Russian writer: The new world has its poles formed, and the struggle is now over its rules policy

Director of the Russian Council for International Affairs, Dimitri Trenin, wrote in an article on the Council’s website that the poles of the “New World” have been formed, and they are represented by a rising China, Russia, which has regained its sovereignty, a rapidly developing India, and to some extent Europe, which has recently returned to geopolitical activity, as he described it.

At the regional level, the author points out that the new regime consists of a number of countries around the world, namely Brazil in Latin America, Turkey and Iran in the Middle East, Indonesia in Southeast Asia, and South Africa in Africa.

Accordingly, the question now – according to the author – is: What system will prevail in this world?

According to him, an intense conflict is raging around this particular issue, which is very similar to a world war, in which two main players are competing in the battle for the future world order: the United States and China.

He adds that Washington’s moves aim primarily to strengthen its position and weaken its main competitor, but the hostilities provoke resistance from opponents, and it is unlikely that the Americans will change the policy of marginalizing opponents into the oblivion of history, as happened with the British Empire, the German Reich, and the Soviet Union.

At the same time, according to Trenin, the issue is not limited to Russians, Chinese, and Iranians, but also includes Indians, Arabs, Europeans, Japanese, Latin American residents, and many others, who form a stereotype of America as selfish, volatile, and hostile.

The writer adds that the American alliance system – which is Washington’s most valuable asset in foreign policy – is deteriorating, calling at the same time not to rush to the conclusion that America’s days at the top of the world are numbered, because it possesses enormous financial, technological and military resources, and will maintain its position as a superpower for decades to come, and will not have a successor in global hegemony.

But he points out that Pax China will not replace Pax Americana. Even if Beijing manages to achieve a qualitative leap in advanced technologies and create a comprehensive international trading system centered around China, this will not be enough to ensure global leadership.

This demonstrates that the concept of leadership is absent from Chinese foreign policy philosophy and practices, and modern Chinese ideology no longer focuses on multipolarity, because this issue is settled. Instead, Beijing is proposing a set of principles, standards and rules for global coexistence that are consistent with Russian principles. So, the writer believes that one option for a new world order is a new bipolarity – this time it may be American-Chinese.

According to his opinion, the United States might accept, theoretically and reluctantly, a new bipolar system, in the hope that this new “alliance” would pave the way to victory, as happened to the American-Soviet alliance. It may also be seen as a temporary solution that is satisfactory to China, because Beijing is usually focused on the long term.

However, this system is unlikely to be seen as desirable by other countries, particularly major powers like Russia and India, and perhaps Europe as well. Even if a new, complete bipolar system is not achieved,

The United States and China have been the world’s leading powers for a relatively long time, and there will not be a sharp division, but there will be areas of attraction between Washington and Beijing.

Trenin believes that for the powers defending their sovereignty and independence, this represents a clear challenge, and Russia is among these powers. Russian foreign policy philosophy and traditions tend towards great power consensus as the ideal model for global governance.

In the Russian vision of the world – he continues – countries and civilizations interact, balance each other, compete and cooperate based on their own interests, and follow common values ​​rooted in their traditions. At the same time, the roles of international actors are divided, as the great powers bear responsibility and maintain the system, while medium and small countries cooperate and reap the benefits of this system.

According to the author, this model can be applied within the framework of a radical reform of the United Nations, so that it is more representative of civilizations at the Security Council level, and a body freed from the dominance of Western representatives.

While he points out that Russia is not considered the most influential global actor, it nevertheless possesses a number of vital and even unique resources, including an understanding of cultural pluralism, which allows it to better understand its partners around the world and to act not only as a protector of global balance, but also as a global mediator. He concluded by saying that Russia must prepare for this entitlement and this future role from now.