ISSN 2618-9844 (Online version)
ISSN 1810-6374 (Print version)
The rearmament program, now underway in the U.S., may lead to a new round of “militarization of international relations” and a new arms race between Russia, the United States, and probably China at a time when the strategic arms limitation regime is crumbling.
Hypothetically, Russia and the U.S. may stop escalating their war of ideas if their material interests do not cross. This would be possible if they divide their zones of influence and respect them.
The year 2019 is a year of landmark anniversaries: a centenary of the Versailles-Washington world order; the 90th anniversary of the Great Depression, which reverberated throughout the 20th century; the 80th anniversary of World War II; the 70th anniversary of the nuclear parity and NATO, the start of the Cold War confrontation; the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the 30th anniversary of changes in Eastern Europe; and the 20th anniversary of NATO’s war against Yugoslavia.
The announcement of the US pullout from Syria was received with caution in Moscow. Besides the security and political challenges it may bring about, the Trump decision could mean the end of a practical, relatively constructive US-Russian approach to conflict at flashpoints.
Almost 35 years ago, US President Ronald Reagan settled down in the White House to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster WarGames as part of his regular Sunday film night. The film, starring a young Matthew Broderick, depicted a teenage computer hacker accidentally breaking into top-secret Pentagon supercomputers that controlled US nuclear weapons.
Since around 2017–2018, the world has been living through a period of progressive erosion, or collapse, of international orders inherited from the past. With the election of Donald Trump and the rapid increase of US containment of Russia and China—which is both a consequence of this gradual erosion and also represents deep internal and international contradictions—this process entered its apogee.
The U.S. president probably expected to declare that he had a “very good” meeting with the formidable Vladimir Putin and had achieved what none of his White House predecessors had. Instead, Donald Trump’s performance, particularly at the press conference, inflicted on him accusations of na?vet? and even treason, and his retractions hardly repaired the damage. This is disquieting news for Putin: instead of a much needed defrosting of U.S.-Russian relations, America's anti-Russia policy may get harder still.
Russia and the United States have very different approaches and goals in the Middle East, but they could lead to a solution in Syria.
The problem between Russia and the West is really a problem among Westerners themselves. If there is a new cold war, it is only because established elites have not come to terms with reality: the balance of military, political, economic, and moral power has shifted too far away from the West to be reversed.
Many bad things have been said about nuclear weapons in the decades since they first came into existence. Indeed, in the middle of the 20th century the human race developed a means of confrontation with the potential to destroy the entire world were it used on a large scale.
Neither Ukraine nor Syria has eased psychological tension so far. The United States and partly Russia do not think they have reached the dangerous point. Apparently they still need a bigger crisis to finally settle their issues.
Relations between Russia and the United States are acquiring a new quality. Moscow and Washington can cooperate on certain individual issues, but strategically they are now on their own—certainly not in the same boat.
In the eyes of many, the possession of the nuclear bomb is a symbol of special military-political might and of belonging to a select group. The experience of the difficult negotiations with Ukraine, in the course of which Kiev was persuaded—in the long last—to give up the nuclear arsenal it had inherited from the U.S.S.R., can be of use to those who now have to address similar problems with other countries.
A concert of powers in which European nations performed throughout the 19th century provided for peace and tranquility on the continent for almost a hundred years. Today, in an era of overall domination by one country and collapse of the former international architecture, it is time to recall the principles of that Concert. But now the Concert will have to be played according to global scores of the new millennium.
Well into the night late 2002, when the city was fast asleep, two windows were brightly lit in one of the side streets in central Moscow. If someone in the building across the street had cast a look at them, he would have seen the silhouettes of people, about six or so, moving chaotically behind the glass.
Trump's strategy pushes confrontation with Russia, and Moscow is pleased.
At the end of 2016, both the political and expert communities in Russia appeared to be very pessimistic about the future of the world order in general, and the about the future of the West in particular.
Donald Trump’s presidency began a year ago with widespread expectations of improvement in U.S.-Russian relations; there was even loose talk of a grand bargain. His first year in office ends, however, with relations in worse shape than he found them.
Late last year, President of the United States Donald Trump presented the country’s new National Security Strategy.
The mankind enters an era of critical transformation. The conflict between different political forces is deepening.
There is every reason to argue that the existing approach to strategic stability based on sustaining the state of mutually assured destruction has already become an impediment to the bilateral nuclear weapons reduction regime and is completely unfit for the transition to a multilateral framework of nuclear arms negotiations.
Overcoming the legacy of the Cold War, during which several generations grew up, proved much more difficult than was expected. That Russian-U.S. relations have been thrown far back does not meet anyone’s interests, but finding a way out of this impasse will take time, goodwill and breakthrough ideas.
Dialogue (in its original meaning) can hardly be regarded as an effective instrument for handling urgent political crises “right here and now.” Nevertheless, the “strategic,” communicative potential of dialogue, though in little demand today, remains significant.
Any hopes that the incoming Trump administration might have been able to provide a fresh stimulus to improving ties with Russia were quickly smashed almost before the administration took office.
As the centenary of the Russian Revolution of 1917 was drawing nearer, many remembered the magic of numbers and looked forward to hearing a metaphysical echo of those events. Fortunately, no cataclysms occurred, but the important occasion sparked discussions not only on history but also on modernity. In fact, many compare current sociopolitical transformations to those that precipitated the dramatic changes in the early 20th century.
The crisis in U.S.-Russia relationship jeopardizes existing negotiated arms control regimes and, as a result, strategic stability all over the world. However, a successful dialogue in this field could generate momentum that might help create conditions for U.S. and Russian officials to tackle larger and more ambitious issues.
Geopolitical pluralism, in all its continentally and regionally uneven permutations is the global reality in what passes for ‘no one’s world’ (Charles Kupchan) and/or a ‘world in disarray’ (Richard Haas) when in fact, there is an evolving underlying logic to a multipolar landscape in what should be considered ‘everyone’s world.’
The U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Russian International Affairs Council convened the latest in a series of expert meetings on U.S.-Russia relations in October 2017 in Moscow.
Despite eight years of horrific conflict, and over 500,000 thousand deaths, a stable peace in Syria remains elusive.
The presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran convened for their fourth summit on Syria in Russia’s southern resort city of Sochi on Feb. 14. Earlier leaders of the “guarantor countries” of the Astana process met in November 2017 in Sochi, in April 2018 in Ankara and in September 2018 in Tehran.
Anyone who has at least some idea about the theory of international relations should remember the oft-quoted formula put forward by the father of British geopolitics, Halford Mackinder: “Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.”
Relations between the US and Russia are at their worst since the end of the Cold War, China and the US have tense relations, India and China are trying to stabilize relations after a period of acrimony. The major powers appear today to be like the unhappy families in Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina: ‘Each unhappy family (major power in this case) is unhappy in its own way.’
Freedom of movement and freedom to choose a place of residence can be ranked among the category of freedoms which, as part of the Global Commons, have been restricted to varying degrees at the level of communities, states, and international associations.