Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / China and its role in the new world order / Articles
Analysis of relationships and co-development between the US and China in the context of the global geopolitical dynamics. Experience in quantitative forecasting
Material posted: Publication date: 16-11-2018

The article is devoted to analysis of relations and co-development between the US and China in the context of the global geopolitical dynamics. The author considered the approach to forecasting the relationship and co-development of these countries on the basis of a quantitative assessment of their geopolitical status with different variants of development of military-political situation in the world.

Analysis of works of Russian and foreign scientists specializing in the issues of obespecheniya national security shows that at the present stage in the hierarchy of threats to the military security of the Russian Federation remains the potential for a large-scale war (KV). Domestic experts agree that despite the acknowledged low probability of its occurrence, prevention of HF, continues to be one of the main priorities of the modern policy of our country in the field of national security [1].

Therefore, it is advisable on the basis of quantitative forecasting of the global geopolitical dynamics in the coming quarter of a century to analyze the conditions under which a possible implementation of the so-called geopolitical criterion is to prevent (deter) large-scale military aggression against Russia. In this study, the "ideological" basis to the geopolitical criterion is the well-known concept of unacceptable damage, which means not only material and moral losses and "unacceptable loss as the aggressor its place in the geopolitical hierarchy of the world" [2].

It is worth noting that the application of this criterion in relation to leading countries-leaderboard allows you to build the following causal chain: the country is a world leader in the result of the various losses incurred in the hypothetical KV with Russia, second world geopolitical superiority of the nearest contender. Conditions for the fulfillment of this criterion is directly dependent on the comparison of pre - and post-war geopolitical configuration of the world, mainly the analysis of the provisions of the world leader and contender for the leadership.

In turn, the world hierarchy at any point in time is formed based on the magnitude of the geopolitical status (HS) state, which are calculated using the corresponding non-stationary mathematical model. In this study, under the TOS, we understand the country's position in the system of States, which corresponds to a distinct geopolitical attributes and some external and internal factors that affect a country's position in the international arena [3].

The mathematical formula HS (denote it S) has the form [4]:

(1)

where Fa – index, collectively taking into account the quality of governance, degree of independence (political, military, economic) countries, participation in coalitions;

Xi(i = T, D, E, M) – multiplier which is a country's share in global indicators: size of territory, population, gross domestic product, and military capabilities respectively.

The specified mathematical model was applied in the quantitative assessment of the global geopolitical dynamics in the period of XX – beginning of XXI centuries. So, first quarter of the XX century was characterized by three main groups of countries: the unconditional leader – the British Empire's geopolitical isolation from other countries was large enough; the next candidates (second group) at the world leadership of the USA and European countries (Germany, France and Russia, which had a similar GC); the third group – Austria-Hungary (until 1918), Italy, and Japan.

It should be noted that the end of the First world war significantly transformed the specified hierarchy. Already in 1922 – the time of making of the Versailles-Washington system of international relations in the "status" the losers were all European countries, not to mention the losers (including Russia). The only country that had obvious geopolitical benefits of the war, were the United States, which about a third have reduced the pre-war geopolitical gap with the UK.

The analysis of the following "estimated" quarter of a century (1922 – 1946) shows that it is characterized by three main stages (figure 1). First – is determined by relatively stable until the early 1930s, the dynamics of the HS leading countries. The second stage immediately preceding the Second world war, is characterized by a sharp increase of GS of Germany and Japan, which was caused by sharp increase of their military power in the outbreak of armed expansion. World war
1939 – 1945 (the third phase) even more radically than the previous one, changed the geopolitical configuration in the world. In this period there was a change of the world leader, whose place, ahead of England took U.S. and countries of the fascist bloc countries have completely lost your HS. In this period, the status of the Soviet Union, which fell in the years of military defeats and losses early in the war, began steadily to recover [5].

Fig. 1. The global geopolitical dynamics in 1922 and 1946

The curves in figure 2 demonstrate the most well-known global historical processes characterizing the dynamics of the geopolitical configuration of the world in the last considered period (1946 – 2018). So, in this period obviously status the dominance of the two superpowers – USA and USSR – the leaders of a bipolar system. Our country for the first time in its history came in second place in the world. In this geopolitical distance (difference status) between the USSR and the USA were about in the mid 1970-ies.

