«Post-Georgia World Order, or a Global Order Under Obama»?

       The expectations of an impending end of America’s preponderance in world affairs are far too alarmist. However, a unipolar world has failed to materialize while the botched attempts by the US and its allies to promote such international designs led to major bouts of conflict and instability. Washington claimed victory in the cold war which ended, unlike earlier systemic transformations, without a major armed conflict, but severely antagonized a number of regional leader countries. These states chose to participate in shaping world politics rather than to accept US primacy and bow to American demands. This trend was rooted in the reluctance to accept American liberal democracy and the single viable model of political regime. The Obama administration and its advisors from the academia have acknowledged the failure of most unilateral policies of the Republican White House, but will seek to ensure US leadership in the world’s “governing core” and to stem further resistance. In so doing, Washington may nourish unhealthy inclinations towards brinksmanship among smaller client states, such as Georgia, to enhance their international profile by bandwagoning with the leader. More constructive could be a strategy of “concerted non-polarity” aimed at achieving consensus among influential states. Such approach could help to soothe the controversy between the importers and exporters of energy and to overcome the global economic crisis.

US-Russian Military Confrontation: Likely, Rather Than Not

       There are numerous political, psychological, and technical factors that aggravate friction in US-Russian relations and make an armed conflict between the two sides a less remote possibility than it used to be during the cold war. There is a contrast between rosy assessments of US-Russian relations since 1991 and the reality of a continuing conflict between Moscow and Washington which is not alleviated by the factors that were in place before 1991. Such factors included measures to avoid a clash between the two superpowers when one of them was about to undertake a military campaign in its sphere of influence. Criticism of US intimidation of Latin American states or the Soviet invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia was never complemented with practical action to upset the status-quo in the Western Hemisphere or in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union and the United States did not have territorial disputes. Neither superpower expected a speedy victory over its major rival and did not work towards such victory. Since the USSR and the US projected utterly demonic images of each other, no further psychological and ideological reason could raise the possibility of a direct conflict between them. The situation changed dramatically after the demise of the USSR and its bloc in Eastern Europe. Perceptions of US conduct during the coups of 1991 and 1993 in Russia, as well as the unwillingness of Washington to take Moscow’s security concerns seriously, have contributed to the view that the US is working to undermine Russia’s standing as a nuclear superpower thereby eliminating the last remaining existential threat to the United States. On top of that, the unresolved issue of the Russian-US border in the Bering Straits has the potential of sparking a conflict amid mounting tensions on other contested issues. The psychological climate of bilateral relationship suffers from the calls to “punish” Russia that often emanate from influential political figures in Washington. The resumed talk about possibilities of a “limited nuclear war” contribute to the temptation to “do away” with the opponent in a single debilitating strike. All these factors have significantly raised the risk of a direct US-Russian military confrontation which can only be avoided if the two sides adopt strategies aimed at preventing the worst scenario from coming true.

Competition in Outer Space and International Security

       A new round of technological competition and political wrangling over the use of outer space has been unfolding since the middle of the current decade. Although the timeline for the deployment of space interceptors or space-based strike capabilities is still unclear, competition in space has extended to anti-satellite munitions, space-based ballistic missiles, anti-missile and navigation systems. There is a growing risk that the multilateral regime aimed at preventing the use of space for military purposes will soon become obsolete. Against this backdrop, countries with extensive and advanced space programs have so far failed to reach an agreement that would account for the recent technological shifts making military use of space a more plausible option. Most notably, Washington has turned down new Russian and Chinese proposal aimed at curtailing potential militarization of space. The renewed rivalry in space hampers a number of promising cooperative space exploration initiatives. Technologically advanced nations have chosen to unilaterally pursue flights to the Moon, Mars, Venus, as well as other planets of the Solar System. In addition, it has yet to be decided whether the existing international legal framework related to space applies to corporations on a par with states. Even the definition of space remains contested, with the United States arguing against a specific line separating the atmosphere from outer space. Washington, instead, prefers to distinguish between capabilities designed for use in the atmosphere or in the outer space. The US’s edge in space-based positioning systems may increase the temptation to preventively employ high-precision weapons if tensions between the US and another country build up. China has tested an anti-satellite missile sparking a race of anti-satellite capabilities. In the meantime, Russia seeks to upgrade its strategic deterrent to eliminate all threats from potential US space-based missile defense systems. In order to avoid the danger of a new space militarization race, major space powers need to acknowledge the harmful effect such race will have on international security.

US-Russian Relations in Contemporary American Political Thought

Global Technology Diffusion

A Responsibility to Protect and a Right to Intervene

PERSONA GRATA

Faces and Personalities

«...Quantification means a discovery of recurring patterns…»

America Talk: The Fall Seminar

Two Russians – Three Opinions

The Art and Torture of Being «Medium-Great»

«Small, Yet Annoying!»

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND POLITICS

Code of Transnational Business Behavior in a Receiving State

«Environmental Weapons» and Sakhalin Oil Projects

SCRIPTA MANENT

Reviews

American Economic Model in Crisis
Phillips K. Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism. New York: Viking Penguin, 2008. 239 p.

East Asian Integration: Geopolitical Interpretations
Ellen L. Frost Asia’s New Regionalism. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008. 293 p.

Asymmetrical Respouse in the New Century
Ознобищев С.К., Потапов В.Я., Скоков В.В. Как готовился «асимметричный ответ» на «Стратегическую оборонную инициативу» Р. Рейгана: Велихов, Кокошин и другие. М.: ЛЕНАНД, 2008. 56 с.

The European Union in World Politics
Stephan Keukeleire, Jennifer MacNaughtan. The Foreign Policy of the European Union. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 374 p.

Political Governance of the World Trade System
David A. Deese. World Trade Politics: Power, Principles, and Leadership. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis, Inc., 2008. 240 p.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Analyzing the CIS: When Will the Sleeper Wake Up?

In brevi

A POTENTIA AD ACTUM

New doctorships

2008 Index

Our authors

Contents and Summaries