is very different from Washington.

According to the tone set by Xi Jinping, this dream includes a new "New Silk Road" organized by China, which would create a trans-Asian rapid transport network for Eurasian trade. If Beijing, for example, feels pressure from Washington and Tokyo on its maritime frontiers, one of the ways it could respond would be to use a pincer attack based on trade to push into Eurasia, one way through Siberia and the other through the Central Asian "stans".

In this sense, we may well be entering a new world. You can't see this if you just follow the US media or the "debate" in Washington. It wasn't that long ago that the leadership in Beijing seemed to be trying to rewrite the geopolitical/economic landscape shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States, and Vladimir Putin was hinting at the possibility of someday joining NATO. No longer is that the case. The part of the West that both countries remain interested in today is a Germany that may no longer be bound by American power and Washington's wishes in the future.

Moscow has in fact been engaged in a strategic dialog with Berlin for no less than half a century, including industrial cooperation and increased interdependence in energy. Many countries of the global "South" have taken note of this and have begun to see Germany as a "sixth brick" after the five countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

In the midst of global crises from Syria to Ukraine, Berlin's geostrategic interests seem to be drifting away from Washington's orbit. German industry, in particular, seems eager to pursue unlimited trade and commerce opportunities with Russia and China. These collaborations would push the boundaries of the European Union, establish Germany's path to world power; and in the long run put an end to the old era - in which Germany was treated politely, but essentially only as a U.S. satellite state.

It will be a long and winding road. Germany's Bundestag is still strongly obsessed with the Atlanticist agenda, prioritizing obedience to Washington. There are still thousands of American soldiers stationed on German soil. However, for the first time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is hesitant when considering whether to increase sanctions against Russia over the situation in Ukraine, as no fewer than 300,000 jobs in her country depend on good Russian-German relations. Alarm bells have already been sounded by industrial leaders and financial institutions, who fear that such sanctions would be completely counterproductive.

China's Silk Road Feast

China's new geopolitical repertoire in Eurasia has few precedents in modern history. Gone are the days when Deng Xiaoping insisted on "biding his time" on the global stage. There are, of course, divergent and contradictory strategies for managing the country's hotspots, such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang and the South China Sea, for regulating relations with rivals India and Japan, and for dealing with problematic friends North Korea and Pakistan.

But China's first priority remains domestic, focusing on implementing President Xi's economic reforms, increasing "transparency" and fighting corruption within the ruling Communist Party. Second on the list is how to gradually hedge against the Pentagon's plans to "return" to the region - building a blue-water navy, nuclear submarines, and a technologically advanced air force - without being too decisive. We need to be careful not to be so decisive as to scare the "China threat" out of the minds of some in Washington. Still, it is much less important than the domestic tasks.

Meanwhile, given that the U.S. Navy will control global sea lanes for the foreseeable future, planning for a new Silk Road across Eurasia is steadily progressing. The end result should prove victorious in integrating infrastructure - roads, high-speed railroads, pipelines, and ports will connect China to Western Europe and the Mediterranean Sea, the inland sea of the ancient Roman Empire, in every possible way.

On this journey, which is the opposite of Marco Polo's adventures, an important branch of the Silk Road will start in Xi'an, the capital of the former empire, and travel through Urumqi, Xinjiang, and then through Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, and Anatolia, Turkey, to finally reach Venice. The other will be the Maritime Silk Road, which will start in Fujian Province and travel through the Strait of Malacca, the Indian Ocean, Nairobi, Kenya, and finally all the way to the Mediterranean Sea via the Suez Canal.

China's strategy is to build a network of connectivity in at least five key regions: Russia (a key bridge between Asia and Europe), the Central Asian "stan" states, Southwest Asia (where Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will play an important role), the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe (including Belarus, Moldova, and, depending on its stability, possibly Ukraine). stability, and possibly Ukraine). And let's not forget Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, which could be considered as an upgraded version of the Silk Road.

The upgraded version of the Silk Road will connect the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar economic corridor, with the China-Pakistan economic corridor, and specialize in the Indian Ocean corridor to Beijing. The overall package of road, high-speed rail, pipeline and fiber optic network projects will once again connect the region to China.

In an article in The Hindu during his visit to India last year, Xi put China-India connectivity in a succinct picture: the "powerful combination of the 'world's factory' and the 'world's office' will form the most competitive production base, and the most attractive consumer market."

The central node of China's carefully planned Eurasian future is Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, which is also the site of the China-Eurasia Expo, Central Asia's largest business exhibition. Since 2000, one of Beijing's top priorities has been to urbanize and industrialize the mostly desert but oil-rich Xinjiang at all costs. The inevitable result, in Beijing's view, is the "Sinicization" of the region and the reduction of ethnic problems.

Beijing and the new Eurasia will be bound together by various forms of transportation and communication, and as a response to such a set of plans for future Eurasian connectivity, the best scenario offered by the Obama administration is to hold back the South China Sea with naval forces from the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea, and to intensify strategic relations with countries from Japan to India, intensifying their conflicts with China. (NATO, of course, was given the task of holding Russia back in Eastern Europe.)

The Iron Curtain and the Silk Road

Last May, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping signed the "deal of the century" for $400 billion worth of natural gas, laying the groundwork for the Power of Siberia pipeline project. The project, which has already begun construction in Yakutsk, will bring huge quantities of Russian gas to the Chinese market. This is clearly just the beginning of a highly intensified, strategic energy-based alliance between the two countries. At the same time, German businessmen and industrialists have already noticed another emerging reality: the final market for "Made in China" products flowing along the New Silk Road will be Europe, and in turn, European goods will eventually reach the Chinese market. In a possible business scenario, China will soon overtake the United States and France as Germany's top trading partner in 2018.