In addition, figure 2 is clearly visible and the "geopolitical catastrophe of the century" – the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, resulting in our country in relation to a status much closer to such countries as England, France, Germany and Japan, which for over half a century in a fairly narrow "geopolitical corridor."

Fig. 2. The global geopolitical dynamics in 1946 – 2018

In figure 2 is quite easily traced the geopolitical rise of China, which with the victory of the Communist revolution began to show high growth rates and today came in second place in the world. In the future (while maintaining the modern trends), China has the potential to be a world leader [6].

Analysis of the results of the quantitative interpretation of global geopolitical dynamics, and clarity in the graphs represented well-known global historical processes suggests the possibility of generally applying the previously described mathematical model of GS.

Conditions deter large-scale military aggression against Russia will be considered in relation to the current world leader – the USA. It is important to note that, as follows from the writings of theorists and practitioners of geopolitics and American expansionism (B. Adams, F. George.Turner, Theodore Roosevelt, 3.Brzezinski, etc.), for the U.S. global leadership – it is a geopolitical imperative, almost the only way to effectively ensure an unprecedented globalized national interests. That is why the loss of leadership is losing the political influence, with all its consequences, first and foremost, in the sphere of economy [7].

As a geopolitical counterweight to the United States in our study considered China as a main, according to the almost unanimous estimation of experts, the contender for leadership [8]. This is also evident from the above results of the quantitative reconstruction (see figure 2). For ease of analysis, we have to operate not the actual values of GS in the US and China, and the difference in their statuses, called geopolitical distance (GD). Therefore, the dynamics of GD between the US and China is an indicator of the implementation of the proposed criterion is containment of the American large-scale military aggression against Russia.

Analysis of simulation results two versions of a hypothetical scenario KV (between Russia and the U.S.) – nuclear and conventional – shows the following (figure 3).

Fig. 3. Dynamics of the geopolitical distance between the United States and China in the case
large-scale Russian-American war

So, in the run up to 2040 in case of the outbreak of large-scale conventional war, the distance between the US and China, which in time of peace is reduced can drastically increase and America will provide a geopolitical isolation. In turn, this fact suggests that conventional capabilities of Russia at present is not enough to ensure the rotation of the geopolitical leaders and, thus, to the fulfillment of the criterion of containment [9].

Other consequences are possible in case of the outbreak of large-scale nuclear war. As can be seen in figure 3, the United States is able to lose leadership: GD becomes negative, which is not restored during the entire prediction interval. This fact allows us to agree with the estimates of most local political analysts is that the modern Russian nuclear potential, mainly its strategic
component – strategic nuclear forces (SNF), is at a level sufficient to minimize the results in geopolitical terms in the event of a US victory (in terms of scenario design was the option of negative developments in large-scale Russian-American war).

In the proposed in this research approach, there are conditions (constraints) under which a possible implementation of the geopolitical criterion of deterrence of large-scale military aggression against Russia:

1) characteristics of the strategic nuclear forces Russia must meet the required efficiency in the most adverse conditions for the development of military-strategic environment (deploy elements of a US missile defense system, the implementation of the concept of "instant global strike", etc.) [10];

2) retaining the quantitative characteristics of the dynamics of China's development below the present level [11].

It should be noted the fact that in the present approach and perspectives of the struggle for geopolitical leadership, while maintaining the modern trends of world development, including, first and foremost, the dynamic development of the USA and China (table), the Americans concede world leadership, China (figure 4).

Table. The ratio of the US and China in time of peace [12]

Name

USA

China

Area (million km2)

9,5

9,6

Population (million persons)

320,2

1380

GDP (trillion. $)

19,2

11,2

The number of sun (million persons)

1,35

2,5

Military expenditure (billion $)

604,5

170,6

The number of nuclear warheads (in sec.)

