"Second world" - so now in the West indicates a collection of countries that, while not the superpowers, but not belonging to the poor third world States, can be content with the role of regional leaders. These include Turkey, Brazil and Russia. Well, okay, not about this "table of ranks" speech.
The article, published in the American "new York times", ingeniously entitled "the New world". Its authors - leading researcher of the Fund "New America" Parag Kanna (he is the author of the term "second world" has so quickly entered into use) and the London blogger Frank Jacobs.
According to the authors of the publication, the world will look like the following: the process of disintegration and reintegration in Africa will lead to the fact that all States of the Arabian Peninsula will fall under the "management" of the Saudi Royal family. War-torn Syria are predicting a branch of a small Alawite education, pressed against the coast of the Mediterranean sea.
About Russia too, of course, not forgotten: the Primorye and part of the Khabarovsk territory, almost to the Magadan, analysts see a part of China, while Recalling "the emptying of the far East". Prerequisites for such a development analyst and blogger state that "hundreds of thousands of Chinese have already crossed the border on the Amur river, established a trading settlement and entered into marriages with Russians." Of course, contributors are wishful thinking: all arrived in the far East, by contrast, is much more surprising in comparison with Moscow the percentage of "persons of a Slavic nationality" on the streets.
But in another case. In Washington today, you see the only way non-confrontational coexistence with China is feeding the "dragon" part of the territory of our country. "The bride" at the same time to ask, naturally, is optional. It is possible to assume, what exactly this offer to friends at the expense of Moscow – did Barack Obama during his first meeting with Chinese leader Hu Jintao in September 2009.
Washington and Beijing today have accumulated a lot of controversial issues. So the two largest economic power could refuse mutual claims, the Americans expect the unequivocal support of the Chinese in their disputes with Tokyo.
One of the pain points – the question of the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyutai), which recently wrote "the Century". Washington insisted that truth is on the side of Tokyo, and this caused irritation in Beijing. Now, Washington could solve this problem very neat, persuading Japan to abandon claims to the Senkaku Islands in exchange for his unconditional - and behind - the-scenes Beijing to support Japanese claims to the Kuril Islands.
Of course, such a scenario seems provocative, and fantastic. However, remember that that went up in the sixties into sworn enemies Beijing and Washington in the early seventies, managed to bring their positions closer, and even partly to converge on the soil of anti-Sovietism. Read – outright hostility toward our country. And today the Chinese, for the return of lost territories, it may decide to close a rapprochement with America. Of course, all this will occur against the backdrop of China's representations of Moscow in sincere friendship and "dynamically developing relations of strategic partnership".
At the same time, we must not forget that our great neighbour to the East on official maps still refuses to designate the southern Kuril Islands as Russian territory. Some say: it is a kind of revenge for the fact that we do not recognize Chinese aspirations to subjugate the Islands in the South China sea, where there are rich deposits of hydrocarbons. Beijing will not abandon its claims: the necessary energy sources for deficit of fuel economy. There is another issue - China's foreign trade. While not involved in the Northern sea route, the majority of freight from Asia to Africa, Europe and the middle East will follow through the South China sea.
In turn, Moscow can not support Beijing in its dispute. Actually giving him at the mercy of this region, we not only give China the ability to establish unchallenged dominance in South-East Asia.
As well as risking a long time if not forever, to spoil relations with many traditional and, most importantly, sincere our allies and friends – Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia. This is our position in something in tune with the American. However, we, unlike Washington, trying not to show rejection of Chinese plans "increment of land," calling for the solution of the accumulated problems by peaceful political-diplomatic means.
So the United States in this situation can do insidious and far-reaching diplomatic move. They convince Beijing that will support his pretensions in the South China sea. But not now, but later. For starters, Washington will have to undertake a difficult "educational work" in Tokyo, Japan but, ultimately, not completely independent in decision-making. Besides, now, when the consequences of the accident at NPP "Fukushima" has not yet fully fixed, pinned to the wall, the Japanese can agree on much. Which greatly simplifies the task of Washington. And just think, then Tokyo gets open support US in our claims to belonging to Russia's southern Kuril Islands. Beijing also will not object, even silently.
China promised its support in resolving territorial issues, the United States can count on us-China cooperation on the international arena, on the division of spheres of influence. The claims of Beijing in the land of the Russian East will distract him from other foreign-policy concerns. Than the United States does not fail to take advantage of.
So, Washington and its ally Seoul must "solve the issue" with North Korea. Seoul will do everything to provoke another severe crisis on the Peninsula, to prevent the recognition by Washington of North Korea, because it will put South Korea in a stupid position. Then it turns out that the US does not recognize the Republic of Korea, the basic law which says that its territory should be considered all the lands of the Peninsula. Yes and the destruction of the DPRK will never be removed from the agenda of the Pentagon – that the authors of the article in "the new York times" just talk about a United Korea, meaning "United South".
Beijing, in turn, is vital maintaining the current status quo on the Korean Peninsula. The disappearance of his ally, even at times demanding a lot for their loyalty, for China is a matter of national security. This will depend on the fate of plans in ensuring that the North-Eastern provinces of China to the sea. But, more importantly, if you fall of North Korea, Washington will be able to deploy its aviation, missiles and the Navy in the vicinity of Beijing, is literally to put a gun to his head and opponent to exert psychological pressure on him.
Chinese leaders have, in principle, ready to accept us presence in any other neighboring country, whether it's Mongolia or Vietnam. But not in North Korea!
So might look developments. Moreover, the probability of such a scenario would be much higher if Barack Obama wins the presidential election. He strongly advocates the establishment of a Sino-American Alliance.
Of course, Moscow would like to see in Beijing faithful ally and to prevent a "merger" of the two great powers in the international arena. However, our close partnership with India, in which China has for more than half a century sees his worst enemy, it can greatly interfere. Now new Delhi is seeking to narrow the sphere of influence of Beijing in Southeast Asia. One of the most important examples is the establishment of relations with traditionally minded cool to China Vietnam. There are other serious stimuli – India's support for the Tibetan separatism, territorial disputes in the Himalayas. In response, Beijing has consistently supported and arming the eternal antagonist of the Indian – Pakistan in the last few years, the Chinese seek to Nestle near by at India, Sri Lanka. So Moscow always have to remember that diplomacy is indeed the art of the possible. Our too close approach with the Indians capable of becoming a catalyst for the rapprochement between China and the United States. What this Alliance will mean for Russia, need to say no.
The material in the "new York times" only denotes the current vector of foreign policy of the United States. So, the dotted line. If we, for the sake of "rebooting", will wave from such reasoning as speculation, then you will have to remember Zbigniew Brzezinski. In geopolitical bestseller, "the Grand chessboard" ideology of world domination, the United States, he long ago drew the most suitable for their country's version of the future world order.
The picture looks as follows: in the Americas and in Europe dominated by USA, in Asia, including Siberia and Southeast Asia, firmly and irrevocably settled in China.
That is, in his opinion, should be addressed to the delimitation of spheres of influence of these two global giants, which raises to the top of the historical process. Well, Russia will be only to wallow in the role of secondary powers - if not disappear from the political map of the world in General. Clearly, today the plans of our partners in the "reset" are not advertised, but it does not mean that they are not. Besides, according to the favorite strategy of Washington can best achieve its goals for Cycling this is the "natives".
Zbigniew Brzezinski has long called a spade a spade: the "American world" of Russia as a strong and unified state in its current borders, and shouldn't exist, and today Washington is acting in this scenario.