One potential obstacle is the concept of "Cold War 2.0", which has gained popularity in Washington and is dividing not only NATO but also the European Union. At the moment, the anti-Russian camp in the EU includes Britain, Sweden, Poland, Romania and the Baltic States. On the other hand, Italy and Hungary can be counted in the pro-Russian camp. Germany's attitude is still unpredictable, which is the key to determining whether Europe's future will be characterized by the lowering of the Iron Curtain or by a "Go East" mentality. Therefore, Ukraine remains the key to unlocking the door. Moscow has already proposed the Finnishization of Ukraine (which would allow it to assert its autonomy within its own borders), but Washington abhors it. If Finlandization succeeds, the "Go East" path will remain open, otherwise the future of the BMB will face great uncertainty.

It should be noted that another vision of the Eurasian economic outlook is also looming on the horizon. Washington is trying to force the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in Europe and the similar Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the Asia-Pacific. Both agreements favor globalized U.S. corporations and are clearly aimed at hindering the rising status of the BRICS countries, as well as the rise of other emerging markets, while consolidating U.S. global economic hegemony.

Moscow, Beijing and Berlin are paying close attention to two stark facts: the TPP excludes China and the TTIP excludes Russia. This suggests that geopolitics is at the heart of both "commercial" agreements, with little or no hint of future trade/currency wars. In my recent travels, I was repeatedly told by producers of high-quality agricultural products in Spain, Italy and France that TTIP is nothing more than an economic version of the NATO military alliance, which China has called an "obsolete structure".

There is clearly strong resistance to TTIP within many EU countries (especially the Club Med countries in southern Europe), as well as to TPP in Asian countries (especially Japan and Malaysia). It is this that gives China and Russia high hopes for the New Silk Road, and for a Russian-backed Eurasian Union across the Eurasian heartland. These issues are being closely watched by important figures in German business and industry, for whom good Russo-German relations remain essential.

After all, Berlin's concern for the other members of the crisis-ridden European Union (which has suffered three recessions in five years) has not been elevated to the level of "overriding". Through the much-despised Troika - the ECB, the IMF and the European Council - Berlin is effectively at the helm of Europe, thriving, looking east and hungry for more.

Last year, German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Beijing, and the two sides accelerated their political push for a potentially groundbreaking project - connecting Beijing and Berlin with an uninterrupted high-speed rail line. But this got little coverage in the news. When completed, this high-speed rail link will act as a magnet for dozens of Eurasian countries along the route in terms of transportation and trade. If it passes through Moscow, this high-speed rail could be the ultimate consolidator of Europe on the Silk Road, and perhaps the ultimate nightmare for Washington.

"Losing" Russia

While the media closely followed last year's NATO summit in Wales, it was decided only to deploy a modest "rapid reaction force" to respond to any future crisis like the one in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the leaders of the ever-expanding Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) met in Tajikistan's capital, Dushanbe. But Washington and Western Europe are largely unconcerned, and they shouldn't be. China, Russia and the four "stans" of Central Asia have agreed to add new members, and the possible candidates are impressive: India, Pakistan and Iran. The implications will be far-reaching. India under Modi is on the verge of a Silk Road frenzy, behind which there is the possibility of an economic rapprochement between India and China, which could change the geopolitical map of Eurasia. At the same time, Iran is also integrating into the "China-India" circle.

It is clear that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is slowly but surely shaping itself into the most important international organization in Asia. It is already clear that one of its main long-term goals is to say goodbye to the "petrodollar" in the field of energy trade and to promote the use of the "petro-yuan" and the "petro-ruble" at the same time. Of course, the SCO will never welcome the United States.

However, all of this is still in the future. For now, the Kremlin keeps signaling that it wants to open a dialogue with Washington again, and Beijing has never wanted to stop communicating with Washington. But the Obama administration remains myopically immersed in its own zero-sum game, counting on technological and military power to maintain its favorable position in Eurasia. But Beijing already has markets and lots of money, while Moscow has lots of energy. The Chinese would say that triangular cooperation between Washington, Beijing and Moscow would undoubtedly be a win-win-win game. But given the attitude of the United States, we should not expect too much.

Instead, China and Russia can be expected to deepen their strategic partnership and attract other Eurasian regional powers. Beijing expects that Russia's confrontation with the U.S./NATO in Ukraine will cause Putin to turn to the East. Meanwhile, Moscow is carefully weighing what it would mean to reorient itself toward such an economic powerhouse. One day, some sane voice in Washington may wonder aloud how the United States could have "lost" Russia to China.

At the same time, China should be seen as a magnet of great attraction that will reshape the new international order in the coming Eurasian century. For example, the process of integration that Russia is facing seems to be increasingly manifesting itself in India and other Eurasian countries, and probably sooner or later it will be the turn of neutral Germany as well. In the closing stages of this process, the U.S. may find itself gradually pushed out of Eurasia, with the BMB as the game changer. Place your bets now, the outcome will be known by 2025.

(This article was originally published in The Huffington Post, recommended by Gao Bai, Observer columnist, director of the Center for China's High-Speed Rail Strategy at Southwest Jiaotong University, and professor at Duke University, and translated by Observer's Cen Shaoyu, with abridged versions.)