1550

459

 

Fig. 4. Dynamics of the geopolitical distance between the United States and China in peacetime

Possible to agree with the assessment of Chinese political scientists, who argue that to maintain America's leadership remains virtually the only proven way but the outbreak of the "great war" [13]. Such a war with Russia, as was shown earlier, in the foreseeable future is unlikely, and KV between Russia and China is not appropriate. The result is a possible large-scale confrontation with China. The calculations show (figure 5), in this case America guarantees significant geopolitical separation from the main geopolitical rival. Such a positive for the US, the geopolitical consequences are subject to the current state of China's military capabilities (primarily its nuclear component), does not allow for effective geopolitical rivalry [14,15].

Fig. 5. Dynamics of the geopolitical distance between the United States and China
in the case of large-scale U.S.-China war

At the same time, as noted by Chinese experts [16], for the Russian Federation the radical weakening of the United States, from the point of view of national security will not be profitable, because in this case ceases to be a principle of balance of power. Figure 6 shows the geopolitical hierarchy of the world in the case of the disintegration of the USA into several independent States. As can be seen, the status of "post-US" virtually identical to the HS of Russia, and the distance with China, both countries have unacceptably high: a geopolitical criterion of deterrence in this case is functionally incapacitated.

Fig. 6. Dynamics of the geopolitical status of the US and Russia in the case
American disintegration

Thus, the proposed in this study, an approach to the prediction of relationship and co-development of the leading countries in the world (the global geopolitical dynamics) based on a quantitative assessment of their geopolitical status in the particular development of the military-political situation allow to choose a strategy for further action to the leadership of the Russian Federation to ensure national security. The special importance of the considered approach gives the opportunity to act in the international arena preemptively, i.e., to manage the development of military-political situation and international relations in General.

The list of sources

[1] Kovalev G. N., Malinetskii I. and others V. Russia in the context of the global geopolitical dynamics: a quantitative assessment of historical perspective, current state and development prospects / Projects and risks of the future: Concepts, models, tools, forecasts. – M.: KRAS ANDES, 2011, Pp. 89-105.

[2] Military art in local wars and armed conflicts. The second half of XX - beginning of XXI century. / V. A. Usikov [et al.]; under the General editorship of A. S. Rukshin, M defense of ROS. Federation, the military history Institute // Moscow: Military publishing house, 2008, – p. 764, p.137.

[3] the General theory of international relations / ed. by A. S. Manykin. – M.:Publishing House. MSU, 2009. – 374 p., p. 198.

[4] Ivanov V. V., Malinetskii G. G. Russia: the 21st century. Breakthrough strategy: Technology. Education. Science. – Moscow: LENAND, 2016. – 304 S., p.291.

[5] Y. V. Kurnosov Analytics and intelligence / V. Kurnosov. M.: OOO "ROME", 2017 – 384 p., P. 211.

[6] Berger J. O. Grand strategy of China in American and Chinese researchers // Problems of the Far East. - 2006. - No. 1. P. 35-51.

[7] Electronic resource: http://baike.baidu.com/view/125640.htm (Academy of military Sciences of the PLA)

[8] M. Kazanin V. national security of China: the theoretical basis and practice of security: Monograph. – M.: MAKS Press, 2014. – 168 p., p. 75.

[9] Titarenko M. L., Kuzyk B. N. China – Russia – 2050: strategy of co-development. - M.: Institute for economic strategies, 2006. - 656 p., P. 181.

[10] Andrew Erickson and Christopher Carlson, "Sustained Support: The PLAN Evolves Its Expeditionary Logistics Strategy," Jane's International,
2018. – 237 p., p 143.

[11] China's Incomplete Military Transformation Assessing the Weakness of the People's Liberation Army / RAND National Security Research Division, 2017. – 312 p., p 213.

[12] the Military potential of China / Manachinsky A. Ya., A. V. Dudchak – 2015 -180 C.

[13] V. A. Bolyatko Ensuring China's national security // Problems of the Far East. - 2003. - No. 4. - P. 33-45.

[14] E-resources: http://www.mod.gov.cn/ (Ministry of defense of the PRC)

[15] Baipishu City: Zhongguo Junshi Zhanlue / Beijing ("White paper on national defense" / Beijing), 2015. – 60 p.

[16] The Chinese People's Liberation Army in 2025 / Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, 2015. – 379 p.

Polanczyk, R. A.


RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics
Возрастное ограничение