gevorg mirzayan: the us will have to accept the rules of "great power coordination"
2024-09-17
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
reference news reported on september 17on september 12, the russian newspaper viewpoint published an article titled "americans will have to get used to the rules of 'great power coordination'", written by gevorg mirzayan, associate professor of the department of political science at the russian federation government university of finance and economics. the full text is excerpted as follows:
many russian experts refer to the possible future agreement between russia and the united states (or russia, the united states and china) as the "new yalta agreement", which will end the conflict in ukraine and set the rules for a new world. this will be a multipolar world based on respect for the interests of the great powers. this was also (to some extent) stated in the 1945 yalta agreement - which worked more or less smoothly for about half a century.
use force to solve problems
but obviously not all americans agree with this view. for example, former deputy secretary of state victoria nuland is one of the most famous hawks in the united states on russia. she believes that the yalta agreement was a mistake of the united states. she once said: "it was not a good deal for us, and we should not have signed it. it led to decades of cold war." nuland believes that the yalta conference constructed a "bad and unstable world" and that "any attempt by a big country to divide the world and instruct small countries on how to act will lead to instability, including russia."
of course, it’s easy to explain her skepticism away from the old-fashioned russophobia, myopia, and unwillingness to admit mistakes (the united states refused to negotiate with moscow on the rules of the game in the post-soviet space, and as a result, it has been embroiled in a conflict with russia and has called its global leadership into question, for which nuland bears no small responsibility). in reality, however, nuland’s attitude represents the views of a significant section of the u.s. ruling elite.
first, it has to do with the strategic culture of the united states. european countries (including russia) have been developing and clashing with each other in a relatively small area from the dnieper river to the atlantic ocean for thousands of years. this means that they have learned to negotiate on the basis of equality and consideration of each other's interests. of course, the most vivid example of this skill is the "great power coordination" pattern formed after the vienna conference of 1814-1815 - for about half a century, the interests of the five major european powers were in balance until the emergence of the german empire broke this balance.
the united states does not have such a culture. americans are used to constant expansion and to solving all problems with force. after world war i, they came to europe and did not really negotiate with anyone. after world war ii, no country could negotiate with the united states, except the soviet union, because the united states had to temporarily (then considered temporary) share its influence in europe with the soviet union. only the emergence of the soviet atomic bomb forced washington to recognize the balance of interests, so the effectiveness of the yalta agreement lasted until the late 1980s.
since then, american elites (including nuland, who grew up at the time) believed that the natural order of things had arrived - the unrestrained expansion of the united states relying on force and ideological hegemony had also returned. in this order, the united states does not need to negotiate with any country, does not need to share interests, and does not need to respect the interests of other countries. it goes without saying that nuland and other officials in the biden administration are doing their utmost to maintain this order. in other words, they are demonizing the yalta agreement.
sooner or later you have to accept the new system
second, the united states does not want to set a precedent now. if moscow and washington enter into a new yalta system, the whole world will think that russia has successfully imposed its will on the united states by force. russia began to resist - and as a result, washington began to negotiate with moscow. if the kremlin did it, why can't the chinese (who have enough means to put pressure on the united states) adopt the same strategy? or the iranians? even the turks and saudis, who are currently the most self-aware of the united states' allies and whose interests are often ignored by washington?
third, even if they are not determined to challenge, their interests will still be included in the final list. it is obvious that under the current situation, the "new yalta agreement" will not establish a formal multipolar (actually bipolar) world, but a real multipolar world. the number of poles will be much more than 5, perhaps 10 to 15. by signing the "new yalta agreement", the united states will have to recognize the influence areas of these 10 to 15 countries, and the united states will no longer be a global hegemon, or even a leader.
therefore, nuland's view, her rejection of the "yalta agreement 2.0" (which the us authorities also share) would have been "absolutely correct" - if there was no "but". the americans now have no choice, sooner or later they will have to accept this new system and sit down at the negotiating table. in 2000 or even around 2010, washington still had the opportunity to build a multipolar world according to its wishes - based on the principle of "regional governors", to whom the americans delegated their rights and powers in the region in exchange for recognition of the us role as a global leader. however, the americans did not do this, but bet on maintaining hegemony and suppressing any player who demanded to share hegemony (russia, china and even the european union). as a result, the united states was trapped in a situation where it had to share - and not on its terms.
america’s strategic culture has to change. after all, thanks to nuland and other globalists or neoconservatives, the united states can no longer continue to expand by relying on ideological hegemony and has to get used to the rules of “coordination”. (compiled by tong shiqun)
