How the U.S.A. establishes a new world order

By Vestnik Kavkaza

The American National Transportation Safety Board is sending a group of expert to Russia to help with the investigation into the Boeing-737 crash in Kazan. Moreover, this week other American experts will undertake an observation flight over Russia within the Treaty on Open Skies. During the flight Russian and American experts will control usage of equipment of navigation systems. What is the situation with  Russian-American cooperation? Are the parties ready for this? Russian experts answer the questions.

“The United States is establishing a new order. The order is being established by the cut-and-try method. A lot of mistakes and sharp steps which Obama’s administration make, including on Syria, are connected with the fact that America tries to find a way to adapt to the new world which appeared despite the U.S.’s will,” thinks Dmitry Suslov, the deputy scientific director of the Center of Complex European and International Studies of the NRU HSE. “For the first time history doesn’t match American desires, American ideology; the world is becoming multipolar, fragmented, uncontrollable by the U.S. And we can see that they are related to great management problems.”

According to Suslov, “a fundamental break of American foreign policy philosophy happened under Barack Obama’s administration in comparison to two other post-bipolar administrations – Clinton and Bush. And the point is recognition of the multipolar world and scarcity of American power. From time to time America tries to prove that it still determines the agenda. And Syria comes to my mind. However, it doesn’t work, and Russia supported the U.S. seriously, saving Obama’s face. There is inertness of many aspects in American foreign policy. First of all, it is related to the post-Soviet area. I think it is an inactive and absolutely useless direction. American hegemony doesn’t depend on the post-Soviet space, whether it is consolidated over Russia or not, whether Ukraine is a part of integrated space of the EU or a part of the Eurasian Union.”

Russian-American relations are fundamentally sick, according Suslov, and they shouldn’t be considered as a complex of some agenda factors: “This sickness enables the U.S. and Russia to build stable relations, even though the United States have admitted that Russia is a superpower. The United States stopped being a serious foreign political threat to Russia, both foreign political and military-political threats. In fact the missile defense system or plans on its launching in Europe are not a big threat for Russia.”

Professor Tatyana Shakleina, the head of the international problems practical analysis division at MGIMO, doesn’t see anything new in activities by Obama’s administration: “American foreign political thought and strategy has a clear ideological and political-diplomatic succession. Because the main vector of American policy after the end of the bipolar world was defined by George H.W. Bush in the military-political sphere. And it was clearly developed under Clinton’s administration because very serious experts were developing these strategic documents; Obama doesn’t hide it and states that he continues Clinton’s course, i.e. the Democrats’ course.”

According to Alexei Fesenko, senior scientist of the Institute of International Security Problems of the RAS, “the U.S. has been building a new world order since 1990. And the main problem of Russian-American relations is that Russia doesn’t match the model of the world order actually. That’s why the atmosphere of our relations is negative.

Firstly, Russia and the United State are balanced in the nuclear missile sphere; it is the only country in the world which can technically destroy the United States. Neither China nor India will come close to this level in the near future.

Secondly, Russia has a military industry and armed forces which are similar to the American. Neither China nor any other country can come close to this level for the same reason – their military industry is oriented to imports, rather than production of qualitative arms. The only alternative to the American military industry is the Russian military industry.

Thirdly, Russia can veto American decisions at the UNSC. Of course, America can act without Russia’s approval, but a question of legitimacy appears as to whether the American steps are legitimate.”

Fesenko is sure that “the Americans need to wreck the Russian strategic potential to a safe level; and they need guarantees that Russia won’t restore its nuclear missile potential quickly. That’s all that America wants from Russia. The other question is how it will be fulfilled.”