The most vulnerable in Asia

I would consider problems for international security caused by the current crisis, firstly, in connection with the growth of nationalist sentiments, and secondly, in connection with the possibility of aggravation of friction on the problems of trade balances, exchange rates and protectionism. To blame each other of an economic decline is a way to switch the public from internal problems that is quite acceptable to politicians. I think that it is extremely important to determine what global safety is and what it should be.

I think that the period of some adaptation of the leading powers will pass, but it is unlikely that the United States and China will form any union or create a global security system . The most likely script is the one that the Obama government has already announced: it is ready to cooperate with its European allies, Russia, China and other East Asian security countries.

Among the general problems are the termination of North Korea nuclear program (implementation of agreements of September 19, 2005) and the solution of the Iranian nuclear problem.

Between Russia and the United States, contradictions in Europe, expansion of NATO and Russian neighboring abroad will remain.

In East Asia, the deployment of American military forces, strengthening the union with Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. It may cause some concern of China, which, in turn, will strive to create regional security systems as alternatives to the USA led by the United States. The problem of Taiwan is preserved, although the current relationship of the island with the mainland looks stable. The United States remains concern about building the military power of China, especially in the field of ballistic and cruise missiles and modernization of nuclear potential.

The most vulnerable from the point of view of security are now two regions: the Middle East and Pakistan/Afghanistan , and to some extent the Korean peninsula. In addition, the subject of concern is the nuclear program of Iran.

The United States and Russia can and should cooperate on a number of global and regional problems: the spread of weapons of mass destruction; nuclear disarmament; Stability in Eurasia and Central Asia. On the issue of Afghanistan, Moscow recently stated that she could offer an air base for American military operations in the fight against Taliban. Even on questions about these two powers can share information and cooperate, for example, on the problem of early detection of missile launches, etc.

In my opinion, the Obama government will concentrate efforts to ensure stability in Afghanistan/Pakistan, so that these two states do not become “failed states”, creating conditions for terrorist activity, the spread and strengthening of the influence of various terrorist groups. This is perhaps the most serious challenge that the new administration has encountered. I think that the goals of the anti -terrorist struggle have not changed, but the approaches to it should become multidimensional - not just military, but also diplomatic, political and economic, those that could attract wide segments of the population and thereby reduce the space for the spread of terrorism.

I do not think that in the foreseeable future, the Asia-Pacific equivalent of NATO will arise-simply because the countries of the region perceive the threats and priorities of their safety in different ways. I also see no signs that the SCO can develop into a military alliance like NATO .

As for the Mirshaimer’s proposal about the formation of the Anti -Chinese Union in Asia, I believe that he proceeds from the fact that the great powers will sooner or later be involved in the conflict , but this can be avoided (hence the name of his book: “The tragedy of great -power policy”). Since until recently, the economic growth of China was calculated by two -digit numbers (this is already in the past), and its military potential was modernized, it logically follows that it is China that will become the next great power that could challenge the United States. In order to maintain its dominance, the United States must accept a more realistic attack strategy, restraining, slowing down the growth of Chinese influence and insured against different options. This is partially done, but I do not think that the Anti -Chinese coalition can be formed. The economic interests of too many countries are associated with China.

Perhaps, some countries, in particular, in Japan and Vietnam, have stronger reasons for creating China’s restraint (they had serious problems and disputes in relations with China). Thus, American offers could find a more favorable response in them. But even these two countries are likely to seriously think before joining the Anti -Chinese coalition. So I do not think that the idea of ​​Mirsimer will be realized.