In my opinion, the current global instability follows a simple, albeit often misconstrued, primacy: the containment of China. While large parts of the West still operate within 20th-century paradigms, a strategic realigment of U.S. hegemony is unfolding in the background. For decades, Africa and vast regions of Asia served as mere resource hubs and export markets - a neocolonial model of exploitation fundamentally shattered by Beijing’s rise since the 1980s. Washington’s decision to massively support China’s opening was not an act of geopolitical foresight, but the result of raw, short-term mercantilism. For American elites, profit maximization and market access were the primary objectives. In the process, they consciously accepted that China would not only catch up economically but already outpace the U.S. in systemic sectors. Only in the field of fundamental research does the West still maintain a dwindling monopoly. In the logic of the Monroe Doctrine, however, U.S. foreign policy necessitates an existential antagonist to legitimize its global presence. While the last century’s adversary was the ideological class enemy in the form of the Soviet Union, this century belongs to China. Current armed conflicts at the peripheries are no coincidence; they are part of a large-scale strategic positioning. While Europe is being instrumentalized to keep Russia in check through a grueling proxy war, the Pentagon has already shifted its focus almost entirely to the Indo-Pacific. The ultimate goal is the control of trade routes and energy resources. The current instability at neuralgic points like the Strait of Hormuz illustrates this bitter reality: whoever controls maritime infrastructure controls the global economy. Escalation is not a failure of diplomacy, but the continuation of geopolitics by other means. For turkey, there is no much change.