Leonid Savin*, contributor to Prensa Latina
Various US think tanks have recently published both small publications and quite extensive analyzes of global competition on a regular basis. They speak not only of rivalry on the world stage, but also of competition from the great powers, which the authors often refer to as the USA, Russia and China.
If we look at RAND’s research, we see that they have published numerous monographs on great power competition in recent years. And although the latter were published in 2023, the research itself had started years before.
One of these works states that the competition in the side theaters will probably focus on the historic centers of power. China, and to a lesser extent Russia, is gaining influence in the sidelines, although the United States remains the dominant military actor for now. However, it is emphasized that in the new age of competition, major power involvement in conflicts in secondary theaters may be less governed by zero-sum logic than it was during the Cold War. This makes it difficult to assess the potential for conflict and its escalation.
It is even said that there could be several plausible conflict scenarios in Latin America in which the US could be involved on the opposite side of Russia or China. Although there are no forces in this region that even declare any intention to oppose Moscow and Beijing.
A previous document affirmed that the current rivalry between great powers is fundamentally related to the nature of the international system. The US rivalry with China and Russia involves many overlapping military, economic and geopolitical interests and has significant implications for the international order. China in particular is working to change the prevailing international rules, norms and institutions and improve its military capabilities. However, the United States continues to enjoy a strong competitive position. Although its long-term success depends on maintaining a strong commercial position and willingness to engage internationally; the availability of allies and key partners; the ideological influence on international rules, norms and institutions and a strong global military stance against competing powers.
United States performance
Perhaps this imperative stated by the authors explains the attempts of the USA towards its allies, neutral countries and Russia’s partners.
It is no coincidence that there have been recent visits by US State Department delegations to Central Asian countries where Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This also explains Washington’s announcement of new sanctions against Russia. And in addition to the United States’ main competitors, its policy planners are setting out areas of work and marking critical points on which to focus. Under the heading “geopolitical strategic competition,” the RAND website generally offers a fairly wide range of articles, ranging from proxy war and conflict in Ukraine to semiconductor manufacturing in Taiwan to changes in Japanese security policy and space.
The importance of the military-industrial factor for the United States
It is clear that the US establishment is concerned about maintaining its global superiority and fears losing key positions in the world economy, logistics, finance and banking sectors, and the military-industrial complex.
The latter is particularly important for Washington, since the sale of weapons systems has several objectives: to put pressure on political groups associated with weapons and equipment manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and others, including the information of the technology sector (Amazon, Microsoft , Google); Militarize neighboring states of target countries (like Ukraine, Poland, Finland) and draw their satellites to pursue their own interests, including new military and political strategies. Washington’s attempts to strengthen its military alliances can be traced in publications such as the British statement on the above issues, which emphasize the need for cooperation with the US.
It must be taken into account that the RAND Corporation works for the needs of the US military and is funded by the Pentagon. But the bigger picture relates to regions around the world and areas where American (Western) interests conflict or may conflict with those of Russia, China, Iran and other (non-Western) countries. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington also illuminates this topic thematically or regionally.
The language of labels
There is a clear overlap of tags that have been developed previously, such as “How is the US responding to Beijing’s gray area pressure tactics towards Taiwan and the entire Indo-Pacific region?” What is the best way to consistently stop Beijing from targeting Taiwan attack? Are there credible non-military tools that the United States and other like-minded countries can use?” With regard to broader global issues, it asks how the United States can improve the sustainability and effectiveness of existing multilateral institutions (i.e., the model created by the collective West) and how best to use their economic clout to increase their influence in the Global South (thus constraining Beijing).
Indeed, aside from the fact that Washington is trying to maintain and further expand its influence in various regions, all of this points to some kind of consensus within the US establishment that a tripolar world will replace the unipolar world.
The rise of two new poles, one representing the former superpower and the other boldly claiming active participation in the governance of world processes, is undermining the established model in which the US was the primary beneficiary. In Washington, this model is often referred to as a sort of rules set by the collective West, and it is natural that any reconfiguration threatens to reduce not only the profit streams that have parasitized the US and its satellites, but also their importance as such. For this reason, there is talk of growing competition from the great powers from different positions (here Ukraine, Taiwan and other countries, but not just countries, but entire regions) who are trying to preserve their monopolies as much as possible and keep allies. partners and satellites. in the orbit of their influence, without making sovereign decisions and crossing over to the other side, even if it is conditionally neutral.
No change in doctrine
What is striking is the fact that these are states and not alliances. However, the US bloc and NATO are a whole regional politico-military structure that subjugates entire states, separating them from their neighbors and from certain metageographical spaces for historical-cultural reasons. Thus Australia, New Zealand and even Japan and South Korea often define themselves as part of the collective West, although the latter two countries have their own distinctly Eastern identities. But the basic doctrinal documents of American foreign policy have not changed. The trend established under Barack Obama continues. Russia, China, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are considered the main threats to the United States.
Russia and its new concept of foreign policy
Against this background, the new concept of Russian foreign policy is striking, which not only changes the tone, but also uses different terminology, atypical of previous doctrines.
The General Provisions already say: “Russia is a separate civilized state, a huge Eurasian and Euro-Pacific power that united the Russian people and other peoples that make up the cultural-civilizing community of the Russian world.” Although Nikolai Danilevsky already Writing about types of culture and civilization in the 19th century, he presents himself here from a strategic position, as Russia is treated simultaneously as a European and Pacific power (a geographic factor) and as a Eurasian power (a geographic factor). . ideological and cultural factor). It also states that Russia “acts as one of the sovereign centers of world development and fulfills its historically unique mission of maintaining the world balance of power and building a multipolar international system to ensure conditions for the peaceful and progressive development of mankind” on the basis of a unifying and constructive program.
Obviously, this historic mission is being criticized by our critics, as has been the case throughout history.
However, taking into account other priorities, such as the hope that the West will understand the futility of its policy towards Russia, as well as the interest in cooperation with various regions and associations, as well as countries that are among the strategic partners, which is supported by actions at international Level creates new conditions for interaction. And for the West, especially the United States, this is seen as a competitive challenge, including ideological issues.
This requires a deeper and more careful examination of the areas highlighted in the concept and already addressed. Because every vulnerability will be attacked by our geopolitical rivals. In general, there is an additional need for international experts in the relevant sectors and for specialists in individual countries and regions. Regardless of the shift of professionals from the collective West to other regions, the introduction of the second track of public-private partnership and public diplomacy, as the leadership of the Russian Foreign Ministry has previously stated, will obviously improve the quality of work in this area from a long-term perspective strategic perspective.
rmh/ls
*Associated research scientist at the Russian University
(taken from selected companies)